HKU POP releases popularity figures of Hong Kong disciplinary forces and the PLA Hong Kong GarrisonBack
Press Release on June 6, 2017
| Detail Findings (People's Satisfaction with the Discipilnary Force) |
| Detail Findings (People's Satisfaction with the Performance of the Hong Kong Police Force) |
| Detail Findings (People's Satisfaction with the Performance of the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison) |
Special Announcements
1. Robert Chung, the Director of Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong, continues to publish his article series “Chung’s Blunt Words: HKSAR 20th Anniversary Series” in his online column “Chung’s Blunt Words” ( www.facebook.com/ChungsBluntWords ) today. He mentions that the low popularity of the Hong Kong Police Force in recent years was mainly due to political tussles and social polarization. The Police Force was therefore caught in a dilemma when handling protests and demonstrations. The copyrights of all articles are open to the world, the media are welcome to re-publish the articles in full or in part, early or concurrent publication can also be arranged.
2. To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, POP has already released for public examination some time ago via the “HKU POP SITE” (http://hkupop.pori.hk) the raw data of all 123 regular rating surveys of CE CY Leung, as well as the 181 regular rating surveys of former CE Donald Tsang and 239 regular rating surveys of former CE CH Tung, along with related demographics of respondents. Please follow normal academic standards when using or citing such data.
Abstract
POP conducted a survey on people’s satisfaction with the disciplinary forces in late May 2017 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The survey shows that the recognition rates of Hong Kong Fire Services Department, Hong Kong Police Force and Hong Kong Immigration Department are all higher than 95%, while those of Independent Commission Against Corruption, Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, Auxiliary Medical Service, Government Flying Service and Hong Kong Correctional Services Department are all higher than 80%. Even the less well-known Civil Aid Service has a recognition rate of over 75%. This shows that Hong Kong people are quite familiar with all our disciplinary forces. In terms of relative rankings of ratings, Hong Kong Fire Services Department continues to rank first. Government Flying Service and Auxiliary Medical Service rank second and third, while Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department and Civil Aid Service rank fourth and fifth. Hong Kong Immigration Department, Hong Kong Correctional Services Department, Independent Commission Against Corruption and Hong Kong Police Force rank sixth to ninth. Compared with the last survey, the overall rankings of all disciplinary forces have not changed much. In terms of absolute ratings, all nine disciplinary forces get more than 60 marks, six of which are above 70, which is very good. The rating of Hong Kong Fire Services Department is 84.2 marks, which has reached record high since this survey series started in 2012 once again, while that of Government Flying Service is 79.5 marks, also a record high since 2012. In terms of net satisfaction, Hong Kong Fire Services Department registers positive 96 percentage points and continues to be the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong, while Hong Kong Police Force registers positive 35 percentage points, which is the lowest of all nine disciplinary forces. Meanwhile, the popularity rating of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison now stands at 63.3 marks, while its net satisfaction rate stands at positive 33 percentage points which is comparable with that of six months ago. The maximum sampling error of all percentage figures is +/-4 percentage points, while that of rating figures is below +/-2.5 marks at 95% confidence level, and the sampling error of net values need another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 70%.
Points to note:
[1] The address of the “HKU POP SITE” is http://hkupop.pori.hk, journalists
can check out the details of the survey there.
[2] The sample size of the survey is 1,003 successful interviews, not 1,003
x 69.7% response rate.
[3] The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling errors of rating figures and net values need another calculation. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. When quoting these figures, journalists can state “sampling error of rating not more than +/-2.5, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, and that of net values not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level”.
[4] Because of sampling errors in conducting the survey(s) and the rounding
procedures in processing the data, the figures cannot be too precise, and
the totals may not be completely accurate. Therefore, when quoting
percentages of the survey(s), journalists should refrain from reporting
decimal places, but when quoting the rating figures, one decimal place can
be used.
[5] The data of this survey is collected by means of random telephone
interviews conducted by real interviewers, not by any interactive voice
system (IVS). If a research organization uses “computerized random
telephone survey” to camouflage its IVS operation, it should be considered
unprofessional.
