HKU POP releases survey on Hong Kong people’s ethnic identity and the 2018 review and 2019 forecast surveyBack
Press Release on December 27, 2018
| Detailed Findings (People's Ethnic Identity) |
| Detailed Findings (Year-end Reviews) |
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. The figures released today by POP have already incorporated landline and mobile samples.
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
POP interviewed 1,005 Hong Kong people between December 3 and 6 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. According to our latest survey, on a scale of 0-10 measuring the absolute strength of identity, the identity rating of “Hongkongers” stands at 8.34, that of “Asians” stands at 8.07, that of “members of the Chinese race” 6.98, that of “global citizens” 6.86, that of “Chinese” 6.59, and “citizens of PRC” 5.91. When importance ratings are incorporated to generate “identity indices” between 0 and 100 (the higher the index, the stronger the positive feeling), Hong Kong people’s feeling is still the strongest as “Hongkongers” at 80.8 marks, followed by “Asians” 74.1, then “members of the Chinese race” 67.3, “global citizens” 65.6, “Chinese” 62.4, and finally “citizens of the PRC” 57.1. Among the six indices, only that of “Chinese” dropped significantly compared to the last survey, also registered a record low since December 2014. If we follow the usual study method of using a dichotomy of “Hongkonger” versus “Chinese” to measure Hong Kong people’s ethnic identity, the proportion of people identifying themselves as “Hongkongers” outnumbers that of “Chinese” both in their narrow and broad senses, by 25 and 34 percentage points respectively. All in all, Hong Kong people continue to feel the strongest as “Hongkongers”, followed by a number of cultural identities. The feeling of being “citizens of the PRC” is the weakest among all identities tested. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures needs another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 55%.
As for the 2018 review and 2019 forecast survey, POP interviewed 1,000 Hong Kong people between December 17 and 20 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Our survey shows that people’s net satisfaction with Hong Kong’s development in the year past now stands at negative 1 percentage point with satisfaction and dissatisfaction rates at 36% and 37% respectively. At an individual level, 55% said they lived a happy life in the year past, 15% said they were not happy, giving a net happiness value of positive 40 percentage points. Meanwhile, net optimism on next year’s societal development has plunged dramatically by 37 percentage points to negative 27 percentage points compared to the same time last year, registering a record low since the end of 2008. However, people’s net optimism on next year’s personal development has remained largely unchanged compared to last year. The latest figure is positive 22 percentage points. Figures show that people are leading a happy life and optimistic about their own future, but are pessimistic about the development of the society. If people had to choose between having a prosperous, bribery-free, fair, free or welfare society, most people would opt for a bribery-free society, closely followed by a fair society. Looking ahead, 41% of the people considered housing to be the most important problem to be tackled by the government, a record high since the survey question was first asked in 1994. Meanwhile, 12% and 11% thought “economy” and “medical and health” was the most pressing problem respectively, while 6%, 4% and 3% thought “constitutional development”, “welfare” and “education” should be tackled respectively. Among them, the change in percentage of people who thought “constitutional development” was the most pressing problem was the most significant. That figure has dropped by 9 percentage points from 15% last year to 6% this year. As for people’s New Year wishes, without explicit prompting, 39% and 34% made a wish on society-related issues and personal matters respectively, while 8% wished for world peace. Further analysis shows that the citizens aged between 18 and 29 are most dissatisfied with Hong Kong’s development in 2018. The maximum sampling error of the survey is +/-3 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while that of net values needs another calculation, response rate being 61%.
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.
Hong Kong People’s Ethnic Identity
[4] The sample size is 1,005 successful interviews, not 1,005 x 54.6% response rates. 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 ratings not more than +/-0.31, sampling error of identity indices not more than +/-2.9, and sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% at 95% confidence level”.
[6] Starting from 18 June 2013, in light of their popular usage, the following translations are used in reports and releases: 香港人 = Hongkonger, 中國的香港人 = Hongkonger in China, 中國人 = Chinese, 香港的中國人 = Chinese in Hong Kong.
2018 Review and 2018 Forecast
[7] The sample size is 1,000 successful interviews, not 1,000 x 60.6% response rates. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[8] “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 percentages not more than +/-3% and of net values not more than +/-5% at 95% confidence level”.
