HKU POP releases popularity figures of CE and principal officials and people’s expectation of Policy AddressBack
Press Release on October 10, 2017
| Detailed Findings (Rating of Chief Executive Carrie Lam) | Detailed Findings (Popularity of Principal Officials) |
| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |
Special Announcements
1. Robert Chung, the Director of Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong publishes his article “Yuet-ngor Dancing” in his online column “Chung’s Blunt Words” (www.facebook.com/ChungsBluntWords) today, registering his expectations on CE Carrie Lam's first Policy Address tomorrow. Chung suggested CE to segregate herself from the extreme left, if she wants to mend social cleavage. 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. As in previous years, POP will conduct an instant survey after the Chief Executive delivers her Policy Address tomorrow (October 11, 2017, Wednesday). The preliminary results will be released via our “HKU POP Site” (http://hkupop.pori.hk) for public consumption, at around 10 pm, including people’s satisfaction rate and rating towards the Policy Address. Detailed results including those of other questions will be released at noon the following day (October 12). Media interested in sponsoring these surveys can contact POP.
3. From July 2017, apart from sampling landline numbers to conduct opinion surveys, POP has also added mobile numbers to the sampling frame. After three months of testing, in October 2017, POP formalized the use of mixed samples as its standard for regular opinion surveys. The figures released today by POP have already incorporated landline and mobile samples, while “effective response rate” is continued to be used to describe the survey’s contact information. As for the weighting method, a two-step protocol is used. First, both the landline and mobile samples 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 as well as economic activity status distribution collected in the 2011 Census. After that, the mobile sample was rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample, and then mixed together to produce the final results. This weighting method has proved to be feasible after three months of testing, but POP will continue to review and enhance it, and keep the public informed.
4. To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, POP has already released for public examination some time ago via the “POP SITE” the raw data of all regular rating surveys of former CEs CH Tung, Donald Tsang, CY Leung and CE Carrie Lam along with related demographics of respondents. Please follow normal academic standards when using or citing such data.
Abstract
POP interviewed 1,005 Hong Kong people between 3 and 4 October, 2017 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam has significantly increased by 3.2 marks to 59.6. Her latest approval rate is 49%, disapproval rate 40%, giving a net popularity of positive 10 percentage points, slightly recovered from the low point registered three weeks ago. As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Matthew Cheung is 53.9 marks. His approval rate is 33%, disapproval rate 19%, giving a net popularity of positive 14 percentage points. The latest support rating of FS Paul Chan is 40.6 marks, approval rate 22%, disapproval rate 43%, thus a net popularity of negative 21 percentage points. As for SJ Rimsky Yuen, his support rating is 43.4 marks, approval rate 29%, disapproval rate 39%, giving a net popularity of negative 9 percentage points, which is his lowest since he became SJ in 2012. In terms of popularity rating and net approval rate, Matthew Cheung continues to be the most popular Secretary of Department. As for the Directors of Bureaux, compared to one month ago, the net approval rate of 7 among 13 Directors have gone up, while 5 have gone down and 1 remains unchanged. Among them, only Secretary for Security John Lee and Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah register significant changes in their net approval rates, down by 9 and 8 percentage points respectively. Among all the Directors, only Lau Kong-wah registers negative popularity, at negative 21 percentage points. Sophia Chan is currently the most popular Director, with a net approval rate of positive 37 percentage points. According to POP’s standard, no one falls under the category of “ideal” or “successful” performer. The performance of Carrie Lam, Sophia Chan, Law Chi-kwong, Edward Yau, Wong Kam-sing, Matthew Cheung, Kevin Yeung, Nicholas Yang, Rimsky Yuen, Lau Kong-wah and Paul Chan can be labeled as “mediocre”. That of Joshua Law, Frank Chan, John Lee, Michael Wong, James Lau and Patrick Nip can be labeled as “inconspicuous”. No one falls into the category of “depressing” or “disastrous”. The maximum sampling error of all approval and disapproval rates is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling errors of rating figures and net approval rates need another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 60%.
