HKU POP releases results of Macau annual survey 2017 and the ratings of the best fast food restaurants in Hong KongBack
Press Release on December 19, 2017
| Detailed Findings (Macau annual survey) |
| Detailed Findings (Macau Studies Feature Page) |
| Detailed Findings (Ratings of the Best Fast Food Restaurants) |
Special Announcements
1. Along with the 20th anniversary of the establishment of SAR, the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong starts to regularly announce the “best corporations” in terms of “corporate social responsibility” ratings from July 2017, highlighting 18 business corporations from six major sectors. Such surveys began in 2008 and cover industries of public transportation, telecommunication, banks and financial services, real estate and property development, retail and fast food restaurants. It aims to gauge the public image of different commercial organizations in order to encourage them to become ethical companies. The rating figures released by POP today on the best fast food restaurants are one of the “Best Corporations” survey series. The figures 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.
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
Hong Kong and Macau differ a lot and the figures of their public sentiments cannot be directly compared. However, within the survey series conducted by POP in Macau, they themselves can be compared. Between 27 and 29 September 2017, POP interviewed 505 Macau people by means of a random telephone survey using landlines conducted by real interviewers, and found that the popularity of Macau CE Chui Sai On has dramatically decreased compared to last year. His support rating now stands at 49.5 marks. His net popularity has also dropped rapidly to negative 44 percentage points. Both are new record lows since he took office in 2009, perhaps related to impact and related relief work by the government when Typhoon Hato hit Macau in late August. For the Macau SAR Government, compared to last year, its net satisfaction rate also goes down significantly to negative 19 percentage points, which is the lowest record since this survey series started in 1999. As for the specific policy areas of the Macau SAR Government, in terms of net satisfaction rate, the rankings are: relation with the Central Government at positive 59 percentage points, maintaining economic prosperity at positive 27 percentage points, protection of human rights and freedom at positive 16 percentage points, developing democracy at negative 13 percentage points, and improving people’s livelihood at negative 29 percentage points. The latter two are at their record low since the survey series started in 1999. As for the Central Government, most people continued to rate its policy on Macau positively with a net value of positive 64 percentage points. As for the trust indicators, people’s net trust in the Macau SAR Government has dramatically dropped to positive 17 percentage points, again the lowest since the survey series started in 1999. Net trust in the Central Government, however, stayed at positive 50 percentage points without any significant change. As for the confidence indicators, people’s confidence in the future of Macau has registered a significant drop and the latest net value is positive 43 percentage points, but their confidence in the future of China and “one country, two systems” has remained positive. The latest net values are positive 75 and positive 59 percentage points respectively. In terms of ethnic identity, people’s identity ratings of “Macau people” and “Chinese” have remained highly similar to the figures a year ago, both at 8.0 marks now. As for appraisal of society’s conditions, apart from “stability”, the other three core social indicators have registered significant drops, meaning Macau people were of the view that the degree of “prosperity”, “freedom” and “democracy” have deteriorated. Meanwhile, over half of the respondents were dissatisfied with the government’s emergency relief and follow-up work after Typhoon Hato hit Macau in late August, with a net satisfaction of negative 23 percentage points. The survey also asked about how Macau people thought about the Legislative Assembly Election in September 2017. Results showed that people were generally satisfied with the arrangement on the election day with a net satisfaction rate of positive 73 percentage points, while the net values on “fairness” and “corruption-free” were positive 37 and positive 27 percentage points respectively. All these figures have improved compared to those of the last election. The maximum sampling error of all percentage figures is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures and net values need another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 56%.
Meanwhile, POP conducted a two-stage survey in December on the “Best Fast Food Restaurants”, and the results show that the most well-known fast food restaurant was Café de Coral. Results of rating survey, however, show that McDonald’s has the best CSR reputation in the sector, scoring 55.7 marks, followed by Fairwood and Café de Coral, with 55.5 and 53.2 marks respectively. POP interviewed 527 and 502 Hong Kong people by means of random telephone surveys for the first stage naming survey and second stage rating survey respectively. The sampling errors of rating figures are no greater than +/-2.0 marks at 95% confidence level. The response rate of the rating 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.
Macau Annual Survey
[4] The sample size is 505 successful interviews, not 505 x 56.1% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[5] 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 +/-2.1, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, and that of net values not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level”.