I. Hong Kong People’s Ethnic Identity
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)”. In the past, the mobile sample would be rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample. In July 2018, POP further refined the weighting method. The landline sample and the mobile sample would no longer be processed separately. The mobile sample would also no longer be adjusted using the basic PSI figures collected in the landline sample. The overall effect is that the importance of the mobile sample would be increased. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
|
Date of survey |
Sample size |
Effective response rate |
Maximum sampling error
|
|
3-6/12/2018 |
1,005 |
54.6% |
+/-3% / +/-0.31 |
[9] 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 Hong Kong people’s ratings on separate identities are tabulated as follows:
|
Date of survey |
13-15/6/17 |
4-6/12/17 |
4-7/6/18 |
3-6/12/18 |
Latest change |
||||||
|
Sample base[10] |
633-725 |
645-727 |
564-682 |
543-607 |
-- |
||||||
|
Response rate* |
69.8% |
61.0% |
56.3% |
54.6% |
-- |
||||||
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding error[11] |
-- |
||||||
|
Strength rating of being “Hongkongers” |
Identity index of being “Hong-
|
7.65[13] |
73.8[13] |
8.27[13] |
78.9[13] |
8.54[13] |
83.0[13] |
8.34
|
80.8
|
-0.20 |
-2.2 |
|
Importance rating of being “Hongkongers” |
7.49[13] |
7.89[13] |
8.30[13] |
8.02
|
-0.28[13] |
||||||
|
Strength rating of being “Asians” |
Identity index of being “Asians”[12] |
7.85 |
70.7[13] |
7.88 |
72.8[13] |
8.16[13] |
74.1 |
8.07
|
74.1
|
-0.09 |
-- |
|
Importance rating of being “Asians” |
6.70[13] |
7.01[13] |
6.99 |
7.05
|
+0.06 |
||||||
|
Strength rating of being “Members of the Chinese race” |
Identity index of being “Members of the Chinese race” [12] |
6.74[13] |
64.4[13] |
7.08[13] |
67.3[13] |
7.10 |
68.0 |
6.98
|
67.3
|
-0.12 |
-0.7 |
|
Importance rating of being “Members of the Chinese race” |
6.40[13] |
6.62 |
6.68 |
6.67
|
-0.02 |
||||||
|
Strength rating of being “global citizens” |
Identity index of being “global citizens” [12] |
6.88 |
66.4[13] |
7.12[13] |
66.9 |
6.61[13] |
63.5[13] |
6.86
|
65.6
|
+0.25 |
+2.1 |
|
Importance rating of being “global citizens” |
6.60[13] |
6.55 |
6.30 |
6.49
|
+0.20 |
||||||
|
Strength rating of being “Chinese” |
Identity index of being “Chinese”[12] |
6.53[13] |
62.5[13] |
6.89[13] |
66.0[13] |
6.89 |
66.6 |
6.59
|
62.4
|
-0.29 |
-4.2[13] |
|
Importance rating of being “Chinese” |
6.30[13] |
6.64[13] |
6.67 |
6.19
|
-0.48[13] |
||||||
|
Strength rating of being “citizens of PRC” |
Identity index of being “citizens of PRC” [12] |
5.84[13] |
54.8[13] |
6.00 |
58.0[13] |
5.85 |
56.3 |
5.91
|
57.1
|
+0.06 |
+0.7 |
|
Importance rating of being “citizens of PRC” |
5.49[13] |
5.83[13] |
5.68 |
5.68
|
+0.01 |
||||||
* “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] The sub-sample size of the series of questions is controlled at over 500 cases. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 543 to 607, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.
[11] 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 ratings not more than +/-0.31 and sampling error of identity indices not more than +/-2.9 at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[12] “Identity index” is calculated for each identity of a respondent by taking the geometric mean of the strength and importance ratings of a certain identity, multiply by 10. If either the strength or importance rating of a respondent is missing, it is substituted by the sample mean of that identity.
[13] 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, but not involving the dichotomy issue of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese”. Latest findings showed that the identity ratings for “Hongkongers”, “Asians” and “members of the Chinese race” were 8.34, 8.07 and 6.98 marks respectively. Using the same rating method, the strength of people’s identity as “global citizens”, “Chinese” and “citizens of PRC” were 6.86, 6.59 and 5.91 marks respectively. As for the importance ratings, “Hongkongers”, “Asians” and “members of the Chinese race” scored 8.02, 7.05 and 6.67 marks respectively, while those for “global citizens”, “Chinese” and “citizens of PRC” were 6.49, 6.19 and 5.68 marks respectively.
Taking the geometric mean of the strength and importance ratings of each respondent and then multiply it by 10, we have an “identity index” for the respondent for a certain identity between 0 and 100, with 0 meaning no feeling, 100 meaning extremely strong feeling, and 50 meaning half and half. Using these identity indices, the rank order of Hong Kong people’s six identities was “Hongkongers”, “Asians”, “members of the Chinese race”, “global citizens”, “Chinese” and “citizens of PRC”. Their scores were 80.8, 74.1, 67.3, 65.6, 62.4 and 57.1 marks respectively.
