HKU POP releases findings of Policy Address instant pollBack
Press Release on October 11, 2018
| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |
Abstract
The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong interviewed 584 Hong Kong people last night (October 10, 2018), including 195 landline samples and 109 mobile samples by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers, plus 280 panel samples by online survey. Some of its findings have already been released via our “HKU POP Site” (http://hkupop.pori.hk) yesterday, today we release the more comprehensive and in-depth analyses. According to our latest Policy Address instant survey, among those who had some knowledge of the second Address by CE Carrie Lam, 33% said they were satisfied, 34% said they were not, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 1 percentage point, which goes down significantly by 34 percentage points from the last Address delivered. On a scale of 0-100, this Address scored 48.5 marks, which is also significantly worse than that of last October, down by 13.9 marks. Looking back, among the 22 Policy Addresses after the handover and counting both rating and net satisfaction of instant surveys alone, people’s appraisal of this year’s Address is very similar to that of CY Leung’s third Address delivered in 2015. Of course, how public opinion would change after CE and her officials explain their policies remains to be seen. As for Lam’s own popularity after the Address, her support rating has significantly decreased by 4.7 marks from early October to 47.6, while her net approval rate drops significantly from positive 4 to negative 10 percentage points, both at all-time record low since she became CE. Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 23% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased after the Policy Address, 45% said their confidence had dropped, while 25% said “no change”, thereby giving a net effect of negative 22 percentage points on people’s confidence, significantly decreased by 43 percentage points from that of last October. Other further analyses show that the younger the respondents, the more dissatisfied they are with this second Address by CE Carrie Lam and also show stronger opposition to her as CE. Our instant survey describes people’s instant reaction towards the Policy Address, their follow-up reactions remain to be seen. The sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling errors of rating figures and net values need another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 66%.
Points to note:
[1] The address of the “HKU POP SITE” is http://hkupop.pori.hk, journalists can check out the details of the survey there.
[2] The sample size of this survey is 584 successful interviews, not 584 x 65.9% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] “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%, that of ratings not more than +/-2.5 and net values not more than +/-8%, at 95% confidence level”.
[4] Because of sampling errors in conducting the survey(s) and the rounding procedures in processing the data, the figures cannot be too precise, and the totals may not be completely accurate. Therefore, when quoting percentages of the survey(s), journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, but when quoting the rating figures, one decimal place can be used.
[5] The data of this survey is collected by means of random telephone interviews conducted by real interviewers, not by any interactive voice system (IVS). If a research organization uses “computerized random telephone survey” to camouflage its IVS operation, it should be considered unprofessional.
Background
Since 1992, POP has been conducting Policy Address instant surveys every year. From 1998 onwards, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. Starting from 2008, we split up our instant survey into two surveys. In our first 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. In our second survey, we focus on people’s reactions towards different government proposals, their satisfaction with CE’s policy direction, and other relevant issues. The instant survey we conducted this year is the eleventh survey under our new operation. Some of its findings have already been released via our “POP Site” yesterday, today we release the more comprehensive and in-depth analyses.
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 group is now also taken into account when adjusting data. The latest figures released today have been rim-weighted according to figures provided by the Census and Statistics Department. The gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population came from “Mid-year population for 2017”, while the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and economic activity status distribution came from “Women and Men in Hong Kong - Key Statistics (2018 Edition)”. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
|
Date of survey |
Sample size |
Effective response rate |
Maximum sampling error of percentages[6] |
|
10/10/2018 |
584 |
65.9% |
+/-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. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sampling error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
Recent figures on Carrie Lam’s popularity are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
20-22/8/18 |
3-6/9/18 |
18-20/9/18 |
2-4/10/18 |
10/10/18 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
1,022 |
1,030 |
1,002 |
1,002 |
584 |
-- |
|
Effective response rate |
53.0% |
50.4% |
55.6% |
46.8% |
65.9% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error [7] |
-- |
|
Rating of CE Carrie Lam |
55.3 |
57.3 |
50.8[8] |
52.3 |
47.6+/-2.5 |
-4.7[8] |
|
Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam |
49% |
48% |
40%[8] |
44% |
37+/-4% |
-6%[8] |
|
Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam |
35%[8] |
38% |
45%[8] |
40%[8] |
48+/-4% |
+8%[8] |
|
Net approval rate |
14%[8] |
10% |
-4%[8] |
4%[8] |
-10+/-8% |
-14%[8] |
[7] 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 +/-2.5, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net approval rates 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.
[8] 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.
