HKU| FSS| Contact Us| Sitemap

• 
• 

Search Wizard

Local Public Figures Non-local Public Figures Research on Politics and Policies Social Research Groups & Organizations [-] [+]

Press Releases POP Polls POP Columns Features Research Report

Press Release on May 21, 2019

| Detailed Findings (Social Indicators) | (Freedom Indicators) | (Rule of law indicators) |

Special Announcements

1. The Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (HKPORI) started to operate officially on May 4, 2019 as a civil society conscientious enterprise to carry on the spirit of May Fourth Movement and the mission of the Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP) and to serve the society with integrity and quality. The Institute is now recruiting advisors and volunteers, we welcome people with passion to join us.

2. Under HKPORI will be a research program called Hong Kong Public Opinion Program (HKPOP) which will continue to conduct public opinion surveys, but will require public funding before releasing them. This means that self-funding tracking surveys so far conducted and released by HKUPOP, covering about 25 broad topics and almost 250 opinion questions, like those on the popularity of the Chief Executive, the government, the principal officials, the best commercial organizations, people’s views on June Fourth, ethnic identity, and so on may not be seen again after July this year. The release of social indicators by HKUPOP today is the final release of the series, whether it will appear again or not in the future is uncertain. For public releases on the establishment of HKPOP, please refer to our website: https://hkupop.pori.hk/chinese/release/release1583_pr.html. Please follow us through the following social media accounts for our latest update:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/HKPublicOpinionProgram
Twitter – https://www.twitter.com/hkporihkpop (HKPOP)
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/h.k.p.o.p

Abstract

HKUPOP successfully interviewed 1,018 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in early May. Our survey shows that among the five core social indicators, Hong Kong’s degree of “freedom” and “prosperity” scored the highest ratings, followed by “stability” and “compliance with rule of law”, and finally “democracy”. Compared to around half a year ago, the degree of “democracy” registered a significant increase while the degree of “stability” registered a significant decrease. As for the non-core social indicators, compared to a year ago, all 7 indicators have dropped. Among them, the drops of the degree of “public order”, “efficiency”, “social welfare sufficiency” and “fairness” are significant. The degree of “social welfare sufficiency” has even dropped to its record low since the question was first asked in 1997. Compared to a year ago, all 10 freedom sub-indicators have also dropped. The freedoms of “religious belief” and “procession and demonstration” have dropped to their record lows since 2002. The “freedom to strike” has dropped to its record low since November 1997. The freedoms of “academic research”, “speech”, “press”, “publication” and “association” have even dropped to their record lows since the questions were first asked in August 1997. In the area of rule of law, ratings of both “impartiality of the courts” and “fairness of the judicial system” have dropped. The latter is at its record low since the question was first asked in 1997. The latest support rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma has also dropped significantly by 6.9 marks to 62.7, as compared to that of last year. The effective response rate of the survey is 63.2%. The maximum sampling error of ratings is +/-2.2 at 95% confidence level.

Contact Information

[1] Starting from April 2018, HKUPOP revised the landline and mobile sample ratio to 2 to 1. The figures released today by HKUPOP have already incorporated landline and mobile samples.

[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, HKUPOP 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 sample would be rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample. In July 2018, HKUPOP 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.

Latest Figures

Herewith the latest figures of the 5 core social indicators:

[5] The mobile sample was not included when survey results were released. The figures in the table above have been updated to reflect the results based on the combined landline and mobile sample. However, whether changes have gone beyond sampling errors is still determined based on the figures in the first release.

[6] From October to December 2018, HKUPOP conducted tests on the wordings used in different rating scales. Figures in the table are the combined results. Please visit the HKU POP Site for details.

[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.

Herewith the latest figures of the 7 non-core social indicators:

[8] The mobile sample was not included when survey results were released. The figures in the table above have been updated to reflect the results based on the combined landline and mobile sample. However, whether changes have gone beyond sampling errors is still determined based on the figures in the first release.

[9] 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.

Herewith the latest figures of the 10 freedom sub-indicators:

[10] The mobile sample was not included when survey results were released. The figures in the table above have been updated to reflect the results based on the combined landline and mobile sample. However, whether changes have gone beyond sampling errors is still determined based on the figures in the first release.