As for the results from the survey mode used for long on Hong Kong people’s sense of ethnic identity, recent figures are tabulated as follows:
|
Date of survey |
13-15/6/17 |
4-6/12/17 |
4-7/6/18 |
3-6/12/18 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base[14] |
661 |
633 |
614 |
585 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
69.8% |
61.0% |
56.3% |
54.6% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error [15] |
-- |
|
Identified themselves as “Hongkongers” |
37% |
39% |
41% |
40+/-4% |
-1% |
|
Identified themselves as “Chinese” |
21%[17] |
14%[17] |
18%[17] |
15+/-3% |
-3% |
|
Identified themselves with a mixed identity of “Hongkongers” plus “Chinese”[16] |
40%[17] |
45%[17] |
39%[17] |
43+/-4% |
+5% |
|
Identified themselves as “Hongkongers” in broad sense |
63% |
68%[17] |
67% |
66+/-4% |
-1% |
|
Identified themselves as “Chinese”
|
35% |
31% |
30% |
32+/-4% |
+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.
[14] This question only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample size of this survey is 585, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.
[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% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[16] This means the percentage of “Hongkongers in China” plus “Chinese in Hong Kong”.
[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.
When asked to make a choice among 4 given identities, namely, “Hongkongers”, “Hongkongers in China”, “Chinese” and “Chinese in Hong Kong”, 40% of the respondents identified themselves as “Hongkongers”, 15% as “Chinese”, 26% as “Hongkongers in China”, while 17% identified themselves as “Chinese in Hong Kong”. In other words, 66% of the respondents identified themselves as “Hongkongers” in the broader sense (i.e. either as “Hongkongers” or “Hongkongers in China”), whereas 32% identified themselves as “Chinese” in the broader sense (i.e. either as “Chinese” or “Chinese in Hong Kong”), 43% chose a mixed identity of “Hongkongers plus Chinese” (i.e. either as “Hongkongers in China” or “Chinese in Hong Kong”).
Because the concepts of “Hongkongers”, “Hongkongers in China”, “Chinese” and “Chinese in Hong Kong” may overlap with each other, and making a one-in-four choice may not reflect the actual strengths of one’s ethnic identities, POP has right from the beginning conducted parallel tests on the strengths of people’s separate identities as “Hongkongers” and “Chinese” using a scale of 0-10, to study ethnic identity in different levels. In June 2007, POP has already expanded its study to include four new identities for strength rating, namely, “citizens of PRC”, “members of the Chinese race”, “Asians” and “global citizens”. In December 2008, the study was further expanded by including separate importance ratings for different identities, and the compilation of a separate index for each identity using geometric means. Though they may not be perfect, the complex studies adopted by POP were already very comprehensive.
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 was conducted from June 4 to 7, 2018 while this survey was conducted from December 3 to 6, 2018. 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.
|
6/12/18 |
Huawei’s deputy chairwoman Sabrina Meng Wanzhou has been arrested in Canada. |
|
2/12/18 |
China-US trade war suspends. |
|
27/11/18 |
Chinese scientist He Jiankui announces the birth of genetically edited babies. |
|
25/11/18 |
Chan Hoi-yan wins Legislative Council Kowloon West by-election. |
|
19/11/18 |
The trial of nine protesters of the Occupy Central charged with public nuisance related offences starts today. |
|
12/11/18 |
Carrie Lam leads a delegation to visit Beijing and meets Xi Jinping. |
|
10/11/18 |
Some tours that visit Hong Kong via the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge are suspected to have violated regulations. |
|
30/10/18 |
Chinese martial arts novelist Louis Cha passes away. |
|
24/10/18 |
The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge officially commences operation. |
|
12/10/18 |
The returning officer declares Lau Siu-lai’s nomination for Legislative Council Kowloon West by-election invalid. |
|
24/9/18 |
An order banning the Hong Kong National Party’s operation is gazetted by the government. |
|
22/9/18 |
The Hong Kong Section of Express Rail Link will be launched on September 23. |
II. 2018 Review and 2019 Forecast
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)”. In the past, the mobile sample would be rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample. In July 2018, POP further refined the weighting method. The landline sample and the mobile sample would no longer be processed separately. The mobile sample would also no longer be adjusted using the basic PSI figures collected in the landline sample. The overall effect is that the importance of the mobile sample would be increased. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
|
Date of survey |
Sample size |
Effective response rate |
Maximum sampling error of percentages[18] |
|
17-20/12/2018 |
1,000 |
60.6% |
+/-3% |
[18] 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.