As for the people’s expectation of Policy Address, POP conducted a double stage survey in mid-September and early October 2017 by means of random telephone surveys conducted by real interviewers. We use a two-stage design to study both the absolute and relative importance of different policy items. In our latest surveys, when asked to name only one issue unaided, most people considered “housing” the most pressing policy area to be handled in CE Carrie Lam’s Policy Address. In terms of absolute percentage of importance, 94% said CE should tackle housing problems, with a mean score of 4.7, or close to “very important”. Both figures are the highest across all items. The second to fifth items in terms of mean score are “medical policy”, “social welfare”, “education” and “political development”. Among them, only the mean score of importance of “housing” has increased significantly. Four out of five items are the same as those in the last survey, only “education” enters the list to replace “economic development”. The maximum sampling error of the survey is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, response rates of the first stage and second stage survey being 58% and 60% respectively.
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] 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.
[3] 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.
Popularity figures of CE and principal officials
[4] The sample size of this survey is 1,005 successful interviews, not 1,005 x 59.5% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[5] “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 +/-2.8, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, and sampling error of net values not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level”.
People’s expectation of Policy Address
[6] The sample size of the first stage survey is 1,017 successful interviews, not 1,017 x 57.6% response rate, while the sample size of the second stage survey is another 1,005, not 1,005 x 59.5% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[7] “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 all percentages not more than +/-4% at 95% confidence level”.
I. Popularity figures of CE and principal officials
Latest Figures
POP today releases the latest popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam and various Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system. From July 2017, POP enhanced the previous weighting method that has been used for quite a few years. Apart from age, gender and education, economic activity status is now also taken into account when adjusting data. 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, the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and the economic activity status distribution collected in the 2011 Census. The mobile sample has also been rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
|
Date of survey |
Effective sample size |
Effective response rate |
Maximum sampling error of percentages[8] |
|
3-4/10/2017 |
1,005 |
59.5% |
+/-3% |
[8] Errors are 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. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sampling error. Sampling errors of ratings and net approval rates are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
As different questions involve different sub-samples, the sampling errors will vary accordingly. The table below briefly shows the relationship between sample size and maximum sampling errors for the readers to capture the corresponding changes:
|
Sample size (total sample or sub-sample) |
Sampling error of percentages[7] (maximum values) |
Sample size (total sample or sub-sample) |
Sampling error of percentages[9] (maximum values) |
|
1,300 |
+/- 2.8% |
1,350 |
+/- 2.7% |
|
1,200 |
+/- 2.9% |
1,250 |
+/- 2.8% |
|
1,100 |
+/- 3.0% |
1,150 |
+/- 3.0% |
|
1,000 |
+/- 3.2% |
1,050 |
+/- 3.1% |
|
900 |
+/- 3.3% |
950 |
+/- 3.2% |
|
800 |
+/- 3.5% |
850 |
+/- 3.4% |
|
700 |
+/- 3.8% |
750 |
+/- 3.7% |
|
600 |
+/- 4.1% |
650 |
+/- 3.9% |
|
500 |
+/- 4.5% |
550 |
+/- 4.3% |
|
400 |
+/- 5.0% |
450 |
+/- 4.7% |
[9] Based on 95% confidence interval.
Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
17-20/7/17 |
2-7/8/17 |
16-21/8/17 |
1-6/9/17 |
12-15/9/17 |
3-4/10/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
817 |
817 |
811 |
807 |
816 |
1,005 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
71.6% |
70.9% |
72.0% |
49.8% |
56.0% |
59.5% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error [10] |
-- |
|
Rating of CE Carrie Lam |
58.5[11] |
59.0 |
60.2 |
59.0 |
56.4[11] |
59.6+/-1.7 |
+3.2 [11] |
|
Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam |
50% |
52% |
51% |
50% |
47% |
49+/-3% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam |
35% |
37% |
37% |
35% |
41%[11] |
40+/-3% |
-1% |
|
Net approval rate |
15% |
15% |
14% |
15% |
7%[11] |
10+/-6% |
+3% |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter,
“effective response rate” was used.
[10] 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 rating not more than +/-1.7,
sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3%, sampling error of net
approval rates 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.
[11] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.
