HKU POP releases popularity figures of CE and principal officials and Policy Address second follow-up surveyBack
Press Release on November 14, 2017
| Detailed Findings (Rating of Chief Executive Carrie Lam) | Detailed Findings (Popularity of Principal Officials) |
| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |
Special Announcements
1. From July 2017, apart from sampling landline numbers to conduct opinion surveys, the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong 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.
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 regular rating surveys of current CE Carrie Lam, former CEs CH Tung, Donald Tsang and CY Leung, along with related demographics of respondents. Please follow normal academic standards when using or citing such data.
Abstract
POP interviewed 1,002 Hong Kong people between 6 and 9 November, 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 decreased by 3.1 marks to 58.9 over the past two weeks. Her latest approval rate is 50%, disapproval rate 36%, giving a net popularity of positive 15 percentage points. As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Matthew Cheung is 54.6 marks. His approval rate is 35%, disapproval rate 19%, giving a net popularity of positive 17 percentage points. The latest support rating of FS Paul Chan is 43.7 marks, approval rate 23%, disapproval rate 38%, thus a net popularity of negative 15 percentage points. As for SJ Rimsky Yuen, his support rating is 48.3 marks, approval rate 34%, disapproval rate 30%, the net popularity has significantly increased 14 percentage points to positive 5 percentage points. 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 8 among 13 Directors have gone up, while 4 have gone down and 1 remains unchanged. Among them, Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau, Secretary for Security John Lee, Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan and Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan register significant changes in their net approval rates, up by 12, 10, 9, 6 and down by 9 percentage points respectively. Among all the Directors, only Lau Kong-wah registers negative popularity, at negative 9 percentage points. Edward Yau and Sophia Chan are currently the most popular Directors, both with a net approval rate of positive 43 percentage points. According to POP’s standard, no one falls under the category of “ideal” performer, Carrie Lam falls under the category of “successful” performer. The performance of Edward Yau, Sophia Chan, Law Chi-kwong, Wong Kam-sing, Matthew Cheung, Rimsky Yuen, Nicholas Yang, Kevin Yeung, Frank Chan, Lau Kong-wah and Paul Chan can be labeled as “mediocre”. That of Joshua Law, John Lee, James Lau, Michael Wong 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 58%.
As for the Policy Address second follow-up survey, POP interviewed 501 Hong Kong people between 6 and 7 November by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers, in order to measure again people’s reaction to this year’s Policy Address. According to our instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of the first Address of Carrie Lam, net satisfaction was positive 34 percentage points and satisfaction rating at 62.4 marks. In our first follow-up survey, it decreased to positive 18 percentage points, while satisfaction rating dropped to 60.6 marks. Three weeks later, net satisfaction has further decreased by 11 percentage points to positive 7 percentage points, while satisfaction rating also decreases to 54.2 marks. People’s net satisfaction with Carrie Lam’s policy direction also decreased significantly by 16 percentage points to positive 12 percentage points. All in all, after many rounds of discussion, people’s appraisal of the policy address has shown no improvement but turned more negative. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while that of rating figure is +/-2.1 and net value needs another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 60%.
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 1,002 successful interviews, not 1,002 x 57.6% 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 +/-2.2, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, and sampling error of net values not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level”.
