HKU POP releases findings of Budget instant pollBack
Press Release on Februrary 28, 2019
| Detailed Findings (Budget Feature Page) |
Background
After Financial Secretary Paul Chan had given his Budget Speech yesterday, the Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong conducted an instant survey on Budget in the afternoon. Results of the survey were first released via our media sponsor Apple Daily. Since 1998, POP has been conducting Budget instant surveys every year. Starting 2008, the instant survey covers people’s overall appraisal of the Budget, rating of the Budget, and FS’s popularity. For this instant survey, other than landlines and mobile numbers, an equal number of “panel samples” was also added, these are pre-selected random samples who have agreed to be re-interviewed on the survey day. Our random telephone survey this year began at 4:30 pm, involving 54 interviewers and other staff. The survey ended at about 8:30 pm and collected a total of 621 successful cases, including 207 landline, 108 mobile and 306 panel samples.
Contact Information
|
Date of survey |
: |
27/2/2019 |
|
Survey method |
: |
Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers (including landline and mobile numbers) and online survey or telephone interviews for previously recruited random panel samples |
|
Target population |
: |
Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
|
Sample size[1] |
: |
621 |
|
Effective response rate excluding panel samples [2] |
: |
78.2% |
|
Sampling error[3] |
: |
Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, that of net values not more than +/-7% and that of ratings not more than +/-2.2 at 95% confidence level |
|
Weighting method[4] |
: |
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)”. |
[1] Starting from April 2018, POP revised the landline and mobile sample ratio to 2 to 1. For instant surveys, starting from October 2017, POP added an equal number of panel samples on top of the telephone samples, which were random samples previously recruited who have agreed to be re-interviewed on the survey day. The figures released today by POP have already incorporated the landline, mobile and panel samples. Their respective samples sizes are 207, 108 and 306.
[2] Before September 2017, “overall response rate” was used to report surveys’ contact information. Starting from September 2017, “effective response rate” was used. 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] All error figures in this release are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times with different random samples, we would expect 95 times having the population parameter within the respective error margins calculated. Because of sampling errors, when quoting percentages, journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, whereas one decimal place can be used when quoting rating figures.
[4] In the past, the mobile and panel samples 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. Different samples would no longer be processed separately. The mobile and panel samples would also no longer be adjusted using the basic PSI figures collected in the landline sample.
Latest Figures
People’s satisfaction figures with this year’s Budget are summarized below together with the previous findings:
|
Date of survey |
Sub-sample size[5] |
Appraisal of Budget |
|||||
|
Satisfaction rate[6] |
Half-half[6] |
Dissatisfaction rate[6] |
Net satisfaction rate |
Mean value[6] |
Satisfaction rating of Budget |
||
|
27/2/19 |
561 |
23+/-4% |
26+/-4% |
39+/-4% |
-16+/-7% |
2.7+/-0.1 |
47.1+/-2.1 |
|
28/2/18 |
551 |
26%[7] |
28% |
41%[7] |
-14%[7] |
2.7[7] |
48.2[7] |
|
22/2/17 |
502 |
33% |
30% |
18% |
15% |
3.2 |
55.7 |
|
24/2/16 |
500 |
36%[7] |
31% |
20% |
17%[7] |
3.2 |
57.2[7] |
|
25/2/15 |
529 |
45%[7] |
28% |
18%[7] |
28%[7] |
3.3[7] |
60.2[7] |
|
26/2/14 |
695 |
24%[7] |
26%[7] |
45%[7] |
-20%[7] |
2.7[7] |
49.8[7] |
|
27/2/13 |
813 |
30%[7] |
37%[7] |
31%[7] |
-1%[7] |
2.9[7] |
53.6[7] |
|
1/2/12 |
826 |
38%[7] |
33% |
26%[7] |
12%[7] |
3.1[7] |
57.0[7] |
|
23/2/11 |
911 |
27%[7] |
34% |
35%[7] |
-8%[7] |
2.8[7] |
51.5[7] |
|
24/2/10 |
724 |
47%[7] |
35%[7] |
14%[7] |
32%[7] |
3.4[7] |
60.8[7] |
|
25/2/09 |
669 |
30%[7] |
43%[7] |
22%[7] |
8%[7] |
3.1[7] |
54.8[7] |
|
27/2/08 |
811 |
68%[7] |
21%[7] |
5%[7] |
63%[7] |
3.8[7] |
70.6 |
|
28/2/07 |
673 |
62%[7] |
25% |
9%[7] |
53%[7] |
3.6[7] |
-- |
|
22/2/06 |
577 |
50% |
26% |
19%[7] |
31% |
3.3 |
-- |
|
16/3/05 |
544 |
47%[7] |
29% |
11% |
36%[7] |
3.4 |
-- |
|
10/3/04 |
395 |
37%[7] |
33%[7] |
12%[7] |
25%[7] |
3.3[7] |
-- |
|
5/3/03 |
495 |
20%[7] |
23% |
50%[7] |
-30%[7] |
2.5[7] |
-- |
|
6/3/02 |
539 |
47%[7] |
23% |
17% |
30%[7] |
3.3[7] |
-- |
|
7-8/3/01 |
263 |
57%[7] |
25%[7] |
13%[7] |
44%[7] |
3.5[7] |
-- |
|
8/3/00 |
643 |
70%[7] |
12%[7] |
4%[7] |
66%[7] |
3.9[7] |
-- |
|
3/3/99 |
598 |
46%[7] |
27%[7] |
10%[7] |
36%[7] |
3.4[7] |
-- |
|
18/2/98 |
638 |
55% |
20% |
7% |
47% |
3.6 |
-- |
[5] The questions on the appraisal of Budget would exclude respondents who had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Budget.