Figures on Chief Executive’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from the handover till present are summarized as follows:
|
CE Tung Chee-hwa’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 1997 to 2005 |
||||||||
|
1st Policy Address |
2nd Policy Address |
3rd Policy Address |
4th Policy Address |
5th Policy Address |
6th Policy Address |
7th Policy Address |
8th Policy Address |
|
|
Date of PA Speech |
8/10/97 |
7/10/98 |
6/10/99 |
11/10/00 |
10/10/01 |
8/1/03 |
7/1/04 |
12/1/05 |
|
CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error [9] |
65.8+/-1.4 |
55.8+/-1.6 |
54.0+/-1.8 |
48.2+/-2.2 |
48.4+/-1.4 |
46.6+/-1.4 |
42.9+/-1.4 |
47.2+/-1.2 |
|
CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error [9] |
66.1+/-1.0 |
56.1+/-1.0 |
54.3+/-1.4 |
50.7+/-1.4 |
50.6+/-1.4 |
47.3+/-1.4 |
44.6+/-1.4 |
48.4+/-1.4 |
|
Change in CE’s rating |
+0.3 |
+0.3 |
+0.3 |
+2.5[10] |
+2.2[10] |
+0.7 |
+1.7[10] |
+1.2 |
|
CE Donald Tsang’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 2005 to 2011 |
||||||||
|
1st Policy Address |
2nd Policy Address |
3rd Policy Address |
4th Policy Address |
5th Policy Address |
6th Policy Address |
7th Policy Address |
||
|
Date of Policy Address Speech |
12/10/05 |
11/10/06 |
10/10/07 |
15/10/08 |
14/10/09 |
13/10/10 |
12/10/11 |
|
|
CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error [9] |
68.0+/-1.0 |
62.9+/-1.2 |
65.8+/-1.2 |
52.7+/-1.3 |
55.2+/-1.2 |
55.4+/-1.2 |
48.4+/-1.4 |
|
|
CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error [9] |
67.4+/-1.1 |
59.8+/-1.1 |
64.4+/-1.0 |
53.9+/-1.6 |
54.2+/-1.4 |
56.2+/-1.6 |
50.6+/-1.6 |
|
|
Change in CE’s rating |
-0.6 |
-3.1[10] |
-1.4[10] |
+1.2 |
-1.0 |
+0.8 |
+2.2[10] |
|
|
CE’s net approval rate before the PA & error [9] |
68+/-4% |
48+/-5% |
48+/-5% |
5+/-6% |
7+/-6% |
-1+/-6% |
-45+/-5% |
|
|
CE’s net approval rate at PA instant survey & error [9] |
65+/-4% |
36+/-5% |
48+/-5% |
10+/-7% |
8+/-7% |
0+/-8% |
-41+/-6% |
|
|
Change in CE’s net approval rate [11] |
-3% |
-12% [10] |
-- |
+5% |
+1% |
+1% |
+4% |
|
|
CE CY Leung’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 2013 to 2017 |
||||||||
|
1st Policy Address |
2nd Policy Address |
3rd Policy Address |
4th Policy Address |
5th Policy Address |
||||
|
Date of Policy Address Speech |
16/1/13 |
15/1/14 |
14/1/15 |
13/1/16 |
18/1/17 |
|||
|
CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error [9] |
48.9+/-1.6 |
45.6+/-1.6 |
40.6+/-1.8 |
37.5+/-1.9 |
41.3+/-2.0 |
|||
|
CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error [9] |
52.2+/-1.6 |
48.9+/-1.6 |
44.8+/-2.3 |
37.0+/-2.3 |
41.7+/-2.3 |
|||
|
Change in CE’s rating |
+3.3[10] |
+3.3[10] |
+4.2[10] |
-0.5 |
+0.4 |
|||
|
CE’s net approval rate before the PA & error [9] |
-20+/-6% |
-31+/-5% |
-39+/-5% |
-44+/-5% |
-44+/-5% |
|||
|
CE’s net approval rate at PA instant survey & error [9] |
-11+/-6% |
-24+/-6% |
-35+/-7% |
-54+/-6% |
-57+/-6% |
|||
|
Change in CE’s net approval rate [11] |
+9%[10] |
+7%[10] |
+4% |
-10%[10] |
-13%[10] |
|||
|
CE Carrie Lam’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 2017 to 2018 |
||||||||
|
1st Policy Address |
2nd Policy Address |
|||||||
|
Date of Policy Address Speech |
11/10/17 |
10/10/18 |
||||||
|
CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error [9] |
59.6+/-1.7 |
52.3+/-1.7 |
||||||
|
CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error [9] |
61.1+/-1.7 |
47.6+/-2.5 |
||||||
|
Change in CE’s rating |
+1.5 |
-4.7[10] |
||||||
|
CE’s net approval rate before the PA & error [9] |
10+/-6% |
4+/-6% |
||||||
|
CE’s net approval rate at PA instant survey & error [9] |
23+/-7% |
-10+/-8% |
||||||
|
Change in CE’s net approval rate [11] |
+13%[10] |
-14%[10] |
||||||
[9] The error figures 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.