Recent popularity figures of the three Secretaries of Departments under the accountability system are summarized below:
|
Date of survey |
8-11/5/17 |
5-8/6/17 |
3-6/7/17 |
2-7/8/17 |
1-6/9/17 |
3-4/10/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base[12] |
542-624 |
633-668 |
484-557 |
613-638 |
551-593 |
533-547 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
72.1% |
69.4% |
71.5% |
70.9% |
49.8% |
59.5% |
-- |
|
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error [13] |
-- |
|
Rating of CS Matthew Cheung |
55.3[14] |
49.3[14] |
57.6[14] |
56.2 |
55.4 |
53.9+/-2.1 |
-1.5 |
|
Vote of confidence in
|
35% |
26%[14] |
39%[14] |
37% |
32%[14] |
33+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Vote of no confidence in
|
18% |
18% |
18% |
16% |
11%[14] |
19+/-3% |
+8% [14] |
|
Net approval rate |
17% |
8%[14] |
21%[14] |
21% |
21% |
14+/-6% |
-7% [14] |
|
Rating of FS Paul Chan |
39.7[14] |
34.1[14] |
40.5[14] |
41.2 |
42.7 |
40.6+/-2.5 |
-2.1 |
|
Vote of confidence in FS Paul Chan |
21%[14] |
18% |
22%[14] |
25% |
21%[14] |
22+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Vote of no confidence in FS Paul Chan |
49% |
48% |
41%[14] |
44% |
38%[14] |
43+/-4% |
+5% [14] |
|
Net approval rate |
-27% |
-30% |
-19%[14] |
-19% |
-17% |
-21+/-7% |
-4% |
|
Rating of SJ Rimsky Yuen |
47.3 |
46.6 |
52.8[14] |
50.9 |
46.4[14] |
43.4+/-2.8 |
-3.0 [14] |
|
Vote of confidence in SJ Rimsky Yuen |
27% |
30% |
37%[14] |
38% |
31%[14] |
29+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in SJ Rimsky Yuen |
32% |
30% |
23%[14] |
23% |
33%[14] |
39+/-4% |
+6% [14] |
|
Net approval rate |
-5% |
-1% |
14%[14] |
15% |
-3%[14] |
-9+/-7% |
-6% |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter,
“effective response rate” was used.
[12] The frequency of this series of questions is different from that of CE
popularity ratings. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the
same intervals. Starting from 2011, these questions only uses 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 various ratings not more than +/-2.8, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net approval rates not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[14] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.
Latest popularity figures of Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system are summarized below, in descending order of net approval rates:
|
Date of survey |
2-7/8/17 |
1-6/9/17 |
3-4/10/17 |
Latest change |
|||
|
Sample base [15] |
457-522 |
431-526 |
580-660 |
-- |
|||
|
Response rate* |
70.9% |
49.8% |
59.5% |
-- |
|||
|
Sample base for each question /
|
Base |
% |
Base |
% |
Base |
% &
|
-- |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan |
496 |
40% |
491 |
46%[17] |
620 |
46+/-4% |
-- |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan |
496 |
7%[17] |
491 |
5% |
620 |
8+/-2% |
+3%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
496 |
34% |
491 |
41%[17] |
620 |
37+/-5% |
-4% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law |
511 |
39% |
485 |
39% |
660 |
41+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law |
511 |
5%[17] |
485 |
7% |
660 |
6+/-2% |
-1% |
|
Net approval rate |
511 |
33% |
485 |
32%[20] |
660 |
35+/-5% |
+3% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong |
495 |
34%[17] |
483 |
41%[17] |
627 |
44+/-4% |
+3% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong |
495 |
10% |
483 |
9% |
627 |
10+/-2% |
+1% |
|
Net approval rate |
495 |
24%[17] [18] |
483 |
32%[20] [17] |
627 |
34+/-5% |
+2% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau |
479 |
42%[17] |
493 |
39% |
643 |
43+/-4% |
+4% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau |
479 |
7% |
493 |
7% |
643 |
11+/-2% |
+4%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
479 |
35% |
493 |
32%[20] |
643 |
33+/-5% |
+1% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing |
457 |
41% |
526 |
38% |
612 |
40+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing |
457 |
18% |
526 |
19% |
612 |
18+/-3% |
-1% |
|
Net approval rate |
457 |
24%[18] |
526 |
20% |
612 |
22+/-6% |
+2% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan |
458 |
30%[17] |
449 |
29% |
598 |
35+/-4% |
+6%[17] |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan |
458 |
12%[17] |
449 |
10% |
598 |
15+/-3% |