Policy Address second follow-up survey
[6] The sample size of this survey is 501 successful interviews, not 501 x
59.5% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[7] The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points
at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures and net
values needs 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 various ratings not more than
+/-2.1, that of percentages not more than +/-4% and net values no more than
+/-8% 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] |
|
6-9/11/2017 |
1,002 |
57.6% |
+/-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[9] (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 |
1-6/9/17 |
12-15/9/17 |
3-4/10/17 |
11/10/17 |
16-19/10/17 |
6-9/11/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
807 |
816 |
1,005 |
673 |
1,009 |
1,002 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
49.8% |
56.0% |
59.5% |
63.5% |
64.5% |
57.6% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error [10] |
-- |
|
Rating of CE Carrie Lam |
59.0 |
56.4[11] |
59.6[11] |
61.1 |
62.0 |
58.9+/-1.6 |
-3.1 [11] |
|
Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam |
50% |
47% |
49% |
53% |
53% |
50+/-3% |
-3% |
|
Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam |
35% |
41%[11] |
40% |
29%[11] |
33%[11] |
36+/-3% |
+3% |
|
Net approval rate |
15% |
7%[11] |
10% |
23%[11] |
20% |
15+/-6% |
-5% |
* “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 +/-1.6,
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 is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Recent popularity figures of the three Secretaries of Departments under the accountability system are summarized below:
|
Date of survey |
5-8/6/17 |
3-6/7/17 |
2-7/8/17 |
1-6/9/17 |
3-4/10/17 |
6-9/11/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base[12] |
633-668 |
484-557 |
613-638 |
551-593 |
533-547 |
700-729 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
69.4% |
71.5% |
70.9% |
49.8% |
59.5% |
57.6% |
-- |
|
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error [13] |
-- |
|
Rating of CS Matthew Cheung |
49.3[14] |
57.6[14] |
56.2 |
55.4 |
53.9 |
54.6+/-1.8 |
+0.7 |
|
Vote of confidence in
|
26%[14] |
39%[14] |
37% |
32%[14] |
33% |
35+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in
|
18% |
18% |
16% |
11%[14] |
19%[14] |
19+/-3% |
-- |
|
Net approval rate |
8%[14] |
21%[14] |
21% |
21% |
14%[14] |
17+/-5% |
+3% |
|
Rating of FS Paul Chan |
34.1[14] |
40.5[14] |
41.2 |
42.7 |
40.6 |
43.7+/-2.1 |
+3.1 [14] |
|
Vote of confidence in FS Paul Chan |
18% |
22%[14] |
25% |
21%[14] |
22% |
23+/-3% |
+1% |
|
Vote of no confidence in FS Paul Chan |
48% |
41%[14] |
44% |
38%[14] |
43%[14] |
38+/-4% |
-5% [14] |
|
Net approval rate |
-30% |
-19%[14] |
-19% |
-17% |
-21% |
-15+/-6% |
+6% |
|
Rating of SJ Rimsky Yuen |
46.6 |
52.8[14] |
50.9 |
46.4[14] |
43.4[14] |
48.3+/-2.2 |
+4.9 [14] |
|
Vote of confidence in SJ Rimsky Yuen |
30% |
37%[14] |
38% |
31%[14] |
29% |
34+/-4% |
+5% [14] |
|
Vote of no confidence in SJ Rimsky Yuen |
30% |
23%[14] |
23% |
33%[14] |
39%[14] |
30+/-3% |
-9% [14] |
|
Net approval rate |
-1% |
14%[14] |
15% |
-3%[14] |
-9% |
5+/-6% |
+14% [14] |
* “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 +/-2.2, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, 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.