Ratings of the Best Fast Food Restaurants
[6] The sample size of the rating survey is 502 successful interviews, not 502 x 59.9% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[7] The maximum sampling errors of various ratings are not more than +/-2.0. “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 errors of various ratings not more than +/-2.0 at 95% confidence level”.
I. Macau Annual Survey
Latest Figures
POP today releases via the “POP SITE” the results of the Macau annual survey 2017. From July 2017, POP enhanced the previous weighting method that has been used for quite a few years. Apart from gender, age 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 statistics on gender, age, education and economic activity status of the Macau population collected from the 2016 Population By-census by the Statistics and Census Service of Macau government. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
|
Date of survey |
Effective sample size |
Effective response rate |
Maximum sampling error[6] |
|
27-29/9/2017 |
505 |
56.1% |
+/-4% |
[6] 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.
1. Popularity figures of Macau CE and the Government
Recent popularity figures of Macau CE Chui Sai On and people’s satisfaction of the overall performance of the SAR Government are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
6-12/12/13 |
1-3/12/14 |
8-9/12/15 |
1-9/12/16 |
27-29/9/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
511 |
502 |
510 |
520 |
505 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
69.6% |
66.5% |
66.1% |
65.6% |
56.1% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[9] |
-- |
|
Rating of CE Chui Sai On |
61.1[11] |
56.2[11] |
57.5 |
60.7[11] |
49.5+/-2.1 |
-11.2[11] |
|
Vote of confidence in
|
39%[11] |
38% |
39% |
44%[11] |
21+/-4% |
-23%[11] |
|
Vote of no confidence in
|
39%[11] |
42% |
43% |
39% |
66+/-4% |
+27%[11] |
|
Net approval rate |
0%[11] |
-4% |
-4% |
5%[11] |
-44+/-7% |
-49%[11] |
|
Satisfaction rate of
|
41%[11] |
35%[11] |
34% |
44%[11] |
25+/-4% |
-19%[11] |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of
|
26%[11] |
34%[11] |
28% |
20%[11] |
44+/-4% |
+24%[11] |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
15%[11] |
2%[11] |
6% |
24%[11] |
-19+/-7% |
-43%[11] |
|
Mean value[10] |
3.1[11] (Base=511) |
2.9[11] (Base=501) |
3.0 (Base=507) |
3.2[11] (Base=516) |
2.7+/-0.1 (Base=496) |
-0.5[11] |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[9] 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 +/-2.1, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net values 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.
[10] 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.
[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.
The latest survey showed that CE Chui Sai On scored 49.5 marks, 21% supported him as CE and 66% opposed, giving him a net approval rate of negative 44 percentage points. Regarding people’s appraisal of the overall performance of the Macau SAR Government, the latest figures revealed that 25% were satisfied, whereas 44% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of negative 19 percentage points. The mean score is 2.7, which is close to “half-half”.
Recent figures on Macau people’s appraisal of the five specific policy areas of the Macau SAR Government, and towards Central Government’s policy on Macau since the handover are tabulated as follows:
|
Date of survey |
6-12/12/13 |
1-3/12/14 |
8-9/12/15 |
1-9/12/16 |
27-29/9/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
511 |
502 |
510 |
520 |
505 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
69.6% |
66.5% |
66.1% |
65.6% |
56.1% |
-- |
|
Finding[12] |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[13] |
-- |
|
Relation with the Central Government: Satisfaction rate |
66% |
64% |
57% |
70%[14] |
65+/-4% |
-5%[14] |
|
Relation with the Central Government: Dissatisfaction rate |
6% |
7% |
5% |
5% |