+5%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
458 |
18% |
449 |
18%[21] |
598 |
20+/-6%[22] |
+2% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau |
484 |
23% |
431 |
23% |
639 |
26+/-4% |
+3% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau |
484 |
7% |
431 |
4%[17] |
639 |
6+/-2% |
+2% |
|
Net approval rate |
484 |
16% |
431 |
18%[21] |
639 |
20+/-4%[22] |
+2% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Development Michael Wong |
489 |
23%[17] |
470 |
27% |
580 |
28+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Development Michael Wong |
489 |
7% |
470 |
10% |
580 |
12+/-3% |
+2% |
|
Net approval rate |
489 |
15%[19] |
470 |
16% |
580 |
16+/-5% |
-- |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Security John Lee |
522 |
31% |
454 |
34% |
590 |
31+/-4% |
-3% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Security John Lee |
522 |
9% |
454 |
10% |
590 |
17+/-3% |
+7%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
522 |
22%[17] |
454 |
24% |
590 |
15+/-6% |
-9%[17] |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang |
478 |
27% |
469 |
23% |
608 |
30+/-4% |
+7%[17] |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang |
478 |
20% |
469 |
16%[17] |
608 |
20+/-3% |
+4%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
478 |
8% |
469 |
7% |
608 |
10+/-6% |
+3% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip |
482 |
21% |
504 |
21% |
631 |
21+/-3% |
-- |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip |
482 |
11%[17] |
504 |
9% |
631 |
12+/-3% |
+3% |
|
Net approval rate |
482 |
10% |
504 |
11% |
631 |
9+/-5%[23] |
-2% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung |
480 |
33% |
455 |
27%[17] |
605 |
31+/-4% |
+4% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung |
480 |
18%[17] |
455 |
15% |
605 |
22+/-3% |
+7%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
480 |
15%[19] |
455 |
12% |
605 |
9+/-6%[23] |
-3% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah |
508 |
31% |
448 |
22%[17] |
641 |
24+/-3% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah |
508 |
34%[17] |
448 |
36% |
641 |
45+/-4% |
+9%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
508 |
-3% |
448 |
-13%[17] |
641 |
-21+/-6% |
-8%[17] |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter,
“effective response rate” was used.
[15] Starting from 2006, these questions only uses sub-samples of the
tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[16] 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 percentages not more than +/-4% and sampling error of net approval rates 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.
[17] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.
[18] Based on the figures in early August, in one decimal place, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong and Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing are 24.4 and 23.7 percentage points. Thus, they ranked fourth and fifth at that time.
[19] Based on the figures in early August, in two decimal places, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Development Michael Wong and Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung are 15.34 and 15.28 percentage points. Thus, they ranked ninth and tenth at that time.
[20] Based on the figures in early September, in one decimal place, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong, Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law and Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau are 32.1, 32.0 and 31.6 percentage points. Thus, they ranked second, third and fourth at that time.
[21] Based on the figures in early September, in two decimal places, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau and Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan are 18.41 and 18.39 percentage points. Thus, they ranked seventh and eighth at that time.
[22] Based on the figures of latest survey, in one decimal place, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau are 20.2 and 19.7 percentage points. Thus, they ranked sixth and seventh this time.
[23] Based on the figures of latest survey, in one decimal place, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip and Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung are 9.4 and 9.2 percentage points. Thus, they ranked eleventh and twelfth this time.