[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 is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Latest popularity figures of Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system are summarized below, in descending order of net approval rates:
|
Date of survey |
1-6/9/17 |
3-4/10/17 |
6-9/11/17 |
Latest change |
|||
|
Sample base [15] |
431-526 |
580-660 |
575-622 |
-- |
|||
|
Response rate* |
49.8% |
59.5% |
57.6% |
-- |
|||
|
Sample base for each question /
|
Base |
% |
Base |
% |
Base |
% &
|
-- |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau |
493 |
39% |
643 |
43% |
594 |
49+/-4% |
+6%[17] |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau |
493 |
7% |
643 |
11%[17] |
594 |
6+/-2% |
-5%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
493 |
32%[18] |
643 |
33% |
594 |
43+/-5%[22] |
+10%[17] |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan |
491 |
46%[17] |
620 |
46% |
589 |
48+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan |
491 |
5% |
620 |
8%[17] |
589 |
5+/-2% |
-3%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
491 |
41%[17] |
620 |
37% |
589 |
43+/-5%[22] |
+6%[17] |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong |
483 |
41%[17] |
627 |
44% |
597 |
46+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong |
483 |
9% |
627 |
10% |
597 |
10+/-3% |
-- |
|
Net approval rate |
483 |
32%[18] [17] |
627 |
34% |
597 |
35+/-5% |
+1% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law |
485 |
39% |
660 |
41% |
622 |
39+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law |
485 |
7% |
660 |
6% |
622 |
7+/-2% |
+1% |
|
Net approval rate |
485 |
32%[18] |
660 |
35% |
622 |
31+/-5% |
-4% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing |
526 |
38% |
612 |
40% |
603 |
42+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing |
526 |
19% |
612 |
18% |
603 |
15+/-3% |
-3% |
|
Net approval rate |
526 |
20% |
612 |
22% |
603 |
27+/-6% |
+5% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Security John Lee |
454 |
34% |
590 |
31% |
601 |
34+/-4% |
+3% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Security John Lee |
454 |
10% |
590 |
17%[17] |
601 |
10+/-2% |
-7%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
454 |
24% |
590 |
15%[17] |
601 |
24+/-5% |
+9%[17] |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau |
431 |
23% |
639 |
26% |
612 |
26+/-4% |
-- |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau |
431 |
4%[17] |
639 |
6% |
612 |
6+/-2% |
-- |
|
Net approval rate |
431 |
18%[19] |
639 |
20%[20] |
612 |
20+/-4% |
-- |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Development Michael Wong |
470 |
27% |
580 |
28% |
593 |
26+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Development Michael Wong |
470 |
10% |
580 |
12% |
593 |
10+/-2% |
-2% |
|
Net approval rate |
470 |
16% |
580 |
16% |
593 |
17+/-5% |
+1% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan |
449 |
29% |
598 |
35%[17] |
575 |
30+/-4% |
-5%[17] |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan |
449 |
10% |
598 |
15%[17] |
575 |
20+/-3% |
+5%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
449 |
18%[19] |
598 |
20%[20] |
575 |
11+/-6% |
-9%[17] |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip |
504 |
21% |
631 |
21% |
605 |
21+/-3% |
-- |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip |
504 |
9% |
631 |
12% |
605 |
11+/-3% |
-1% |
|
Net approval rate |
504 |
11% |
631 |
9%[21] |
605 |
10+/-5% |
+1% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang |
469 |
23% |
608 |
30%[17] |
576 |
31+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang |
469 |
16%[17] |
608 |
20%[17] |
576 |
24+/-4% |
+4% |
|
Net approval rate |
469 |
7% |
608 |
10% |
576 |
7+/-6% |
-3% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung |
455 |
27%[17] |
605 |
31% |
615 |
31+/-4% |
-- |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung |
455 |
15% |
605 |
22%[17] |
615 |
25+/-4% |
+3% |
|
Net approval rate |
455 |
12% |
605 |
9%[21] |
615 |
6+/-6% |
-3% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah |
448 |
22%[17] |
641 |
24% |
594 |
30+/-4% |
+6%[17] |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah |
448 |
36% |
641 |
45%[17] |
594 |
39+/-4% |
-6%[17] |
|
Net approval rate |
448 |
-13%[17] |
641 |
-21%[17] |
594 |
-9+/-7% |
+12%[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 +/-7% 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 is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
[18] 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.
[19] 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.
[20] Based on the figures in early October, 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 at that time.
[21] Based on the figures in early October, 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 at that time.
[22] Based on the figures of latest survey, in one decimal place, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau and Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan are 43.4 and 43.0 percentage points. Thus, they ranked first and second this time.
The latest survey showed that, CE Carrie Lam scored 58.9 marks, and 50% supported her as CE, her net approval rate is positive 15 percentage points. Meanwhile, the corresponding ratings of CS Matthew Cheung, FS Paul Chan and SJ Rimsky Yuen were 54.6, 43.7 and 48.3 marks, and 35%, 23% and 34% would vote for their reappointments correspondingly. Their net approval rates are positive 17, negative 15 and positive 5 percentage points respectively.