[6] 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.
[7] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at 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.
After excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of this year’s Budget, this year’s instant survey showed that 23% were satisfied with it, 39% were dissatisfied and 26% said “half-half”, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 16 percentage points. The mean score is 2.7, which is between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied” in general. Meanwhile, the average rating registered for the Budget was 47.1 marks.
Figures on various Financial Secretaries’ popularity before and after their Budget Speeches since 2001 are summarized as follows: [8]
|
Popularity of Donald Tsang |
Popularity of
|
Popularity of Henry Tang |
||||||||||||||||
|
Date of Budget Speech |
7/3/01 |
6/3/02 |
5/3/03 |
10/3/04 |
16/3/05 |
22/2/06 |
28/2/07 |
|||||||||||
|
FS’s rating at Budget instant survey |
69.7 |
63.4 |
49.8 |
59.9 |
63.3 |
63.0 |
64.1 |
|||||||||||
|
FS’s net approval rate at Budget instant survey |
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
59% |
56% |
56% |
|||||||||||
|
Date of the latest survey before the Budget [9] |
19-21/2/01 |
18-21/2/02 |
1-4/3/03 |
1-3/3/04 |
1-3/3/05 |
3-7/2/06 |
1-6/2/07 |
|||||||||||
|
FS’s rating before the Budget |
71.9 |
57.2 |
48.1 |
57.4 |
59.7 |
63.0 |
60.8 |
|||||||||||
|
FS’s net approval rate before the Budget |
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
57% |
50% |
|||||||||||
|
Change in
|
-2.2 [10] |
+6.2 [10] |
+1.7 [10] |
+2.5 [10] |
+3.6 [10] |
-- |
+3.3 [10] |
|||||||||||
|
Change in FS’s
|
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
[Not applicable] |
-1% |
+6% [10] |
|||||||||||
|
Popularity of John Tsang |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Date of Budget Speech |
27/2/08 |
25/2/09 |
24/2/10 |
23/2/11 |
1/2/12 |
27/2/13 |
26/2/14 |
25/2/15 |
24/2/16 |
|||||||||
|
FS’s rating at Budget instant survey |
67.9 |
54.9 |
61.3 |
52.4 |
54.1 |
56.6 |
54.0 |
61.0 |
62.2 |
|||||||||
|
FS’s net approval rate at Budget instant survey |
54% |
28% |
46% |
13% |
3% |
35% |
27% |
44% |
48% |
|||||||||
|
Date of the latest survey before the Budget |
1-5/2/08 |
2-4/2/09 |
29/1-2/2/10 |
7-11/2/11 |
3-6/1/12 |
1-6/2/13 |
4-6/2/14 |
30/1-4/2/15 |
1-4/2/16 |
|||||||||
|
FS’s rating before the Budget |
56.0 |
56.7 |
58.3 |
55.4 |
50.6 |
57.8 |
56.7 |
58.6 |
62.3 |
|||||||||
|
FS’s net approval rate before the Budget |
24% |
32 % |
46 % |
33% |
13% |
45% |
33% |
42% |
51% |
|||||||||
|
Change in
|
+11.9 [10] |
-1.8 [10] |
+3.0 [10] |
-3.0 [10] |
+3.5 [10] |
-1.2 |
-2.7 [10] |
+2.4 [10] |
-0.1 |
|||||||||
|
Change in FS’s
|
+30% [10] |
-4% |
-- |
-20% [10] |
-10% [10] |
-10% [10] |
-6% |
+2% |
-3% |
|||||||||
|
Popularity of Paul Chan |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Date of Budget Speech |
22/2/17 |
28/2/18 |
27/2/19 |
|||||||||||||||
|
FS’s rating at Budget instant survey |
47.4 |
44.5 |
40.5+/-2.2 |
|||||||||||||||
|
FS’s net approval rate at Budget instant survey |
4% |
-12% |
-31+/-6% |
|||||||||||||||
|
Date of the latest survey before the Budget |
6-9/2/17 |
1-6/2/18 |
29/1-8/2/19 |
|||||||||||||||
|
FS’s rating before the Budget |
34.0 |
44.3 |
37.6+/-2.4 |
|||||||||||||||
|
FS’s net approval rate before the Budget |
-29% |
-12% |
-26+/-7% |
|||||||||||||||