Background
Since its establishment in 1991, POP has been conducting different types of opinion studies on social and political issues. Shortly after the handover of Hong Kong in July 1997, POP began our regular surveys on people’s satisfaction with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force and PLA Hong Kong Garrison. At the beginning, the surveys were conducted once every month. Then in September 2000 the frequency was changed to once every two months. In October 2003, the survey was spaced out to once every three months to cope with the changing social conditions, until December 2011 when it was further changed to once every six months. In 2012, as Hong Kong marks its 15th anniversary of the handover, POP again revised the design of this survey series, by splitting the survey into two stages. A naming survey of people’s most familiar disciplinary forces in Hong Kong was conducted first, followed by another survey on people’s satisfaction with top 6 most familiar disciplinary forces, as well as the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. Three years later, in mid-2015, POP expanded the scope of the satisfaction survey to cover all nine disciplinary forces in Hong Kong, plus PLA Hong Kong Garrison, thus doing away with the naming survey while increasing the reference value of the entire survey. All findings of these surveys are published regularly at the HKU POP Site, and this is the fifth release of the expanded survey.
Latest Figures
POP today releases on schedule via the POP Site the latest popularity figures of Hong Kong disciplinary forces and the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. From 2014, POP enhanced the previous simple weighting method based on age and gender distribution to “rim weighting” based on age, gender and education (highest level attended) distribution. The latest figures released today have been rim-weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in 2016 year end and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
|
Date of survey |
Overall sample size |
Response rate |
Maximum sampling error of percentages/ratings[6] |
|
22-25/5/2017 |
1,003 |
69.7% |
+/-4% / +/-2.5 |
[6] Calculated at 95% confidence level using full sample size. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
Latest figures of Hong Kong disciplinary forces are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
29/5-2/6/15 |
23-30/11/15 |
24-26/5/16 |
21-24/11/16 |
22-25/5/17 |
Latest change |
|
|
Sample base[7] |
613-658 |
602-677 |
504-586 |
551-607 |
560-622 |
-- |
|
|
Overall response rate |
66.5% |
65.5% |
69.9% |
70.8% |
69.7% |
-- |
|
|
Finding / Recognition rate |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error [8] |
Recog % |
-- |
|
Satisfaction rating of HK Fire Services Department |
82.0{1}[10] |
79.2{1}[10] |
78.5{1} |
83.9{1}[10] |
84.2+/-1.0{1} |
98.0% |
+0.3 |
|
Satisfaction rate of HK Fire Services Department [9] |
92% |
89% |
90% |
95%[10] |
96+/-2% |
|
+1% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of HK Fire Services Department [9] |
1% |
2% |
2% |
<1%[10] |
<1+/-<1% |
|
-- |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
92% |
88%[10] |
88% |
95%[10] |
96+/-2% |
|
+1% |
|
Mean value[9] |
4.4 (Base=630) |
4.2[10] (Base=591) |
4.3
|
4.5[10]
|
4.5+/-<0.1
|
|
-- |
|
Satisfaction rating of Government Flying Service |
77.4{3} |
76.8{2} |
76.1{2} |
77.1{2} |
79.5+/-1.2{2} |
84.4% |
+2.4 [10] |
|
Satisfaction rate of Government Flying Service [9] |
78% |
73%[10] |
78%[10] |
73%[10] |
86+/-3% |
|
+13% [10] |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of Government Flying Service [9] |
1% |
1% |
1% |
<1%[10] |
1+/-1% |
|
+1% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
77% |
72%[10] |
77%[10] |
73% |
85+/-3% |
|
+12% [10] |
|
Mean value[9] |
4.1 (Base=551) |
4.1 (Base=553) |
4.2
|
4.2
|
4.3+/-0.1
|
|
+0.1 |
|
Satisfaction rating of Auxiliary Medical Service |
79.1{2} |
75.8{3}[10] |
74.9{3} |
76.6{3}[10] |
78.9+/-1.3{3} |
85.7% |
+2.3 [10] |
|
Satisfaction rate of Auxiliary Medical Service [9] |
82% |
73%[10] |
75% |
76% |
80+/-3% |
|