Herewith the figures of 2018 review and 2019 forecast, compared with similar figures obtained in recent years:
|
Date of survey |
10-15/12/15 |
19-22/12/16 |
18-19/12/17 |
17-20/12/18 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
1,012 |
1,009 |
648 |
1,000 |
-- |
|
Response rate* |
65.4% |
70.9% |
64.9% |
60.6% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error[19] |
-- |
|
Satisfied with HK’s development in the year past [20] |
23% |
23% |
38%[22] |
36+/-3% |
-2% |
|
Dissatisfied with HK’s development in the year past [20] |
48% |
52%[22] |
35%[22] |
37+/-3% |
+2% |
|
Net satisfaction rate |
-26% |
-29% |
3%[22] |
-1+/-5% |
-4% |
|
Mean value[20] |
2.6 (Base=979) |
2.5 (Base=990) |
3.0[22] (Base=624) |
2.9+/-0.1 (Base=982) |
-- |
|
Expected HK’s development to be better next year |
23%[22] |
39%[22] |
39% |
23+/-3% |
-15%[22] |
|
Expected HK’s development to be worse next year |
41% |
26%[22] |
29% |
50+/-3% |
+21%[22] |
|
Net optimism |
-18% |
13%[22] |
10% |
-27+/-5% |
-37%[22] |
|
Perceived …… to be the most important problem to be tackled by the government next year |
|
|
|||
|
- Housing |
38%[22] |
30%[22] |
40%[22] |
41+/-3% |
+1% |
|
- Economy |
10% |
15%[22] |
11%[22] |
12+/-2% |
-- |
|
- Medical / Health |
3% |
5%[22] |
8%[22] |
11+/-2% |
+3%[22] [23] |
|
- Constitutional development |
10%[22] |
15%[22] |
15% |
6+/-1% |
-9%[22] |
|
- Welfare |
4% |
4% |
2%[22] |
4+/-1% |
+2%[22] [23] |
|
- Education |
4%[22] |
2%[22] |
5%[22] |
3+/-1% |
-2%[22] |
|
Wished HK to become a corruption-free society [21] |
27% |
31%[22] |
29% |
26+/-3% |
-3% |
|
Wished HK to become a fair society |
23% |
21% |
24% |
24+/-3% |
-- |
|
Wished HK to become a prosperous society |
20% |
21% |
22% |
19+/-2% |
-3% |
|
Respondents who were happy in the year past [20] |
51% |
50% |
56%[22] |
55+/-3% |
-- |
|
Respondents who were unhappy in the year past [20] |
16% |
20%[22] |
20% |
15+/-2% |
-5%[22] |
|
Net happiness value |
34% |
31% |
36% |
40+/-5% |
+5% |
|
Mean value[20] |
3.4 (Base=1,010) |
3.3 (Base=1,004) |
3.4 (Base=645) |
3.5+/-0.1 (Base=997) |
+0.1[22] |
|
Expected personal development to become better next year |
36% |
44%[22] |
39%[22] |
39+/-3% |
+1% |
|
Expected personal development to become worse next year |
16% |
13%[22] |
15% |
17+/-2% |
+3% |
|
Net optimism |
20% |
30%[22] |
24%[22] |
22+/-5% |
-2% |
|
New Year wishes: Society-related (e.g. economic related, people’s livelihood, political related and others) |
34%[22] |
48%[22] |
38%[22] |
39+/-3% |
+1% |
|
New Year wishes: Personal matters (e.g. health, career, studies, wealth, family, love, marriage, friendship and other personal issues) |
41%[22] |
26%[22] |
31%[22] |
34+/-3% |
+4% |
|
New Year wishes: World peace-related |
11%[22] |
13% |
16% |
8+/-2% |
-8%[22] |
|
No special wish |
10% |
9% |
9% |
9+/-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.
[19] 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 +/-3% and of net values not more than +/-5% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[20] 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.
[21] The expression “clean society” was used in 2006 and before. In 2007, it was changed to “corruption-free society” to highlight the original meaning of the question.
[22] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[23] 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.
Looking back at the year past, 36% said they were satisfied with Hong Kong’s development, 37% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of negative 1 percentage point. The mean score is 2.9, which is “half-half” in general. Meanwhile, 23% expected Hong Kong’s development in general to become “better” next year, 50% said it would be worse, giving a net optimism of negative 27 percentage points. Besides, 41% considered “housing” to be the most important problem that the government should tackle next year, 12% and 11% thought “economy” and “medical and health” was the most pressing problem respectively, while 6%, 4% and 3% thought “constitutional development”, “welfare” and “education” should be tackled respectively. If one had to choose between a “prosperous”, “corruption-free”, “fair”, “free”, and “welfare” society, 26% of the respondents would wish Hong Kong to become a “corruption-free” society, while 24% and 19% opted for a “fair” and “prosperous” society respectively.