|
Change in FS’s rating |
+13.4 [10] |
+0.2 |
+2.9 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Change in FS’s net approval rate |
+33% [10] |
-- |
-4% |
|||||||||||||||
[8] FS rating was introduced in our Budget instant poll in 2001, while approval rate was introduced in 2005. This table therefore starts from 2001.
[9] The frequency of surveys on FS rating and approval rate was different before November 2005.
[10] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at 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 survey showed that the latest popularity rating of Financial Secretary Paul Chan after his Budget Speech was 40.5 marks, with approval and disapproval rates of 19% and 49% respectively, giving a net approval of negative 31 percentage points.
Indepth Analysis
In the survey, we also asked respondents for their age and education attainment. If they were reluctant to give their exact age, they could give us a range. Herewith further analysis of the rating and satisfaction rate of the Budget by respondents’ age and education attainment, with sub-sample size placed in brackets:
|
Date of survey: 27/2/2019 |
18-29 |
30-49 |
50 or above |
Overall sample |
|
|
Rating of the Budget[11] |
41.4+/-5.2
|
40.1+/-3.5
|
52.8+/-2.8
|
47.0+/-2.1
|
|
|
Satisfaction rate of the Budget[11] |
Satisfaction |
7+/-6%
|
11+/-5%
|
36+/-6%
|
23+/-4%
|
|
Half-half |
27+/-9%
|
28+/-7%
|
24+/-5%
|
26+/-4%
|
|
|
Dissatisfaction |
46+/-11%
|
50+/-7%
|
31+/-5%
|
40+/-4%
|
|
|
Don’t know / hard to say |
21+/-9%
|
11+/-5%
|
9+/-3%
|
11+/-3%
|
|
|
Total |
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
[11] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 99% confidence level.
|
Date of survey: 27/2/2019 |
Primary or below |
Secondary |
Tertiary or above |
Overall sample |
|
|
Rating of the Budget[12] |
58.5+/-5.0
|
47.9+/-2.9
|
39.3+/-3.3
|
47.0+/-2.1
|
|
|
Satisfaction rate of the Budget[12] |
Satisfaction |
49+/-10%
|
23+/-5%
|
9+/-4%
|
23+/-4%
|
|
Half-half |
26+/-9%
|
24+/-5%
|
28+/-7%
|
26+/-4%
|
|
|
Dissatisfaction |
22+/-8%
|
36+/-6%
|
54+/-7%
|
40+/-4%
|
|
|
Don’t know / hard to say |
4+/-4%
|
17+/-5%
|
8+/-4%
|
11+/-3%
|
|
|
Total |
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
[12] 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.
Our latest Budget instant survey shows that among those who had some knowledge of the third Budget Speech by Financial Secretary Paul Chan, 23% said they were satisfied, 39% said they were not, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 16 percentage points. On a scale of 0-100, this Budget scored 47.1 marks. Various popularity figures of the Budget have not changed much compared to those of last year, but people’s rating of the Budget in this instant survey has registered a new record low since the survey question was first asked in 2008. As for Paul Chan’s own popularity as Financial Secretary, after the Budget, both his support rating and net approval rate have not changed much since early February, meaning that the Budget has no significant instant impact on his popularity. Further analyses show that people below 50 and more educated respondents rated the Budget more negatively. Our instant survey describes people’s instant reaction towards the Budget, how people’s reaction will change after knowing more about the Budget will be revealed by our next follow-up survey.
Future Release (Tentative)