As for the Directors of Bureaux, according to the net approval rates, results revealed that the top two positions go to Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau and Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan, both attaining positive 43 percentage points. The 3rd and 4th places belong to Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong and Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law with net approval rates of positive 35 and 31 percentage points respectively. Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing, Secretary for Security John Lee, Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau, Secretary for Development Michael Wong, Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip, Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung and Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah ranked 5th to 13th, their corresponding net approval rates are positive 27, positive 24, positive 20, positive 17, positive 11, positive 10, positive 7, positive 6 and negative 9 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 3 to 4 October, 2017 while this survey was conducted from 6 to 9 November, 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.
|
4/11/17 |
The National People's Congress Standing Committee passes decisions to include the national anthem law in Annex III of the Hong Kong Basic Law. |
|
3/11/17 |
The judge at former Chief Executive Donald Tsang’s second bribery trial dismisses the jury after they are unable to reach a verdict. |
|
31/10/17 |
Carrie Lam clarifies that the figure of 800,000 public rental flats is not a ceiling. |
|
17/10/17 |
The 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. |
|
13/10/17 |
Joshua Wong and the others found guilty of criminal contempt of court for obstructing bailiffs at Mong Kok rally site. |
|
11/10/17 |
Chief Executive Carrie Lam delivers her first Policy Address. |
II. Policy Address second follow-up survey
Background
Since 1992, POP has been conducting Policy Address instant surveys every year. From 1998 onwards, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. In general, such surveys would be repeated some time later to measure people's more matured reactions. In 2008, we further enhanced our survey design by splitting our Policy Address instant survey into two. In our instant survey, we measure people’s overall appraisal of the Policy Address, their rating of the Policy Address, their change in confidence towards Hong Kong's future, and CE’s popularity. One to two days later, we started to conduct our first follow-up survey, which mainly studies the change of people’s satisfaction of the Policy Address. Our second follow-up survey would be conducted a short period later, to repeat our measurement of the change of people’s satisfaction of the Policy Address. We believe this is a better way to study public opinion on these issues: measuring people's instant reaction first, and then repeat our measurement some time later to check people's more matured reaction. Our Policy Address’s instant and first follow-up surveys this year were released on October 11, 12 and 17 respectively, while the findings of the second follow-up poll are released today.
Latest Figures
POP today releases the latest findings of the second follow-up survey of Policy Address. 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 of various surveys:
|
Survey series |
Date of survey |
Sample base |
Response rate* |
Sampling error of percentages[23 ] |
|
2017 (Oct) Second follow-up |
6-7/11/17 |
501 |
59.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2017 (Oct) First follow-up |
12-13/10/17 |
508 |
60.8% |
+/-4% |
|
2017 (Oct) Instant |
11/10/17 |
673 |
63.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2017 (Jan) Second follow-up |
1-2/2/17 |
506 |
70.0% |
+/-4% |
|
2017 (Jan) First follow-up |
19-20/1/17 |
513 |
68.4% |
+/-4% |
|
2017 (Jan) Instant |
18/1/17 |
664 |
67.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2016 Second follow-up |
1-2/2/16 |
515 |