Findings also showed that 55% of the respondents said they were happy in the year past, 15% were not, giving a net happiness of positive 40 percentage points. The mean score is 3.5, which is between “quite happy” and “half-half” in general. As for the coming year, 39% believed their personal development would become better, 17% thought they would be worse off, giving a net optimism of positive 22 percentage points. With respect to people’s New Year wishes, 39% were society-related, 34% were related to personal matters, 8% were world peace-related, 9% did not have any New Year wish.
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 the satisfaction of HK’s development in year 2018 by respondents’ age:
|
Date of survey: 17-20/12/2018 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall sample |
|
|
Satisfaction of
|
Satisfied |
16+/-6%
|
35+/-5%
|
44+/-5%
|
36+/-3%
|
|
Half-half |
36+/-7%
|
26+/-5%
|
21+/-4%
|
25+/-3%
|
|
|
Dissatisfied |
47+/-8%
|
38+/-5%
|
34+/-4%
|
37+/-3%
|
|
|
Not sure |
2+/-2%
|
1+/-1%
|
1+/-1%
|
1+/-1%
|
|
|
Total |
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
[24] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 99% confidence level.
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Senior Data Analyst of POP, Edward Tai.
According to our latest ethnic identity survey completed in early December, on a scale of 0-10 measuring the absolute strength of identity, the identity rating of “Hongkongers” stands at 8.34, that of “Asians” stands at 8.07, that of “members of the Chinese race” 6.98, that of “global citizens” 6.86, that of “Chinese” 6.59, and “citizens of PRC” 5.91. When importance ratings are incorporated to generate “identity indices” between 0 and 100 (the higher the index, the stronger the positive feeling), Hong Kong people’s feeling is still the strongest as “Hongkongers” at 80.8 marks, followed by “Asians” 74.1, then “members of the Chinese race” 67.3, “global citizens” 65.6, “Chinese” 62.4, and finally “citizens of the PRC” 57.1. Among the six indices, only that of “Chinese” dropped significantly compared to the last survey, also registered a record low since December 2014. If we follow the usual study method of using a dichotomy of “Hongkonger” versus “Chinese” to measure Hong Kong people’s ethnic identity, the proportion of people identifying themselves as “Hongkongers” outnumbers that of “Chinese” both in their narrow and broad senses, by 25 and 34 percentage points respectively. All in all, Hong Kong people continue to feel the strongest as “Hongkongers”, followed by a number of cultural identities. The feeling of being “citizens of the PRC” is the weakest among all identities tested. As for the reasons affecting the ups and downs of these figures, we leave it to our readers to form their own judgment using detailed records displayed in our “Opinion Daily”.
On the other hand, our annual survey completed in mid-December shows that people’s net satisfaction with Hong Kong’s development in the year past now stands at negative 1 percentage point with satisfaction and dissatisfaction rates at 36% and 37% respectively. At an individual level, 55% said they lived a happy life in the year past, 15% said they were not happy, giving a net happiness value of positive 40 percentage points. Meanwhile, net optimism on next year’s societal development has plunged dramatically by 37 percentage points to negative 27 percentage points compared to the same time last year, registering a record low since the end of 2008. However, people’s net optimism on next year’s personal development has remained largely unchanged compared to last year. The latest figure is positive 22 percentage points. Figures show that people are leading a happy life and optimistic about their own future, but are pessimistic about the development of the society. If people had to choose between having a prosperous, bribery-free, fair, free or welfare society, most people would opt for a bribery-free society, closely followed by a fair society. Looking ahead, 41% of the people considered housing to be the most important problem to be tackled by the government, a record high since the survey question was first asked in 1994. Meanwhile, 12% and 11% thought “economy” and “medical and health” was the most pressing problem respectively, while 6%, 4% and 3% thought “constitutional development”, “welfare” and “education” should be tackled respectively. Among them, the change in percentage of people who thought “constitutional development” was the most pressing problem was the most significant. That figure has dropped by 9 percentage points from 15% last year to 6% this year. As for people’s New Year wishes, without explicit prompting, 39% and 34% made a wish on society-related issues and personal matters respectively, while 8% wished for world peace. Further analysis shows that the citizens aged between 18 and 29 are most dissatisfied with Hong Kong’s development in 2018.
Future Release (Tentative)