6+/-2% |
+1% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
60% |
57% |
53% |
65%[14] |
59+/-5% |
-6%[14] |
|
Mean value |
3.8 (Base=449) |
3.7 (Base=465) |
3.7 (Base=444) |
3.9[14] (Base=472) |
3.8+/-0.1 (Base=442) |
-0.1 |
|
Maintaining economic prosperity: Satisfaction rate |
61% |
51%[14] |
44%[14] |
59%[14] |
50+/-4% |
-9%[14] |
|
Maintaining economic prosperity: Dissatisfaction rate |
13% |
23%[14] |
22% |
14%[14] |
23+/-4% |
+9%[14] |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
47% |
29%[14] |
22%[14] |
45%[14] |
27+/-7% |
-18%[14] |
|
Mean value |
3.5 (Base=508) |
3.3[14] (Base=498) |
3.2 (Base=503) |
3.5[14] (Base=509) |
3.2+/-0.1 (Base=490) |
-0.3[14] |
|
Protecting human rights and freedom: Satisfaction rate |
41% |
38% |
40% |
43% |
44+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Protecting human rights and freedom: Dissatisfaction rate |
21% |
23% |
23% |
20% |
28+/-4% |
+8%[14] |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
20% |
15% |
17% |
23% |
16+/-7% |
-7% |
|
Mean value |
3.2 (Base=482) |
3.1 (Base=478) |
3.1 (Base=469) |
3.2 (Base=486) |
3.1+/-0.1 (Base=458) |
-0.1 |
|
Pace of democratic development: Satisfaction rate |
28%[14] |
27% |
32% |
36% |
26+/-4% |
-10%[14] |
|
Pace of democratic development: Dissatisfaction rate |
31%[14] |
36%[14] |
30% |
22%[14] |
39+/-4% |
+17%[14] |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
-3%[14] |
-9% |
2% |
14%[14] |
-13+/-7% |
-27%[14] |
|
Mean value |
2.9 [14] (Base=458) |
2.8 (Base=465) |
2.9 (Base=458) |
3.1[14] (Base=471) |
2.7+/-0.1 (Base=436) |
-0.4[14] |
|
Improving people’s livelihood: Satisfaction rate |
37%[14] |
34% |
34% |
44%[14] |
24+/-4% |
-20%[14] |
|
Improving people’s livelihood: Dissatisfaction rate |
34%[14] |
42%[14] |
34%[14] |
28%[14] |
53+/-4% |
+25%[14] |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
3%[14] |
-9%[14] |
0% |
16%[14] |
-29+/-7% |
-45%[14] |
|
Mean value |
3.0 [14] (Base=507) |
2.8[14] (Base=495) |
2.9 (Base=502) |
3.1[14] (Base=516) |
2.5+/-0.1 (Base=494) |
-0.6[14] |
|
Central Government’s policy on Macau since the handover: positive evaluation |
66%[14] |
64% |
63% |
70%[14] |
71+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Central Government’s policy on Macau since the handover: negative evaluation |
7%[14] |
7% |
5%[14] |
6% |
7+/-2% |
+1% |
|
Net evaluation |
60%[14] |
57% |
58% |
63% |
64+/-5% |
+1% |
|
Mean value |
3.8 (Base=491) |
3.7 (Base=488) |
3.8 (Base=489) |
3.8 (Base=496) |
3.9+/-0.1 (Base=480) |
+0.1 |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[12] 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.
[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 percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net values 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 is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Of the five specific policy areas, people were most satisfied with the government’s handling of its relation with the Central Government, with a net satisfaction rate of positive 59 percentage points. The government’s performance in maintaining economic prosperity followed, attaining a net satisfaction rate of positive 27 percentage points. The government’s performance in protecting human rights and freedom attained a net satisfaction rate of positive 16 percentage points. Finally, the net satisfaction rates of the government’s performance in developing democracy and improving people’s livelihood are negative 13 and negative 29 percentage points respectively. The mean scores of these five specific areas are 3.8, 3.2, 3.1, 2.7 and 2.5 respectively, meaning in between “quite satisfied” and “quite dissatisfied” in general. Meanwhile, 71% of the respondents evaluated positively on the policy of the Central Government on Macau after the handover, whereas 7% gave negative evaluations, giving a net value of positive 64 percentage points. The mean score is 3.9, meaning close to “quite satisfied”.