66.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2016 First follow-up |
14-15/1/16 |
514 |
65.8% |
+/-4% |
|
2016 Instant |
13/1/16 |
608 |
64.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 Second follow-up |
3-4/2/15 |
514 |
67.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 First follow-up |
15-16/1/15 |
500 |
65.7% |
+/-4% |
|
2015 Instant |
14/1/15 |
640 |
67.4% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 Second follow-up |
28-29/1/14 |
516 |
65.2% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 First follow-up |
16-17/1/14 |
519 |
68.7% |
+/-4% |
|
2014 Instant |
15/1/14 |
1,017 |
66.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2013 Second follow-up |
22-24/1/13 |
507 |
66.6% |
+/-4% |
|
2013 First follow-up |
17-18/1/13 |
530 |
66.2% |
+/-4% |
|
2013 Instant |
16/1/13 |
1,021 |
68.7% |
+/-3% |
|
2011 Second follow-up |
17-20/10/11 |
518 |
73.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2011 First follow-up |
13-14/10/11 |
520 |
65.5% |
+/-4% |
|
2011 Instant |
12/10/11 |
1,032 |
65.6% |
+/-3% |
|
2010 Second follow-up |
26-27/10/10 |
523 |
64.0% |
+/-4% |
|
2010 First follow-up |
14-16/10/10 |
507 |
64.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2010 Instant |
13/10/10 |
1,020 |
66.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2009 Second follow-up |
20-26/10/09 |
513 |
72.1% |
+/-4% |
|
2009 First follow-up |
15-17/10/09 |
508 |
70.6% |
+/-4% |
|
2009 Instant |
14/10/09 |
1,007 |
71.9% |
+/-3% |
|
2008 Second follow-up |
27-29/10/08 |
1,015 |
70.3% |
+/-3% |
|
2008 First follow-up |
17-19/10/08 |
505 |
70.9% |
+/-4% |
|
2008 Instant |
15/10/08 |
1,011 |
74.9% |
+/-3% |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter,
“effective response rate” was used.
[23] 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.
Results of the second follow-up survey of Policy Address, together with the instant and first follow-up surveys, for January 2017 (CY Leung’s final Policy Address) and October 2017 (Carrie Lam’s first Policy Address) are tabulated below:
|
1/2017 |
10/2017 |
|||||||
|
Instant survey |
First follow-up survey |
Second follow-up survey |
Change |
Instant survey |
First follow-up survey |
Second follow-up survey |
Latest change |
|
|
Date of survey |
18/1/17 |
19-20/1/17 |
1-2/2/17 |
-- |
11/10/17 |
12-13/10/17 |
6-7/11/17 |
-- |
|
Sample base |
664[24] |
513 |
506 |
-- |
673[24] |
508 |
501 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
67.1% |
68.4% |
70.0% |
-- |
63.5% |
60.8% |
59.5% |
-- |
|
Latest Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
-- |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error[ 25 ] |
-- |
|
Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[26 ] |
34% |
33% |
24% |
-9%[27] |
48% |
43%[27] |
39+/-4% |
-4% |
|
Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[ 26] |
29% |
36%[27] |
39% |
+3% |
14% |
24%[27] |
32+/-4% |
+8%[27] |
|
Net value |
5% |
-3%[27] |
-15% |
-12%[27] |
34% |
18%[27] |
7+/-8% |
-11%[27] |
|
Mean Value[26] |
3.0 (Base=431) |
2.9 (Base=456) |
2.6 (Base=425) |
-0.3[27] |
3.5 (Base=466) |
3.3[27] (Base=451) |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=462) |
-0.3 [27] |
|
Rating of Policy Address (0 to 100 marks) |
52.3 |
48.8[27] |
46.9 |
-1.9 |
62.4 |
60.6 |
54.2+/-2.1 |
-6.4[27] |
|
Satisfaction rate of Leung’s policy direction[ 26] |
-- |
37%[27] |
27% |
-10%[27] |
-- |
50%[27] |
41+/-4% |
-9% [27] |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of Leung’s policy direction [26] |
-- |
40%[27] |
45% |
+5%[27] |
-- |
22%[27] |
30+/-4% |
+8% [27] |
|
Net value |
-- |
-3%[27] |
-18% |
-15%[27] |
-- |
28%[27] |
12+/-7% |
-16%[27] |
|
Mean Value[26] |
-- |
2.8[27] (Base=492) |
2.6 (Base=476) |
-0.2[27] |
-- |
3.4[27] (Base=465) |
3.1+/-0.1 (Base=472) |
-0.3 [27] |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter,
“effective response rate” was used.
[24] Excluding respondents who were not clear about the Policy Address. The
sub-sample size in January 2017 was 512 and that in October 2017 was 526.
