HKU POP releases results of Macau annual survey 2018Back
Press Release on December 18, 2018
| Detailed Findings (Macau annual survey) |
| Detailed Findings (Macau Studies 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 using a landline and mobile sample ratio of 4 to 1. Starting from April 2018, POP further increased the proportion of mobile sample, which the landline and mobile sample ratio became 2 to 1. However, the figures of Macau annual survey released today by POP continue to come from landline samples only, without any mobile samples yet.
2. In September 2017, POP started to use “effective response rate” to report surveys’ contact information. In July 2018, POP further revised the calculation of effective response rate. Thus, the response rates before and after the change cannot be directly compared.
3. 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 12 and 14 December 2018, POP interviewed 504 Macau people by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers using landlines, and found that the popularity of Macau CE Chui Sai On has rebounded significantly after the plunge last year. His support rating has increased from 49.5 to 56.3 marks. His net popularity has also risen rapidly from negative 44 to negative 24 percentage points. For the Macau SAR Government, compared to last year, its popularity has also sharply increased. Its latest net satisfaction rate has surged from negative 19 to positive 7 percentage points. As for the Central Government, people’s evaluation of its policy on Macau remains very positive with a net value of positive 51 percentage points, but it has dropped 13 percentage points from last year, to a record low since the survey question was first asked in 2005. As for the trust indicators, people’s net trust in the Macau SAR Government now stands at positive 20 percentage points, while the net trust in the Central Government stands at positive 44 percentage points. As for the confidence indicators, people’s confidence in the future of Macau, China and “one country, two systems” remains positive, with latest net values at positive 49, positive 69 and positive 51 percentage points respectively. The above figures have not changed much. In terms of ethnic identity, people’s identity ratings of “Macau people” and “Chinese” have remained similar to the figures a year ago, at 8.2 and 7.8 marks respectively. As for their appraisal of society’s conditions, the degree of “stability” received the highest score from the Macau people, followed by “prosperity”, “freedom” and “democracy”. Among them, only the increase in the “prosperity” indicator has gone beyond sampling errors, while the rating for “freedom” has dropped slightly from last year, but to a record low since the survey question was first asked in 2001. 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 68%.
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 is 504 successful interviews, not 504 x 67.9% 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 rating not more than +/-2.0, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, and that of 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.
Latest Figures
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 |
Sample size |
Effective response rate |
Maximum sampling error[6] |
|
12-14/12/2018 |
504 |
67.9% |
+/-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. Sampling errors of ratings and net approval rates are calculated according to the distribution of data collected.
1. Popularity figures of Macau CE and the Government
Recent popularity figures of Macau CE Chui Sai On, people’s satisfaction of the overall performance of the SAR Government, as well as Macau people’s appraisal of Central Government’s policy on Macau since the handover are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
1-3/12/14 |
8-9/12/15 |
1-9/12/16 |
27-29/9/17 |
12-14/12/18 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
502 |
510 |
520 |
505 |
504 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
66.5% |
66.1% |
65.6% |
56.1% |
67.9% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[7] |
-- |
|
Rating of CE Chui Sai On |
56.2[9] |
57.5 |
60.7[9] |
49.5[9] |
56.3+/-2.0 |
+6.8[9] |
|
Vote of confidence in
|
38% |
39% |
44%[9] |
21%[9] |
30+/-4% |
+8%[9] |
|
Vote of no confidence in
|
42% |
43% |
39% |
66%[9] |
54+/-4% |
-12%[9] |
|
Net approval rate |
-4% |
-4% |
5%[9] |
-44%[9] |
-24+/-8% |
+20%[9] |
|
Satisfaction rate of
|
35%[9] |
34% |
44%[9] |
25%[9] |
41+/-4% |
+16%[9] |
|
Dissatisfaction rate of
|
34%[9] |
28% |
20%[9] |
44%[9] |
34+/-4% |
-11%[9] |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
2%[9] |
6% |
24%[9] |
-19%[9] |
7+/-8% |
+26%[9] |
|
Mean value[8] |
2.9[9] (Base=501) |
3.0 (Base=507) |
3.2[9] (Base=516) |
2.7[9] (Base=496) |
3.0+/-0.1 (Base=502) |
+0.4[9] |
|
Central Government’s policy on Macau since the handover: positive evaluation[8] |
64% |
63% |
70%[9] |
71% |
63+/-4% |
-8%[9] |
|
Central Government’s policy on Macau since the handover: negative evaluation[8] |
7% |
5%[9] |
6% |
7% |
12+/-3% |
+5%[9] |
|
Net evaluation |
57% |
58% |
63% |
64% |
51+/-6% |
-13%[9] |
|
Mean value[8] |
3.7 (Base=488) |
3.8 (Base=489) |
3.8 (Base=496) |
3.9 (Base=480) |
3.6+/-0.1 (Base=487) |
-0.3[9] |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used. In July 2018, POP revised the calculation of effective response rate. Thus, the response rates before and after the change cannot be directly compared.