2. Trust and confidence indicators
Recent popularity figures of Macau SAR Government and Beijing Central Government and people’s confidence in the future as well as “one country, two systems” are summarized below:
|
Date of survey |
6-12/12/13 |
1-3/12/14 |
8-9/12/15 |
1-9/12/16 |
27-29/9/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
511 |
502 |
510 |
520 |
505 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
69.6% |
66.5% |
66.1% |
65.6% |
56.1% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[15] |
-- |
|
Trust in SAR Government[16] |
58%[17] |
53%[17] |
51%[17] |
64%[17] |
48+/-4% |
-16%[17] |
|
Distrust in SAR Government[16] |
19%[17] |
21% |
19% |
15%[17] |
31+/-4% |
+16%[17] |
|
Net trust |
39%[17] |
32% |
33% |
49%[17] |
17+/-8% |
-32%[17] |
|
Mean value[16] |
3.4 [17] (Base=501) |
3.4 (Base=495) |
3.4 (Base=496) |
3.6[17] (Base=515) |
3.2+/-0.1 (Base=488) |
-0.4[17] |
|
Trust in Central Government[16] |
56% |
52% |
55% |
61%[17] |
63+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Distrust in Central Government[16] |
16%[17] |
19% |
11%[17] |
11% |
13+/-3% |
+2% |
|
Net trust |
40%[17] |
33% |
44%[17] |
51%[17] |
50+/-6% |
-1% |
|
Mean value[16] |
3.5 [17] (Base=468) |
3.5 (Base=486) |
3.6 (Base=464) |
3.7 (Base=475) |
3.8+/-0.1 (Base=456) |
+0.1 |
|
Confidence in Macau’s future |
76%[17] |
74% |
67%[17] |
79%[17] |
69+/-4% |
-10%[17] |
|
No-confidence in Macau’s future |
19%[17] |
21% |
24% |
15%[17] |
26+/-4% |
+11%[17] |
|
Net confidence |
57%[17] |
53% |
43%[17] |
64%[17] |
43+/-8% |
-21%[17] |
|
Confidence in China’s future |
81%[17] |
80% |
85%[17] |
83% |
84+/-3% |
+1% |
|
No-confidence in China’s future |
12%[17] |
14% |
10%[17] |
10% |
9+/-3% |
-1% |
|
Net confidence |
69%[17] |
66% |
76%[17] |
74% |
75+/-5% |
+1% |
|
Confidence in “one country, two systems” |
75%[17] |
70%[17] |
75% |
79% |
77+/-4% |
-2% |
|
No-confidence in “one country, two systems” |
19%[17] |
23% |
15%[17] |
14% |
17+/-3% |
+3% |
|
Net confidence |
56%[17] |
46%[17] |
60%[17] |
65% |
59+/-7% |
-6% |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[15] 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 of net values not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[16] 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.
[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.
Latest survey revealed that 48% of the respondents trusted the SAR Government, 63% trusted the Beijing Central Government. The net trust values were positive 17 and positive 50 percentage points, while the mean scores of these trust indicators were 3.2 and 3.8 respectively, meaning between “quite trust” and “half-half” in general. On the other hand, 69% of the respondents had confidence in Macau’s future and 84% had confidence in China’s future, while 77% of the respondents were confident in “one country, two systems”. The three net confidence values were positive 43, positive 75 and positive 59 percentage points respectively.
3. Ethnic identity
Recent figures on Macau people’s ratings on two separate identities are tabulated as follows:
|
Date of survey |
6-12/12/13 |
1-3/12/14 |
8-9/12/15 |
1-9/12/16 |
27-29/9/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
511 |
502 |
510 |
520 |
505 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
69.6% |
66.5% |
66.1% |
65.6% |
56.1% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[18] |
-- |
|
Strength rating of being “Macau people” |
7.9[19] |
8.0 |
7.9 |
8.2[19] |
8.0+/-0.2 |
-0.2 |
|
Strength rating of being “Chinese” |
7.6[19] |
7.7 |
7.9[19] |
8.0 |
8.0+/-0.2 |
-- |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[18] 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 strength ratings not more than +/-0.2 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[19] 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.
The above figures were collected from independent rating questions and do not involve a dichotomy between “Macau people” and “Chinese”. Latest findings showed that the identity ratings for “Macau people” and “Chinese” were both 8.0 marks.
4. Appraisal of society’s conditions
Recent figures of Macau people’s appraisal of society’s conditions are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
6-12/12/13 |
1-3/12/14 |
8-9/12/15 |
1-9/12/16 |
27-29/9/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
511 |
502 |
510 |
520 |
505 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
69.6% |
66.5% |
66.1% |
65.6% |
56.1% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[20] |
-- |
|
Degree of stability |
7.20[21] |
7.20 |
7.22 |
7.45[21] |
7.45+/-0.16 |
-- |
|
Degree of prosperity |
7.41[21] |
7.22[21] |
6.76[21] |
7.24[21] |
6.95+/-0.18 |
-0.29[21] |
|
Degree of freedom |
6.82[21] |
6.71 |
6.90 |
7.10[21] |
6.82+/-0.19 |
-0.28[21] |
|
Degree of democracy |
5.49[21] |
5.51 |
5.58 |
6.07[21] |
5.72+/-0.20 |
-0.35[21] |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[20] 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 +/-0.20 at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[21] 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 survey showed that on a scale of 0-10, Macau’s degree of “stability” scored the highest rating with 7.45 marks, followed by “prosperity” with 6.95 marks, and then “freedom” and “democracy”, with 6.82 and 5.72 marks respectively.