[25] 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. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the
distribution of the scores collected.
[26] 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 importance level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest,
and then calculate the sample mean.
[27] 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 is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Latest second follow-up survey revealed that 39% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 32% were dissatisfied, giving net satisfaction of positive 7 percentage points. The mean score is 3.0, which is “half-half”. The average rating registered for the Policy Address was 54.2 marks. As for people’s satisfaction with Carrie Lam’s policy direction, 41% of the respondents showed satisfaction while 30% were not satisfied, giving net satisfaction of positive 12 percentage points. The mean score is 3.1, which is close to “half-half” in general.
Results of people’s satisfaction with the Policy Address in previous similar surveys (follow-up survey of Policy Address in 1997, 1998 and 2000 – 2007 and second follow-up surveys of Policy Address in 1999, 2008 – 2017) are tabulated below:
|
Date of survey |
Sub-sample base |
Appraisal of PA: Satisfaction [28] |
Appraisal of PA: Half-half |
Appraisal of PA: Dissatisfaction [28] |
Net value (Satisfaction minus dissatisfaction) |
|
Finding & error[29] |
Finding & error[29] |
Finding & error[29] |
Finding & error[29] |
||
|
6-7/11/17 |
501 |
39 [30] +/-4% |
20+/-4% |
32 [30] +/-4% |
7 [30] +/-8% |
|
1-2/2/17 |
506 |
24[30]+/-4% |
21+/-4% |
39[30]+/-4% |
-15[30]+/-7% |
|
1-2/2/16 |
515 |
18[30]+/-3% |
17[30]+/-3% |
54[30]+/-4% |
-36[30]+/-7% |
|
3-4/2/15 |
514 |
22[30] +/-4% |
22[30] +/-4% |
49[30] +/-4% |
-26[30] +/-7% |
|
28-29/1/14 |
516 |
27[30] +/-4% |
27+/-4% |
37[30] +/-4% |
-11[30] +/-7% |
|
22-24/1/13 |
506 |
22+/-4% |
29+/-4% |
45+/-4% |
-23+/-7% |
|
17-20/10/11 |
517 |
33+/-4% |
32+/-4% |
32+/-4% |
1+/-7% |
|
26-27/10/10 |
517 |
31[30]+/-4% |
30+/-4% |
33[30]+/-4% |
-2[30]+/-7% |
|
20-26/10/09 |
506 |
20+/-4% |
28[30]+/-4% |
45[30]+/-4% |
-25[30]+/-7% |
|
27-29/10/08 |
556 |
24[30]+/-4% |
36[30] +/-4% |
35[30]+/-4% |
-11[30]+/-6% |
|
22-23/10/07 |
526 |
43[30]+/-4% |
31[30]+/-4% |
18[30]+/-3% |
25+/-6% |
|
23-24/10/06 |
506 |
26[30]+/-4% |
41[30]+/-4% |
23[30]+/-4% |
3[30]+/-6% |
|
25-27/10/05 |
511 |
41+/-4% |
24+/-4% |
5+/-2% |
36+/-5% |
|
27-31/1/05 |
1,012 |
17+/-2% |
37[30]+/-3% |
23[30]+/-3% |
-6[30]+/-4% |
|
14-16/1/04 |
987 |
10[30]+/-2% |
27[30]+/-3% |
29[30]+/-3% |
-19[30]+/-4% |
|
23-28/1/03 |
1,049 |
13+/-2% |
22[30] +/-3% |
37[30]+/-3% |
-24[30]+/-4% |
|
21-23/10/01 |
1,056 |
14+/-2% |
32[30]+/-3% |
31[30]+/-3% |
-16[30]+/-4% |
|
23-25/10/00 |
1,026 |
15[30]+/-2% |
28+/-3% |
25+/-3% |
-10[30]+/-4% |
|
22/10/99 |
553 |
12[30]+/-3% |
28+/-4% |
27[30]+/-4% |
-15+/-5% |
|
20/10/98 |
460 |
22[30]+/-4% |
31+/-4% |
37[30]+/-5% |
-15+/-7% |
|
14-15/10/97 |
515 |
31[30]+/-4% |
27+/-4% |
14+/-3% |
17+/-6% |
[28] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.