[11] 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.

[12] The frequency of core social indicators is different from other indicators. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the same intervals.

Herewith the latest figures of the 2 rule of law sub-indicators and the rating of the Chief Justice:

[13] The mobile sample was not included when survey results were released. The figures in the table above have been updated to reflect the results based on the combined landline and mobile sample. However, whether changes have gone beyond sampling errors is still determined based on the figures in the first release.

[14] 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.

[15] The frequency of core social indicators is different from other indicators. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the same intervals.

Regarding the core social indicators, latest results showed that, on a scale of 0-10, Hong Kong’s degree of “freedom” and “prosperity” scored the highest ratings, with 6.60 and 6.55 marks respectively, followed by “stability” and “compliance with rule of law”, with 6.29 and 6.20 marks respectively, and finally “democracy”, with 5.42 marks.

As for the non-core social indicators, “public order” has the highest score of 7.02 marks, followed by “civilization”, “corruption-free practices”, “efficiency”, “social welfare sufficiency”, “equality” and “fairness”, with scores of 6.78, 6.43, 6.36, 5.79, 5.69 and 5.47 marks correspondingly.

As for the freedom sub-indicators, the freedom of “religious belief” scored the highest rating with 8.12 marks. Freedom of “entering or leaving Hong Kong” came second with 7.77 marks. Freedoms of “artistic and literary creation”, “academic research”, “speech”, “procession and demonstration”, “freedom to strike”, “press”, “publication” and “association” formed the next tier, with respective scores of 6.93, 6.78, 6.20, 6.15, 5.86, 5.81, 5.76 and 5.38 marks.

Finally, for the two ratings of law sub-indicators, the impartiality of the courts scored 6.20 marks, while the rating of the fairness of the judicial system was 5.63 marks. Meanwhile, the latest popularity rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, a representative figure of the judicial system, was 62.7 marks, on a scale of 0-100.

Commentary

Note: The following commentary was written by Senior Data Analyst of HKUPOP, Edward Tai.

Our latest survey shows that among the five core social indicators, Hong Kong’s degree of “freedom” and “prosperity” scored the highest ratings, followed by “stability” and “compliance with rule of law”, and finally “democracy”. Compared to around half a year ago, the degree of “democracy” registered a significant increase while the degree of “stability” registered a significant decrease. As for the non-core social indicators, compared to a year ago, all 7 indicators have dropped. Among them, the drops of the degree of “public order”, “efficiency”, “social welfare sufficiency” and “fairness” are significant. The degree of “social welfare sufficiency” has even dropped to its record low since the question was first asked in 1997. Compared to a year ago, all 10 freedom sub-indicators have also dropped. The freedoms of “religious belief” and “procession and demonstration” have dropped to their record lows since 2002. The “freedom to strike” has dropped to its record low since November 1997. The freedoms of “academic research”, “speech”, “press”, “publication” and “association” have even dropped to their record lows since the questions were first asked in August 1997. In the area of rule of law, ratings of both “impartiality of the courts” and “fairness of the judicial system” have dropped. The latter is at its record low since the question was first asked in 1997. The latest support rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma has also dropped significantly by 6.9 marks to 62.7, as compared to that of last year. 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”.

Future Release (Tentative)

May 28, 2019 (Tuesday) 12pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and HKSAR Government, Ratings of the Best Corporations

No. of hits since Jun 3, 2000: 80,965,302

No. of hits since Jan 1, 2018: 103,354

• 
• 
• 
• 

Everything carried in this website does not represent the stand of the University of Hong Kong. Dr Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, is responsible for everything posted herewith, except for column articles and messages posted at the opinion platforms. Any responsibility, legal and otherwise, arising from any such item shall vest entirely with its author. The intellectual property of all information contained in this website, including questionnaire design and research reports, originally belongs to HKU POP unless specified otherwise. HKU POP opens their copyright to the world via this website, but would request all users to acknowledge their source properly.

HKU POP all rights reserved.

Last update :  26/6/2019