|
Satisfied |
Half-half |
Dissatisfied |
Net value |
|
|
Macau was previously hit by Typhoon Hato. Are you satisfied with the government’s emergency relief and follow-up work? |
31+/-4% |
13+/-3% |
54+/-4% |
-23+/-8% |
The survey also asked if the respondents were satisfied with the government’s emergency relief and follow-up work after Typhoon Hato hit Macau. Results showed that 31% were satisfied while 54% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 23 percentage points.
5. Evaluation of the 2017 Legislative Assembly Election
In order to gauge Macau citizens’ views on “The sixth term of Macau Legislative Assembly Election” held on 17 September 2017, the survey also asked some follow-up questions on the election. Here is part of the results together with those in 2013:
|
Date of survey |
24-26/9/13 |
27-29/9/17 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
507 |
505 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
65.9% |
56.1% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[22] |
-- |
|
Satisfied with the arrangement on the election day |
73% |
75+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Dissatisfied with the arrangement on the election day |
5% |
2+/-1% |
-3%[23] |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
68% |
73+/-4% |
+5%[23] |
|
Thought the election was fair |
50% |
61+/-4% |
+11%[23] |
|
Thought the election was unfair |
35% |
23+/-4% |
-12%[23] |
|
Net value |
15% |
37+/-7% |
+22%[23] |
|
Thought the election was free of corruption |
39% |
55+/-4% |
+16%[23] |
|
Thought the election was not free of corruption |
41% |
27+/-4% |
-14%[23] |
|
Net value |
-2% |
27+/-8% |
+29%[23] |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used.
[22] 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 +/-8% and of net values not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[23] 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.
Survey results showed that 75% of the respondents were satisfied with the arrangement on the election day, while 61% thought the election was fair and 55% thought it was free of corruption. For other survey results, please refer to our POP Site.
II. Ratings of the Best Fast Food Restaurants in Hong Kong
In 2008, HKUPOP initiated a tracking survey series on Corporate Social Responsibility, aiming to gauge the public image of different commercial organizations in order to encourage them to become ethical companies and select the best corporations. There are a total of six modules under this survey series, namely, 1) Public Transportation, 2) Telecommunication, 3) Banks and Financial Services, 4) Real Estate and Property Development, 5) Retail, and 6) Fast Food Restaurant. From January to December 2015, the survey was sponsored by Metro Broadcast Corporation Ltd and branded as “Metro CSR Index”. Results were released every month in the website of Metro Radio.
At the beginning, these surveys were conducted once every three months, with two different modules each time. From July 2017, the frequency was changed to once every six months, with one module only for each survey. The surveys were conducted in two stages. In the first stage, respondents were requested to nominate, unprompted, at most 5 corporations that they can think of. POP would then select from this list of unprompted nominees the 3 most frequently cited names for the next stage survey. During the second stage survey, respondents would be asked to rate the CSR performance for each of the shortlisted corporations using a 0-100 scale. 0 indicates extremely poor performance, 100 indicates extremely good performance, and 50 means half-half.
Latest Figures
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 surveys of the best fast food restaurants under the Best Corporations series:
|
Date of survey |
Effective sample size |
Effective response rate |
Maximum sampling error[25] |
|
5/12/2017 (Naming survey) |
527 |
58.9% |
+/-4% |
|
6/12/2017 (Rating survey) |
502 |
59.9% |
+/-2.0 |
[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.
The research design of our “Best Corporation” rating survey has been explained in detail under “Survey Method” in our corresponding web page. The corporations being rated in our latest survey were those which obtained highest unprompted mentions in our first stage naming survey conducted in early December 2017. In the survey, respondents could name up to 5 local fast food restaurants which they knew best. The top three corporations mentioned most frequently in the sector were: Café de Coral, Fairwood and McDonald’s. These corporations then entered into the second stage rating survey conducted in the same month, respondents were asked to rate each short-listed corporations using a 0-100 scale. 0 indicates extremely poor performance, 100 indicates extremely good performance, and 50 means half-half.