[10] 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.
[11] Instant surveys on Policy Address included CE’s approval rate since 2004, so it is not listed under Tung’s series.
The install poll conducted last night showed that, after CE Carrie Lam announced her Policy Address, her latest support rating was 47.6 marks, with an approval and disapproval rate of 37% and 48% respectively, giving a net approval of negative 10 percentage points. As for people’s satisfaction of various Policy Addresses after the handover, the figures are summarized below:
|
Date of survey |
Sub- sample base[13] |
Appraisal of Policy Address[12] |
|||||
|
Satisfaction rate[14] |
Half-half |
Dissatisfaction rate[14] |
Net satisfaction rate |
Mean value[14] |
Satisfaction rating of Policy Address |
||
|
10/10/18 |
534 |
33+/-4%[15] |
24+/-4% |
34+/-4%[15] |
-1+/-7%[15] |
2.9+/-0.1[15] (Base=484) |
48.5+/-2.5[15] |
|
11/10/17 |
526 |
48+/-4%[15] |
28+/-4%[15] |
14+/-3%[15] |
34+/-6%[15] |
3.5+/-0.1[15] (Base=466) |
62.4+/-1.8[15] |
|
18/1/17 |
512 |
34+/-4%[15] |
22+/-4% |
29+/-4%[15] |
5+/-7%[15] |
3.0+/-0.1[15] (Base=431) |
52.3+/-2.4[15] |
|
13/1/16 |
522 |
19+/-3%[15] |
23+/-4% |
39+/-4% |
-20+/-6%[15] |
2.5+/-0.1[15] (Base=423) |
41.1+/-2.6[15] |
|
14/1/15 |
503 |
30+/-4%[15] |
24+/-4%[15] |
35+/-4% |
-5+/-7%[15] |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=449) |
49.5+/-2.4[15] |
|
15/1/14 |
611 |
36+/-4% |
30+/-4%[15] |
31+/-4%[15] |
5+/-7% |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=593) |
54.1+/-1.9[15] |
|
16/1/13 |
759 |
36+/-3%[15] |
35+/-3% |
24+/-3%[15] |
11+/-6%[15] |
3.1+/-0.1 (Base=717) |
56.4+/-1.7[15] |
|
12/10/11 |
816 |
47+/-3%[15] |
32+/-3% |
18+/-3% |
28+/-5%[15] |
3.3+/-0.1 (Base=791) |
59.1+/-1.4 |
|
13/10/10 |
747 |
41+/-4%[15] |
33+/-3%[15] |
19+/-3%[15] |
22+/-5%[15] |
3.2+/-0.1 (Base=695) |
58.9+/-1.4[15] |
|
14/10/09 |
462 |
30+/-4% |
37+/-4% |
28+/-4% |
2+/-7% |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=434) |
53.5+/-2.1 |
|
15/10/08 |
515 |
31+/-4%[15] |
35+/-4%[15] |
26+/-4%[15] |
4+/-7%[15] |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=474) |
53.8+/-2.0[15] |
|
10/10/07 |
602 |
52+/-4%[15] |
29+/-4%[15] |
10+/-2%[15] |
42+/-5%[15] |
3.5+/-0.1 (Base=551) |
65.2+/-1.6[15] |
|
11/10/06 |
445 |
30+/-4%[15] |
37+/-5% |
22+/-4%[15] |
8+/-7%[15] |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=397) |
55.8+/-2.0[15] |
|
12/10/05 |
377 |
48+/-5%[15] |
33+/-5% |
9+/-3%[15] |
39+/-7%[15] |
3.5+/-0.1 (Base=338) |
66.4+/-1.9[15] |
|
12/1/05 |
391 |
38+/-5%[15] |
30+/-5% |
20+/-4%[15] |
18+/-7%[15] |
3.2+/-0.1 (Base=342) |
56.3+/-2.4[15] |
|
7/1/04 |
381 |
25+/-4% |
26+/-4% |
33+/-5%[15] |
-8+/-8% |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=322) |
49.3+/-2.4 |
|
8/1/03[16] |
377 |
22+/-4%[15] |
29+/-5% |
27+/-5% |
-5+/-7% |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=561) |
51.6+/-2.6[15] |
|
10/10/01 |
433 |
29+/-4% |
33+/-5% |
27+/-4% |
1+/-7% |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=386) |
56.7+/-2.2 |
|
11/10/00 |
262 |
25+/-5%[15] |
28+/-6% |
31+/-6% |
-6+/-9%[15] |
2.9+/-0.1 (Base=219) |
55.2+/-2.8 |
|
6/10/99 |
236 |
31+/-6%[15] |
30+/-6% |
25+/-6%[15] |
6+/-10%[15] |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=202) |
57.3+/-2.8 |
|
7/10/98 |
508 |
22+/-4%[15] |
35+/-4%[15] |
35+/-4%[15] |
-14+/-7%[15] |
2.8+/-0.1 (Base=469) |
-- |
|
8/10/97 |
534 |
45+/-4% |
30+/-4%[15] |
14+/-3%[15] |
31+/-6% |
3.4+/-0.1 (Base=474) |
-- |
[12] 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.