[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 +/-2.0, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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 56.3 marks, 30% supported him as CE and 54% opposed, giving him a net approval rate of negative 24 percentage points. Regarding people’s appraisal of the overall performance of the Macau SAR Government, the latest figures revealed that 41% were satisfied, whereas 34% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of positive 7 percentage points. The mean score is 3.0, which is close to “half-half”. Meanwhile, 63% of the respondents evaluated positively on the policy of the Central Government on Macau after the handover, whereas 12% gave negative evaluations, giving a net value of positive 51 percentage points. The mean score is 3.6, meaning between “quite good” and “half-half” in general.
2. Trust and confidence indicators
Latest results of people’s trust towards Macau SAR Government and Beijing Central Government and their confidence in the future as well as “one country, two systems” are summarized below:
|
Date of survey |
1-3/12/14 |
8-9/12/15 |
1-9/12/16 |
27-29/9/17 |
12-14/12/18 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
502 |
510 |
520 |
505 |
504 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
66.5% |
66.1% |
65.6% |
56.1% |
67.9% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[10] |
-- |
|
Trust in SAR Government[11] |
53%[12] |
51%[12] |
64%[12] |
48%[12] |
49+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Distrust in SAR Government[11] |
21% |
19% |
15%[12] |
31%[12] |
29+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Net trust |
32% |
33% |
49%[12] |
17%[12] |
20+/-8% |
+3% |
|
Mean value[11] |
3.4 (Base=495) |
3.4 (Base=496) |
3.6[12] (Base=515) |
3.2[12] (Base=488) |
3.2+/-0.1 (Base=500) |
-- |
|
Trust in Central Government[11] |
52% |
55% |
61%[12] |
63% |
62+/-4% |
-1% |
|
Distrust in Central Government[11] |
19% |
11%[12] |
11% |
13% |
18+/-3% |
+6%[12] |
|
Net trust |
33% |
44%[12] |
51%[12] |
50% |
44+/-7% |
-6% |
|
Mean value[11] |
3.5 (Base=486) |
3.6 (Base=464) |
3.7 (Base=475) |
3.8 (Base=456) |
3.6+/-0.1 (Base=478) |
-0.1 |
|
Confidence in Macau’s future |
74% |
67%[12] |
79%[12] |
69%[12] |
71+/-4% |
+2% |
|
No-confidence in Macau’s future |
21% |
24% |
15%[12] |
26%[12] |
22+/-4% |
-4% |
|
Net confidence |
53% |
43%[12] |
64%[12] |
43%[12] |
49+/-7% |
+6% |
|
Confidence in China’s future |
80% |
85%[12] |
83% |
84% |
81+/-4% |
-3% |
|
No-confidence in China’s future |
14% |
10%[12] |
10% |
9% |
12+/-3% |
+3% |
|
Net confidence |
66% |
76%[12] |
74% |
75% |
69+/-6% |
-6% |
|
Confidence in “one country, two systems” |
70%[12] |
75% |
79% |
77% |
72+/-4% |
-4% |
|
No-confidence in “one country, two systems” |
23% |
15%[12] |
14% |
17% |
22+/-4% |
+4% |
|
Net confidence |
46%[12] |
60%[12] |
65% |
59% |
51+/-7% |
-9% |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used. In July 2018, POP revised the calculation of effective response rate. Thus, the response rates before and after the change cannot be directly compared.