+4% [10] |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of Auxiliary Medical Service [9] |
1% |
2% |
2% |
1% |
2+/-1% |
|
+1% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
81% |
71%[10] |
72% |
75% |
79+/-4% |
|
+4% |
|
Mean value[9] |
4.2 (Base=551) |
4.1 (Base=577) |
4.1
|
4.1
|
4.2+/-0.1
|
|
+0.1 |
|
Satisfaction rating of HK Customs and Excise Department |
73.1{5} |
74.2{4} |
70.3{5}[10] |
71.2{5} |
73.5+/-1.3{4} |
93.6% |
+2.3 [10] |
|
Satisfaction rate of HK Customs and Excise Department [9] |
76% |
79% |
75% |
74% |
82+/-3% |
|
+8% [10] |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of HK Customs and Excise Department [9] |
4% |
3% |
6%[10] |
4% |
6+/-2% |
|
+2% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
73% |
76% |
69%[10] |
70% |
76+/-5% |
|
+6% [10] |
|
Mean value[9] |
3.9 (Base=605) |
4.0 (Base=583) |
3.9
|
3.9
|
4.0+/-0.1
|
|
+0.1 |
|
Satisfaction rating of Civil Aid Service |
73.8{4}[10] |
70.4{7}[10] |
70.6{4} |
72.6{4}[10] |
73.3+/-1.4{5} |
78.7% |
+0.7 |
|
Satisfaction rate of Civil Aid Service[9] |
62% |
58% |
65%[10] |
65% |
69+/-4% |
|
+4% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of Civil Aid Service[9] |
2% |
3% |
2% |
1% |
2+/-1% |
|
+1% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
60% |
54%[10] |
63%[10] |
64% |
67+/-4% |
|
+3% |
|
Mean value[9] |
4.0 (Base=465) |
3.9 (Base=457) |
4.0
|
4.0
|
4.0+/-0.1
|
|
-- |
|
Satisfaction rating of HK Immigration Department |
71.6{6}[10] |
72.1{5} |
64.8{8}[10] |
70.4{6}[10] |
71.1+/-1.4{6} |
95.7% |
+0.7 |
|
Satisfaction rate of HK Immigration Department [9] |
69%[10] |
76%[10] |
62%[10] |
73%[10] |
78+/-3% |
|
+5 [10] |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of HK Immigration Department [9] |
6% |
4% |
12%[10] |
7%[10] |
5+/-2% |
|
-2% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
64%[10] |
72%[10] |
51%[10] |
66%[10] |
73+/-4% |
|
+7% [10] |
|
Mean value[9] |
3.8[10] (Base=651) |
3.9 (Base=633) |
3.6[10]
|
3.8[10]
|
3.9+/-0.1
|
|
+0.1 |
|
Satisfaction rating of HK Correctional Services Department |
70.2{8} |
68.5{8}[10] |
68.7{6} |
70.0{7} |
69.8+/-1.5{7} |
81.6% |
-0.2 |
|
Satisfaction rate of HK Correctional Services Department[9] |
60% |
58% |
65%[10] |
61% |
67+/-4% |
|
+6% [10] |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of HK Correctional Services Department[9] |
3% |
3% |
2% |
3% |
2+/-1% |
|
-1% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
57% |
56% |
63%[10] |
58%[10] |
65+/-4% |
|
+7% [10] |
|
Mean value[9] |
3.8 (Base=517) |
3.8 (Base=462) |
3.9
|
3.9
|
3.9+/-0.1
|
|
-- |
|
Satisfaction rating of Independent Commission Against Corruption |
70.5{7} |
70.6{6} |
67.3{7}[10] |
63.2{9}[10] |
69.2+/-1.7{8} |
93.9% |
+6 [10] |
|
Satisfaction rate of Independent Commission Against Corruption[9] |
60% |
63% |
66% |
50%[10] |
62+/-4% |
|
+12% [10] |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of Independent Commission Against Corruption[9] |
12% |
10% |
13% |
20%[10] |
18+/-3% |
|
-2% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
49% |
53% |
53% |
30%[10] |
45+/-7% |
|
+15% [10] |
|
Mean value[9] |
3.6 (Base=597) |
3.7 (Base=573) |
3.7 (Base=551) |
3.3[10] (Base=556) |
3.6+/-0.1
|
|
+0.3 [10] |
|
Satisfaction rating of HK Police Force |
61.0{9} |
62.4{9} |
60.3{9} |
64.6{8}[10] |
64.1+/-2.0{9} |
97.0% |
-0.5 |
|
Satisfaction rate of HK Police Force[9] |
50%[10] |
53% |
54% |
58% |
58+/-4% |
|
-- |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of HK Police Force[9] |
29% |
24%[10] |
21% |
20% |
23+/-3% |
|
+3% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
21%[10] |
29%[10] |
33% |
38% |
35+/-7% |
|
-3% |
|
Mean value[9] |
3.2[10] (Base=639) |
3.3 (Base=593) |
3.4
|
3.5
|
3.4+/-0.1
|
|
-0.1 |
[7] These questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[8] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level”, meaning that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Media can state “sampling error of ratings not more than +/-2.0 marks, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, and that of net values not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. Numbers in square brackets { } indicate the rankings.