[13] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Because of the smaller sample size, the sampling error has increased accordingly.
[14] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[15] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.
[16] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis. Aggregate results are available in our “POP SITE”.
After excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, this instant survey showed that 33% were satisfied with it, 34% were dissatisfied and 24% said “half-half”, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 1 percentage point. The mean score is 2.9, meaning close to “half-half” in general. Meanwhile, the average rating registered for the Policy Address was 48.5 marks. Because some of the respondents said they were not familiar with the Policy Address during the instant poll, the valid sub-sample of this item was smaller. The sampling error for this question has increased accordingly.
The survey also gauged the change of people’s confidence towards Hong Kong’s future after CE Carrie Lam has delivered her Policy Address. Results are as follows:
|
Date of survey |
Sub-sample base[18] |
Confidence in HK’s future[17] |
||||
|
Increased |
Unchanged |
Decreased |
Don’t know/ Hard to say |
Net effect on confidence |
||
|
10/10/18 |
534 |
23+/-4%[19] |
25+/-4%[19] [20] |
45+/-4%[19] |
7+/-2%[19] |
-22+/-7%[19] |
|
11/10/17 |
526 |
40+/-4%[19] |
39+/-4% |
19+/-3%[19] |
3+/-1%[19] |
21+/-6%[19] |
|
18/1/17 |
511 |
24+/-4%[19] |
36+/-4%[19] |
32+/-4%[19] |
7+/-2%[19] |
-8+/-7%[19] |
|
13/1/16 |
521 |
16+/-3%[19] |
31+/-4% |
44+/-4%[19] |
10+/-3%[19] |
-27+/-6%[19] |
|
14/1/15 |
501 |
22+/-4% |
35+/-4% |
38+/-4%[19] |
5+/-2% |
-16+/-7% |
|
15/1/14 |
846 |
24+/-3%[19] |
38+/-3% |
32+/-3%[19] |
5+/-2%[19] |
-9+/-5%[19] |
|
16/1/13 |
913 |
31+/-3% |
38+/-3%[19] |
23+/-3% |
7+/-2%[19] |
8+/-5% |
|
12/10/11 |
957 |
29+/-3% |
45+/-3% |
21+/-3% |
5+/-1% |
8+/-5%[19] |
|
13/10/10 |
914 |
31+/-3%[19] |
45+/-3% |
18+/-3%[19] |
6+/-2% |
14+/-5%[19] |
|
14/10/09 |
749 |
27+/-3%[19] |
47+/-4%[19] |
22+/-3%[19] |
5+/-2% |
5+/-5%[19] |
|
15/10/08 |
761 |
23+/-3%[19] |
38+/-4%[19] |
32+/-3%[19] |
7+/-2% |
-9+/-5%[19] |
|
10/10/07 |
388 |
53+/-5%[19] |
31%/-5%[19] |
7+/-3%[19] |
9+/-3% |
46+/-6%[19] |
|
11/10/06 |
431 |
25+/-4%[19] |
51+/-5%[19] |
16+/-4%[19] |
8+/-3% |
9+/-6%[19] |
|
12/10/05 |
476 |
54+/-5%[19] |
33+/-4%[19] |
5+/-2%[19] |
8+/-2%[19] |
49+/-5%[19] |
|
12/1/05 |
658 |
34+/-4% |
41+/-4% |
12+/-3%[19] |
14+/-3% |
22+/-5%[19] |
|
7/1/04 |
602 |
32+/-4%[19] |
40+/-4% |
16+/-3%[19] |
12+/-3% |
16+/-5%[19] |
|
8/1/03[21] |
513 |
25+/-4% |
40+/-4%[19] |
22+/-4% |
14+/-3%[19] |
3+/-6% |
|
10/10/01 |
591 |
22+/-3% |
50+/-4%[19] |
21+/-3%[19] |
7+/-2%[19] |
1+/-5%[19] |
|
11/10/00 |
292 |
22+/-5%[19] |
40+/-6% |
15+/-4% |
22+/-5%[19] |
7+/-7%[19] |
|
6/10/99 |
233 |
40+/-6%[19] |
36+/-6%[19] |
16+/-5%[19] |
8+/-4% |
24+/-9%[19] |
|
7/10/98 |
505 |
21+/-4% |
52+/-4% |
22+/-4% |
5+/-2% |
-1+/-6% |
[17] 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. This survey series began in 1998. Net effect on confidence means “increased” figure minus “decreased” figure.