[29] 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.
[30] 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
is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and
different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Compared to similar surveys conducted after the handover, people’s net satisfaction with Carrie Lam’s first Policy Address is higher than those registered for former CE CY Leung’s all five addresses, but it is still lower than those registered for former CE Tsang’s first and third addresses and Tung’s first address.
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Lee.
Our latest survey conducted in early November shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam has significantly decreased by 3.1 marks to 58.9 over the past two weeks. Her latest approval rate is 50%, disapproval rate 36%, giving a net popularity of positive 15 percentage points.
As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Matthew Cheung is 54.6 marks. His approval rate is 35%, disapproval rate 19%, giving a net popularity of positive 17 percentage points. The latest support rating of FS Paul Chan is 43.7 marks, approval rate 23%, disapproval rate 38%, thus a net popularity of negative 15 percentage points. As for SJ Rimsky Yuen, his support rating is 48.3 marks, approval rate 34%, disapproval rate 30%, the net popularity has significantly increased 14 percentage points to positive 5 percentage points. 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 8 among 13 Directors have gone up, while 4 have gone down and 1 remains unchanged. Among them, Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau, Secretary for Security John Lee, Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan and Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan register significant changes in their net approval rates, up by 12, 10, 9, 6 and down by 9 percentage points respectively. Among all the Directors, only Lau Kong-wah registers negative popularity, at negative 9 percentage points. Edward Yau and Sophia Chan are currently the most popular Directors, both with a net approval rate of positive 43 percentage points.
According to POP’s standard, no one falls under the category of “ideal” performer, Carrie Lam falls under the category of “successful” performer. The performance of Edward Yau, Sophia Chan, Law Chi-kwong, Wong Kam-sing, Matthew Cheung, Rimsky Yuen, Nicholas Yang, Kevin Yeung, Frank Chan, Lau Kong-wah and Paul Chan can be labeled as “mediocre”. That of Joshua Law, John Lee, James Lau, Michael Wong 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 |
|
CE Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (50%) |
|
“Mediocre”: those not belonging to other 5 types; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets |
|
Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau Tang-wah (49%); Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan Siu-chee (48%); Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong (46%); Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing (42%); CS Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (35%); SJ Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung (34%); Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang Wei-hsiung (31%)[31]; Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung (31%)[31]; Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan Fan (30%)[32]; Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah (30%)[32]; FS Paul Chan Mo-po (23%) |
|
|
|
“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 (39%, 46%); Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu (34%, 44%); Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Henry Lau Jr (26%, 33%)[33]; Secretary for Development Michael Wong Wai-lun (26%, 36%)[33]; Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip Tak-kuen (21%, 32%) |
|
|
|
“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 |
[31] In one decimal place, the respective approval rates of Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang Wei-hsiung and Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung are 31.2% and 30.7%.
[32] In one decimal place, the respective approval rates of Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan Fan and Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah are 30.4% and 29.9%.
[33] In one decimal place, the respective approval rates of Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Henry Lau Jr and Secretary for Development Michael Wong Wai-lun are 26.5% and 26.4%.
As for the Policy Address, according to our instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of the first Address of Carrie Lam, net satisfaction was positive 34 percentage points and satisfaction rating at 62.4 marks. In our first follow-up survey, it decreased to positive 18 percentage points, while satisfaction rating dropped to 60.6 marks. Three weeks later, net satisfaction has further decreased by 11 percentage points to positive 7 percentage points, while satisfaction rating also decreases to 54.2 marks. People’s net satisfaction with Carrie Lam’s policy direction also decreased significantly by 16 percentage points to positive 12 percentage points. All in all, after many rounds of discussion, people’s appraisal of the policy address has shown no improvement but turned more negative.
Future Release (Tentative)