The latest survey showed that, CE Carrie Lam scored 59.6 marks, and 49% supported her as CE, her net approval rate is positive 10 percentage points. Meanwhile, the corresponding ratings of CS Matthew Cheung, FS Paul Chan and SJ Rimsky Yuen were 53.9, 40.6 and 43.4 marks, and 33%, 22% and 29% would vote for their reappointments correspondingly. Their net approval rates are positive 14, negative 21 and negative 9 percentage points respectively.
As for the Directors of Bureaux, according to the net approval rates, results revealed that the top position goes to Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan, attaining positive 37 percentage points. The 2nd to 4th places belong to Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law, Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong and Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau with net approval rates of positive 35, 34 and 33 percentage points respectively. Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing, Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan, Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau, Secretary for Development Michael Wong, Secretary for Security John Lee, Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung and Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah ranked 5th to 13th, their corresponding net approval rates are positive 22, positive 20, positive 20, positive 16, positive 15, positive 10, positive 9, positive 9 and negative 21 percentage points. In other words, no Director scored a net approval rate of over 50%.
Opinion Daily
In January 2007, POP opened a feature page called “Opinion Daily” at the “POP Site”, to record significant events and selected polling figures on a day-to-day basis, in order to let readers judge by themselves the reasons for the ups and downs of different opinion figures. In July 2007, POP collaborated with Wisers Information Limited whereby Wisers supplies to POP each day starting from July 24, a record of significant events of that day, according to the research method designed by POP. These daily entries would be uploaded to “Opinion Daily” as soon as they are verified by POP.
For the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey of some items was conducted from 1 to 6 September, 2017 while this survey was conducted from 3 to 4 October, 2017. During this period, herewith the significant events selected from counting newspaper headlines and commentaries on a daily basis and covered by at least 25% of the local newspaper articles. Readers can make their own judgment if these significant events have any impacts to different polling figures.
|
27/9/17 |
Hong Kong has been ranked as the sixth most competitive economy. |
|
22/9/17 |
3 dead and 29 injured after a Citybus mounts pavement in Sham Shui Po. |
|
21/9/17 |
Former president of the HKU's student union Billy Fung Jing-en and vice president Colman Li Fung-kei are sentenced to community service for barging into a HKU governing council meeting last year. |
|
20/9/17 |
The government considers building container homes or prefabricated homes for transitional housing. |
|
17/9/17 |
1 dead and 3 in critical condition after Road to Ultra Hong Kong Music Festival, suspected of drug abuse. |
|
16/9/17 |
A fatal accident happens at Ocean Park Halloween Fest. |
|
15/9/17 |
The heads of ten universities release a joint statement against "Hong Kong independence". |
|
12/9/17 |
The Office of Ombudsman releases the investigation report on Lands Department’s enforcement against a village house with irregularities. |
|
8/9/17 |
A slogan congratulating Choi Yuk-lin on her son’s death is posted on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. |
|
7/9/17 |
The elder son of the Undersecretary for Education Choi Yuk-lin commits suicide. |
|
6/9/17 |
Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor unveils the scheme for local first-time homebuyers. |
II. People’s expectation of Policy Address
Latest Figures
POP today also releases the latest findings on people’s expectation of the first Policy Address of CE Carrie Lam. From July 2017, POP enhanced the previous weighting method that has been used for quite a few years. Apart from age, gender and education, economic activity status is now also taken into account when adjusting data. The latest figures released today for both the first and second stage surveys 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, the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and the economic activity status distribution collected in the 2011 Census. The mobile sample has also been rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
|
Date of survey |
Effective sample size |
Effective response rate |
Maximum sampling error of percentages[24] |
|
12-15/9/2017 (First Stage) |
1,017 |
57.6%[25] |
+/-3% |
|
3-4/10/2017 (Second Stage) |
1,005 |
59.5% |
+/-3% |
[24] Errors are 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. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sampling error.
[25] The figures released on September 26, 2017 only included 816 landline samples, while another 201 mobile samples were still being tested. The effective response rates reported then were thus slightly different from those listed in this table.
According to our first stage survey conducted in mid-September 2017, when asked to name unaided one issue that CE Carrie Lam should focus on in her first Policy Address to be announced this Wednesday, 57% of the respondents wished she would take “housing” as her first priority, while 7%, 6%, 5% and 4% respectively chose “social welfare”, “medical policy”, “political development” and “education”, while 6% of the respondents failed to give a specific answer. Please refer to the “HKU POP SITE” for detailed figures.