[18] Excluding respondents who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Because of the smaller sample size, the sampling error has increased accordingly.
[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.
[20] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level because of a change in the weighting method. If the previous weighting method was used, the changes would not have gone beyond the sampling errors.
[21] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis. Aggregate results are available in our “HKU POP Site”.
Results showed that, excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 23% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 25% said “no change”, whilst 45% said their confidence had dropped, giving a net effect of negative 22 percentage points on confidence.
Indepth Analysis
In the survey, we also asked respondents for their age. If they were reluctant to give their exact age, they could give us a range. According to their answers, we grouped them into 18-29, 30-49, and 50 years or older. Herewith further analysis of public’s satisfaction rate of the Policy Address and CE’s popularity by respondents’ age:
|
Date of survey: 10/10/18 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall |
|
|
Satisfaction rate of the Policy Address[22] |
Satisfaction |
16+/-8%
|
24+/-6%
|
45+/-6%
|
33+/-4%
|
|
Half-half |
26+/-10%
|
25+/-6%
|
24+/-5%
|
24+/-4%
|
|
|
Dissatisfaction |
52+/-11%
|
46+/-7%
|
20+/-5%
|
34+/-4%
|
|
|
Don’t know/
|
6+/-5%
|
5+/-3%
|
11+/-4%
|
8+/-2%
|
|
|
Total |
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
|
Mean value |
2.3+/-0.3
|
2.6+/-0.2
|
3.3+/-0.2
|
2.9+/-0.1
|
|
[22] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 99% confidence level.
|
Date of survey: 10/10/18 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall |
|
|
Vote of confidence/ no confidence in CE Carrie Lam [23] |
Support |
13+/-7%
|
27+/-7%
|
53+/-6%
|
37+/-4%
|
|
Oppose |
73+/-9%
|
61+/-7%
|
30+/-6%
|
48+/-4%
|
|
|
Don’t know/
|
15+/-7%
|
12+/-5%
|
17+/-4%
|
15+/-3%
|
|
|
Total |
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
[23] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 99% confidence level.
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Lee.
According to our latest Policy Address instant survey, among those who had some knowledge of the second Address by CE Carrie Lam, 33% said they were satisfied, 34% said they were not, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 1 percentage point, which goes down significantly by 34 percentage points from the last Address delivered. On a scale of 0-100, this Address scored 48.5 marks, which is also significantly worse than that of last October, down by 13.9 marks. Looking back, among the 22 Policy Addresses after the handover and counting both rating and net satisfaction of instant surveys alone, people’s appraisal of this year’s Address is very similar to that of CY Leung’s third Address delivered in 2015. Of course, how public opinion would change after CE and her officials explain their policies remains to be seen.
As for Lam’s own popularity after the Address, her support rating has significantly decreased by 4.7 marks from early October to 47.6, while her net approval rate drops significantly from positive 4 to negative 10 percentage points, both at all-time record low since she became CE.
Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 23% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased after the Policy Address, 45% said their confidence had dropped, while 25% said “no change”, thereby giving a net effect of negative 22 percentage points on people’s confidence, significantly decreased by 43 percentage points from that of last October.
Other further analyses show that the younger the respondents, the more dissatisfied they are with this second Address by CE Carrie Lam and also show stronger opposition to her as CE.
Our instant survey describes people’s instant reaction towards the Policy Address, their follow-up reactions remain to be seen.
Future Release (Tentative)
About HKUPOP: “Outline of our operation for the Policy Address instant survey of 2018”