Recent ratings of the best fast food restaurants are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
12-14/12/2016 |
21-22/3/2017 |
7-8/6/2017 |
6/12/2017 |
Latest change |
|
|
Sample size |
516 |
512 |
505 |
502 |
-- |
|
|
Response rate* |
73.1% |
72.6% |
68.7% |
59.9% |
-- |
|
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error [26] |
Recognition rate |
-- |
|
McDonald’s |
57.4{1} |
59.6{1}[27] |
53.7{2}[27] |
55.7+/-2.0{1} |
95.9% |
+2.0 |
|
Fairwood |
57.0{2}[27] |
58.0{2} |
55.1{1}[27] |
55.5+/-1.8{2} |
94.2% |
+0.4 |
|
Café de Coral |
56.3{3}[27] |
57.5{3} |
53.1{3}[27] |
53.2+/-1.9{3} |
94.2% |
+0.1 |
* “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 various ratings not more than +/-2.0 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. Numbers in square brackets { } indicates rankings. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[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.
Our latest survey showed that McDonald’s was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local fast food restaurants, scored 55.7 marks, while Fairwood and Café de Coral scored 55.5 and 53.2 marks respectively.
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Lee.
Hong Kong and Macau differ a lot and the figures of their public sentiments cannot be directly compared. However, within the survey series conducted by POP in Macau, they themselves can be compared.
According to our annual survey completed in late September, the popularity of Macau CE Chui Sai On has dramatically decreased compared to last year. His support rating now stands at 49.5 marks. His net popularity has also dropped rapidly to negative 44 percentage points. Both are new record lows since he took office in 2009, perhaps related to impact and related relief work by the government when Typhoon Hato hit Macau in late August. For the Macau SAR Government, compared to last year, its net satisfaction rate also goes down significantly to negative 19 percentage points, which is the lowest record since this survey series started in 1999.
As for the specific policy areas of the Macau SAR Government, in terms of net satisfaction rate, the rankings are: relation with the Central Government at positive 59 percentage points, maintaining economic prosperity at positive 27 percentage points, protection of human rights and freedom at positive 16 percentage points, developing democracy at negative 13 percentage points, and improving people’s livelihood at negative 29 percentage points. The latter two are at their record low since the survey series started in 1999. As for the Central Government, most people continued to rate its policy on Macau positively with a net value of positive 64 percentage points.
As for the trust indicators, people’s net trust in the Macau SAR Government has dramatically dropped to positive 17 percentage points, again the lowest since the survey series started in 1999. Net trust in the Central Government, however, stayed at positive 50 percentage points without any significant change. As for the confidence indicators, people’s confidence in the future of Macau has registered a significant drop and the latest net value is positive 43 percentage points, but their confidence in the future of China and “one country, two systems” has remained positive. The latest net values are positive 75 and positive 59 percentage points respectively.
In terms of ethnic identity, people’s identity ratings of “Macau people” and “Chinese” have remained highly similar to the figures a year ago, both at 8.0 marks now.
As for appraisal of society’s conditions, apart from “stability”, the other three core social indicators have registered significant drops, meaning Macau people were of the view that the degree of “prosperity”, “freedom” and “democracy” have deteriorated. Meanwhile, over half of the respondents were dissatisfied with the government’s emergency relief and follow-up work after Typhoon Hato hit Macau in late August, with a net satisfaction of negative 23 percentage points.
The survey also asked about how Macau people thought about the Legislative Assembly Election in September 2017. Results showed that people were generally satisfied with the arrangement on the election day with a net satisfaction rate of positive 73 percentage points, while the net values on “fairness” and “corruption-free” were positive 37 and positive 27 percentage points respectively. All these figures have improved compared to those of the last election.
Meanwhile, our “Best Fast Food Restaurants” survey conducted in December shows that the most well-known fast food restaurant was Café de Coral. Results of rating survey, however, show that McDonald’s has the best CSR reputation in the sector, scoring 55.7 marks, followed by Fairwood and Café de Coral, with 55.5 and 53.2 marks respectively.
Future Release (Tentative)