[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 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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 49% of the respondents trusted the SAR Government, 62% trusted the Beijing Central Government. The net trust values were positive 20 and positive 44 percentage points, while the mean scores of these trust indicators were 3.2 and 3.6 respectively, meaning between “quite trust” and “half-half” in general. On the other hand, 71% of the respondents had confidence in Macau’s future and 81% had confidence in China’s future, while 72% of the respondents were confident in “one country, two systems”. The three net confidence values were positive 49, positive 69 and positive 51 percentage points respectively.
3. Ethnic identity
Recent figures on Macau people’s ratings on two separate identities are tabulated as follows:
|
Date of survey |
1-3/12/14 |
8-9/12/15 |
1-9/12/16 |
27-29/9/17 |
12-14/12/18 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
502 |
510 |
520 |
505 |
504 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
66.5% |
66.1% |
65.6% |
56.1% |
67.9% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[13] |
-- |
|
Strength rating of being “Macau people” |
8.0 |
7.9 |
8.2[14] |
8.0 |
8.2+/-0.2 |
+0.1 |
|
Strength rating of being “Chinese” |
7.7 |
7.9[14] |
8.0 |
8.0 |
7.8+/-0.2 |
-0.2 |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used. In July 2018, POP revised the calculation of effective response rate. Thus, the response rates before and after the change cannot be directly compared.
[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 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.
[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.
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 8.2 and 7.8 marks respectively.
4. Appraisal of society’s conditions
Recent figures of Macau people’s appraisal of society’s conditions are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
1-3/12/14 |
8-9/12/15 |
1-9/12/16 |
27-29/9/17 |
12-14/12/18 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
502 |
510 |
520 |
505 |
504 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
66.5% |
66.1% |
65.6% |
56.1% |
67.9% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[15] |
-- |
|
Degree of stability |
7.20 |
7.22 |
7.45[16] |
7.45 |
7.47+/-0.16 |
+0.02 |
|
Degree of prosperity |
7.22[16] |
6.76[16] |
7.24[16] |
6.95[16] |
7.23+/-0.16 |
+0.28[16] |
|
Degree of freedom |
6.71 |
6.90 |
7.10[16] |
6.82[16] |
6.69+/-0.20 |
-0.14 |
|
Degree of democracy |
5.51 |
5.58 |
6.07[16] |
5.72[16] |
5.52+/-0.22 |
-0.20 |
* “Overall response rate” was used before September 2017, thereafter, “effective response rate” was used. In July 2018, POP revised the calculation of effective response rate. Thus, the response rates before and after the change cannot be directly compared.
[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 various ratings not more than +/-0.22 at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[16] 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 7.47 marks, followed by “prosperity” with 7.23 marks, and then “freedom” and “democracy”, with 6.69 and 5.52 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 mid-December, the popularity of Macau CE Chui Sai On has rebounded significantly after the plunge last year. His support rating has increased from 49.5 to 56.3 marks. His net popularity has also risen rapidly from negative 44 to negative 24 percentage points. For the Macau SAR Government, compared to last year, its popularity has also sharply increased. Its latest net satisfaction rate has surged from negative 19 to positive 7 percentage points. As for the Central Government, people’s evaluation of its policy on Macau remains very positive with a net value of positive 51 percentage points, but it has dropped 13 percentage points from last year, to a record low since the survey question was first asked in 2005.
As for the trust indicators, people’s net trust in the Macau SAR Government now stands at positive 20 percentage points, while the net trust in the Central Government stands at positive 44 percentage points. As for the confidence indicators, people’s confidence in the future of Macau, China and “one country, two systems” remains positive, with latest net values at positive 49, positive 69 and positive 51 percentage points respectively. The above figures have not changed much.
In terms of ethnic identity, people’s identity ratings of “Macau people” and “Chinese” have remained similar to the figures a year ago, at 8.2 and 7.8 marks respectively. As for their appraisal of society’s conditions, the degree of “stability” received the highest score from the Macau people, followed by “prosperity”, “freedom” and “democracy”. Among them, only the increase in the “prosperity” indicator has gone beyond sampling errors, while the rating for “freedom” has dropped slightly from last year, but to a record low since the survey question was first asked in 2001.
Future Release (Tentative)