In order to further study people’s expectation, another survey was then conducted whereby respondents were asked to evaluate each of the 5 top priority items individually, on a 5-point scale, how important it is for each item to be tackled in the Policy Address. Results compared to those of last 2 series are summarized below in descending order of mean values:
|
Date of survey |
4-6/1/16 |
9-12/1/17 |
3-4/10/17 |
Latest Change |
|
Sample base |
563-639 |
548-632 |
523-575 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
63.9% |
69.3% |
59.5% |
-- |
|
Latest findings |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error [26] |
-- |
|
Perceived housing issues as “very important” |
70% |
70% |
77+/-4% |
+7%[28] |
|
Perceived housing issues as “quite important” |
21%[28] |
15%[28] |
17+/-3% |
+2% |
|
“Very” + “quite” important[27] |
91% |
85%[28] |
94+/-2% |
+9%[28] |
|
Mean value[29] |
4.6 (Base=622) |
4.5 (Base=607) |
4.7+/-0.1 (Base=518) |
+0.2[28] |
|
Perceived medical policy issues as “very important” |
55%[28] |
62%[28] |
64+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Perceived medical policy issues as “quite important” |
30% |
22%[28] |
27+/-4% |
+5%[28] |
|
“Very” + “quite” important[27] |
85%[28] |
84% |
91+/-2% |
+7%[28] |
|
Mean value[29] |
4.4 (Base=563) |
4.4 [30] (Base=536) |
4.5+/-0.1 (Base=550) |
+0.1 |
|
Perceived social welfare issues as “very important” |
51%[28] |
58%[28] |
54+/-4% |
-4% |
|
Perceived social welfare issues as “quite important” |
33% |
24%[28] |
32+/-4% |
+8%[28] |
|
“Very” + “quite” important[27] |
84%[28] |
82% |
87+/-3% |
+5%[28] |
|
Mean value[29] |
4.3[28] (Base=558) |
4.4 [30] (Base=618) |
4.4+/-0.1[31] (Base=507) |
-- |
|
Perceived education issues as “very important” |
-- |
-- |
54+/-4% |
-- |
|
Perceived education issues as “quite important” |
-- |
-- |
32+/-4% |
-- |
|
“Very” + “quite” important[27] |
-- |
-- |
86+/-3% |
-- |
|
Mean value[2+] |
-- |
-- |
4.4+/-0.1[31] (Base=566) |
-- |
|
Perceived political development issues as “very important” |
45%[28] |
40%[28] |
38+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Perceived political development issues as “quite important” |
24%[28] |
23% |
31+/-4% |
+8%[28] |
|
“Very” + “quite” important[27] |
68% |
64% |
69+/-4% |
+5%[28] |
|
Mean value[29] |
4.1[28] (Base=501) |
3.9[28] (Base=498) |
4.0+/-0.1 (Base=494) |
+0.1 |
|
Perceived economic development issues as “very important” |
54%] |
50% |
-- |
-- |
|
Perceived economic development issues as “quite important” |
27%] |
24% |
-- |
-- |
|
“Very” + “quite” important[27] |
81% |
74%[28] |
-- |
-- |
|
Mean value[2+] |
4.3 (Base=557) |
4.2 (Base=571) |
-- |
-- |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter,
“effective response rate” was used.
[26] 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 percentages not more than
+/-4% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures.
[27] Percentages in these rows may not be equal to the sum of percentages shown in the rows of “very” and “quite important” due to rounding off.
[28] 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.
[29] The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of importance, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[30] In two decimal places, the respective mean values of “medical policy issues” and “social welfare issues” are 4.41 and 4.35. Thus, they were ranked 2nd and 3rd respectively at that time.
[31] In two decimal places, the respective mean values of “social welfare issues” and “education issues” are 4.40 and 4.35. Thus, they are ranked 3rd and 4th respectively this time.