[9] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[10] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[11] The surveys conducted in 2012 to 2014 were split into two stages, only the 6 most frequently mentioned disciplinary forces in naming stage would enter into the second stage rating survey. The naming results of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
The latest survey conducted in late May showed that Hong Kong Fire Services Department ranked first, attaining 84.2 marks, 96% of the citizens interviewed were satisfied with its performance, less than 1% were not satisfied, with a net satisfaction rate of positive 96 percentage points and a mean value of 4.5 marks, which is between “quite satisfied” and “very satisfied” in general. Government Flying Service and Auxiliary Medical Service ranked 2nd and 3rd, with satisfaction ratings at 79.5 and 78.9 marks respectively. Their corresponding satisfaction rates obtained were 86% and 80%, their net satisfaction rates stand at positive 85 and positive 79 percentage points respectively, while their respective mean values registered were 4.3 and 4.2 marks, meaning “quite satisfied” in general. The 4th and 5th ranks went to Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department and Civil Aid Service, with satisfaction ratings at 73.5 and 73.5 marks respectively. Their corresponding satisfaction rates obtained were 82% and 69%, their net satisfaction rates stand at positive 76 and positive 67 percentage points respectively, while their respective mean values registered were both 4.0 marks, meaning “quite satisfied” in general. Meanwhile, Hong Kong Immigration Department, Hong Kong Correctional Services Department and Independent Commission Against Corruption ranked 6th to 8th, with satisfaction ratings at 71.1, 69.8 and 69.2 marks respectively. Their corresponding satisfaction rates obtained were 78%, 67% and 62%, their net satisfaction rates stand at positive 73, positive 65 and positive 45 percentage points respectively, while their respective mean values registered were 3.9, 3.9 and 3.6 marks, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general. Besides, Hong Kong Police Force ranked 9th, with a satisfaction rating at 64.1 marks, satisfaction rate at 58%, net satisfaction at positive 35 percentage points, and mean value at 3.4 marks, meaning “half-half” in general.
Meanwhile, this survey series also registered people’s satisfaction level of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. Here are the results of the latest five surveys:
|
Date of survey |
29/5-2/6/15 |
3-4/12/15 |
24-26/5/16 |
21-24/11/16 |
22-25/5/17 |
Latest changes |
|
|
Sample base[13] |
653 |
656 |
586 |
656 |
562 |
-- |
|
|
Overall response rate |
66.5% |
65.2% |
69.9% |
70.8% |
69.7% |
-- |
|
|
Finding / Error |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error [14] |
Recog % |
-- |
|
Satisfaction rating of PLA |
63.7 |
62.3 |
60.8 |
62.0 |
63.3+/-2.5 |
69.8% |
+1.3 |
|
Satisfaction rate of PLA[15] |
42% |
49%[16] |
43%[16] |
45% |
44+/-4% |
|
-1% |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of PLA[15] |
8% |
10% |
9% |
11% |
11+/-3% |
|
-- |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
34% |
39% |
34% |
34% |
33+/-6% |
|
-1% |
|
Mean value[15] |
3.6 (Base=448) |
3.6 (Base=531) |
3.6
|
3.6
|
3.6+/-0.1
|
|
-- |
[12] Starting from 2011, questions in this survey series only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[13] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level.
“95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100
times, using the same questions each time but with different random
samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins
specified. Media can state “ sampling error of ratings not more than +/-2.5
marks, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, and that of net values not
more than +/-6% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures.
The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[14] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by
quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to
their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest,
and then calculate the sample mean.
[15] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
Survey results showed that the satisfaction rating of PLA is 63.3 marks, 44% are satisfied with the performance of the PLA stationed in Hong Kong, 11% are dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of positive 33 percentage points, and a mean score of 3.6, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general.
Commentary
Frank Wai-Kin Lee, Research Manager of Public Opinion Programme, observed, “Our latest survey shows that the recognition rates of Hong Kong Fire Services Department, Hong Kong Police Force and Hong Kong Immigration Department are all higher than 95%, while those of Independent Commission Against Corruption, Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, Auxiliary Medical Service, Government Flying Service and Hong Kong Correctional Services Department are all higher than 80%. Even the less well-known Civil Aid Service has a recognition rate of over 75%. This shows that Hong Kong people are quite familiar with all our disciplinary forces. In terms of relative rankings of ratings, Hong Kong Fire Services Department continues to rank first. Government Flying Service and Auxiliary Medical Service rank second and third, while Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department and Civil Aid Service rank fourth and fifth. Hong Kong Immigration Department, Hong Kong Correctional Services Department, Independent Commission Against Corruption and Hong Kong Police Force rank sixth to ninth. Compared with the last survey, the overall rankings of all disciplinary forces have not changed much. In terms of absolute ratings, all nine disciplinary forces get more than 60 marks, six of which are above 70, which is very good. The rating of Hong Kong Fire Services Department is 84.2 marks, which has reached record high since this survey series started in 2012 once again, while that of Government Flying Service is 79.5 marks, also a record high since 2012. In terms of net satisfaction, Hong Kong Fire Services Department registers positive 96 percentage points and continues to be the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong, while Hong Kong Police Force registers positive 35 percentage points, which is the lowest of all nine disciplinary forces. Meanwhile, the popularity rating of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison now stands at 63.3 marks, while its net satisfaction rate stands at positive 33 percentage points which is comparable with that of six months ago. As for the reasons affecting the differences as well as the ups and downs of these figures, we leave it to our readers to form their own judgment using the detailed records displayed in the ‘Opinion Daily’ of our POP Site.”
Supplementary Information: Development of popularity surveys on Hong
Kong disciplinary forces and PLA Hong Kong Garrison
Since its establishment in 1991, POP has been conducting different types of opinion studies on social and political issues. Shortly after the handover of Hong Kong in July 1997, POP began its regular surveys on people’s satisfaction with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force and PLA Hong Kong Garrison, and it evolved to be the current popularity survey of Hong Kong disciplinary forces and PLA Garrison after many rounds of enhancement over the past 19 years. Today, we put down the development of this survey by means of a supplementary information section for readers’ easy reference.
In July 1991, the survey series began and was conducted once every month. The questions were “Are you satisfied with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force / People’s Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison?” Interviewers then probed respondents’ degree of satisfaction and respondents could choose a single response ranged from “very satisfied”, “quite satisfied”, “half-half”, “not quite satisfied” to “very dissatisfied”.
In September 2000, the survey frequency was changed to once every two months, and then in October 2003, it was further to once every three months until December 2011.
In June 2012, as Hong Kong marks its 15th anniversary of the handover, POP again revised the design of this survey series by splitting the survey into two stages. A naming survey of people’s most familiar disciplinary forces in Hong Kong was conducted first, then a survey on people’s satisfaction with their top 6 most familiar disciplinary forces as well as the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. The survey was conducted once every six months. The questions asked in the satisfaction survey were “Please rate on a scale of 0-100 your satisfaction with the XXX as a disciplinary force. 0 stands for very dissatisfied, 100 stands for very satisfied, 50 stands for half-half.” and “Are you satisfied with the XXX?”, options for the latter included “very satisfied”, “quite satisfied”, “half-half”, “not quite satisfied” and “very dissatisfied”.
In May 2015, approaching the 18th anniversary of the handover, POP revised the design of this survey series again, by expanding our satisfaction survey to cover all nine Hong Kong disciplinary forces, thus taking away the naming survey. The frequency and questions of the survey remain unchanged.
Before May 2000, the sample size of our regular surveys was set at slightly over 500, which was increased to at least 1,000 after that. The findings of these surveys are now published regularly on-line at our HKU POP Site, while all previous findings published via our newsletter POP Express have also been uploaded on-line in various formats.
Future Release (Tentative)