When asked to evaluate the importance of each item individually, 94% said CE Carrie Lam needed to tackle housing issue in the coming Policy Address, including 77% regarded it as “very important” and 17% “quite important”. Meanwhile, medical policy, social welfare, education and political development were perceived by 91%, 87%, 86% and 69% respectively to be important. The mean scores of the five issues are 4.7, 4.5, 4.4, 4.4 and 4.0 respectively, which is between “quite important” and “very important” in general.
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Lee.
Our latest survey conducted in early October shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam has significantly increased by 3.2 marks to 59.6. Her latest approval rate is 49%, disapproval rate 40%, giving a net popularity of positive 10 percentage points, slightly recovered from the low point registered three weeks ago.
As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Matthew Cheung is 53.9 marks. His approval rate is 33%, disapproval rate 19%, giving a net popularity of positive 14 percentage points. The latest support rating of FS Paul Chan is 40.6 marks, approval rate 22%, disapproval rate 43%, thus a net popularity of negative 21 percentage points. As for SJ Rimsky Yuen, his support rating is 43.4 marks, approval rate 29%, disapproval rate 39%, giving a net popularity of negative 9 percentage points, which is his lowest since he became SJ in 2012. In terms of popularity rating and net approval rate, Matthew Cheung continues to be the most popular Secretary of Department.
As for the Directors of Bureaux, compared to one month ago, the net approval rate of 7 among 13 Directors have gone up, while 5 have gone down and 1 remains unchanged. Among them, only Secretary for Security John Lee and Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah register significant changes in their net approval rates, down by 9 and 8 percentage points respectively. Among all the Directors, only Lau Kong-wah registers negative popularity, at negative 21 percentage points. Sophia Chan is currently the most popular Director, with a net approval rate of positive 37 percentage points.
According to POP’s standard, no one falls under the category of “ideal” or “successful” performer. The performance of Carrie Lam, Sophia Chan, Law Chi-kwong, Edward Yau, Wong Kam-sing, Matthew Cheung, Kevin Yeung, Nicholas Yang, Rimsky Yuen, Lau Kong-wah and Paul Chan can be labeled as “mediocre”. That of Joshua Law, Frank Chan, John Lee, Michael Wong, James Lau and Patrick Nip can be labeled as “inconspicuous”. No one falls into the category of “depressing” or “disastrous”.
The following table summarizes the grading of CE Carrie Lam and the principal officials for readers’ easy reference:
|
“Ideal”: those with approval rates of over 66%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets |
|
“Successful”: those with approval rates of over 50%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets |
|
|
|
“Mediocre”: those not belonging to other 5 types; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets |
|
CE Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (49%); Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan Siu-chee (46%); Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong (44%); Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau Tang-wah (43%); Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing (40%); CS Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (33%); Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung (31%); Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang Wei-hsiung (30%); SJ Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung (29%); Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah (24%); FS Paul Chan Mo-po (22%) |
|
|
|
“Inconspicuous”: those with recognition rates of less than 50%; ranked by their approval rates; the first figure inside bracket is approval rate while the second figure is recognition rate |
|
Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law Chi-kong (41%, 48%); Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan Fan (35%, 50%)[32]; Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu (31%, 48%); Secretary for Development Michael Wong Wai-lun (28%, 40%); Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Henry Lau Jr (26%, 31%); Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip Tak-kuen (21%, 33%) |
|
|
|
“Depressing”: those with disapproval rates of over 50%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets |
|
“Disastrous”: those with disapproval rates of over 66%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets |
[32] In one decimal place, the recognition rate of Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan Fan is 49.8%.
As for the people’s expectation of Policy Address, our latest surveys shows that when asked to name only one issue unaided, most people considered “housing” the most pressing policy area to be handled in CE Carrie Lam’s Policy Address. In terms of absolute percentage of importance, 94% said CE should tackle housing problems, with a mean score of 4.7, or close to “very important”. Both figures are the highest across all items. The second to fifth items in terms of mean score are “medical policy”, “social welfare”, “education” and “political development”. Among them, only the mean score of importance of “housing” has increased significantly. Four out of five items are the same as those in the last survey, only “education” enters the list to replace “economic development”.
Future Releases (Tentative)
