|
* The frequency of this series of questions is different for different questions, and also different from that of CE popularity ratings. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the same intervals.
** "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.
# These questions only used sub-samples of the Budget instant poll, and the sub-sample size for each question varied.
As for the popularity indicators based on people's hypothetical reappointment or dismissal votes, the approval and disapproval rates of the Principal Officials are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey |
3-7/2 |
3-7/4 |
1-6/6 |
Latest Change(percentage)* |
| Total sample size |
1,015 ^ |
1,029 ^ |
1,033 ^ |
-- |
| Overall response rate |
59.5% |
59.5% |
60.8% |
-- |
| Sample base for each question/percentage of answer |
Base |
% |
Base |
% |
Base |
% |
-- |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee |
488 |
70% |
608 |
69% |
550 |
72% |
+3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee |
488 |
6% |
608 |
4% |
550 |
3% |
-1% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip |
600 |
58% |
599 |
53% |
606 |
53% |
-- |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip |
600 |
8% |
599 |
5% |
606 |
6% |
+1% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works Sarah Liao |
574 |
49% |
641 |
46% |
607 |
48% |
+2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works Sarah Liao |
574 |
22% |
641 |
23% |
607 |
22% |
-1% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food York Chow |
504 |
45% |
636 |
49% |
546 |
45% |
-4% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food York Chow |
504 |
17% |
636 |
17% |
546 |
20% |
+3% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue |
545 |
39% |
692 |
45% |
557 |
40% |
-5% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue |
545 |
3% |
692 |
4% |
557 |
6% |
+2% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Patrick Ho |
523 |
29% |
612 |
32% |
550 |
35% |
+3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Patrick Ho |
523 |
33% |
612 |
26% |
550 |
28% |
+2% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Education and Manpower Arthur Li |
624 |
30% |
687 |
36% |
548 |
34% |
-2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Education and Manpower Arthur Li |
624 |
40% |
687 |
32% |
548 |
32% |
-- |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Frederick Ma |
605 |
34% |
694 |
36% |
555 |
34% |
-2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Frederick Ma |
605 |
25% |
694 |
20% |
555 |
21% |
+1% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong |
539 |
22% |
632 |
27% |
609 |
29% |
+2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong |
539 |
23% |
632 |
16% |
609 |
21% |
+5% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen |
545 |
32% |
658 |
29% |
561 |
27% |
-2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen |
545 |
33% |
658 |
33% |
561 |
32% |
-1% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam |
543 |
24% |
682 |
31% |
552 |
25% |
-6% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam |
543 |
33% |
682 |
27% |
552 |
30% |
+3% |
|
|
* This series of questions was conducted once every two months, different from the frequency of popularity ratings. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the same cycle.
** "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.
^ Starting from 2006, these questions only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
Results of our latest survey revealed that the rating of CE Donald Tsang was 68.1 marks. Meanwhile, 75% of the respondents supported Tsang as the Chief Executive. As for Secretaries of Departments, the support ratings of CS Rafael Hui Si-yan, FS Henry Tang Ying-yen and SJ Wong Yan-lung were 57.2, 64.0 and 66.7 marks, and 36%, 64% and 62% would vote for their reappointment correspondingly. As for the Directors of Bureaux, results revealed that the top approval rate fell to Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong, attaining 72%. Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip Shu-kwan followed behind in the 2nd rank who attained 53%. The 3rd to 5th ranks went to Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works Sarah Liao Sau-tung, Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food York Chow Yat-ngok and Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue Chung-yee, obtaining supporting rates of 48%, 45% and 40% respectively. Secretary for Home Affairs Patrick Ho Chi-ping, Secretary for Education and Manpower Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Frederick Ma Si-hang occupied the 6th to 8th places, achieving 35%, 34% and 34%. Secretary for the Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong Wing-ping, Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen Ming-yeung and Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam Sui-lung ranked the 9th to 11th, as they gained 29%, 27% and 25% vote of confidence from the public respectively. In other words, only Ambrose Lee and Stephen Ip scored approval rates of over 50% among all Directors of Bureaux.
|
|
Commentary
Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, observed, "For the popularity figures of CE Donald Tsang, Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux released today, since their polling cycles are all different, comparisons should only be made after the figures are synchronized. As for the latest changes, the popularities of the CE and almost all principal officials have only fluctuated within sampling errors, meaning the popularity structure of the officials has remained rather stable. Relatively significant changes include the popularity of Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam, Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue and Secretary for the Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong Wing-ping. Support rates for Stephen Lam and Denise Yue have dropped compared with those registered two months ago, while objection rate for Joseph Wong has increased. Meanwhile, there are two officials with objection rates 5% higher than their support rates. They are Stephen Lam at the bottom of the ranking, and Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen at the second last."
News about POP
POP's normal practice is to release the results of our regular surveys every Tuesday afternoon via our POP Site, except during public holidays, each time with a forecast of the items to be released in the next 7 days. According to schedule, our next release of regular survey findings will be June 20, 2006, Tuesday, between 1pm to 2pm, when the latest results of people's trust in the HKSAR and Beijing Central Governments, their confidence in Hong Kong's future, China's future and "one country, two systems" will be released.
Our general practice is to answer all questions on the research design of the surveys published in the POP Site as soon as we receive them, but we will not further comment on the findings. We welcome questions for follow-up purpose, please email them to us at . We will keep such an arrangement under constant review, suggestions most welcome. Please note that everything carried in the POP Site does not represent the stand of the University of Hong Kong. Dr Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of POP, is responsible for everything posted herewith, except for column articles which represent the stand of their authors.
Starting from January 2006, we have included in our press releases a small educational section for the purpose of general civic education, the content of which is usually based on previous questions and comments we have received from the public. The subject of our education section today is
"FAQs of Opinion Research", and the questions have stemmed from a recent enquiry received by POP.
Some FAQs of Opinion Research
Note: A citizen emailed our HKUPOP Office in June, to say that he did not agree with the headlines used by Apple Daily on 2 June when reporting HKUPOP's annual survey on June Fourth released on 1 June. He wrote - "I am very upset about the headline published by Apple Daily yesterday, the headline was "Hong Kong people's demand for a reversion of the official stand on June 4 at 10-year high". But according to your press release, the figures stood at 54%, 56% and 56% from 2004 to 2006. All changes were within sampling errors and not significant. Being a professional, credible and responsible institute, HKUPOP should issue a statement to reprimand Apple Daily's false, biased and misleading report (English translation compiled by HKUPOP)." Based on these comments, we have generated the following FAQs.
Q: Certain survey findings are at record high or low, but they are not significantly different from those recorded last time. How should they be reported?
A: It is better to say that "the latest figures are at record high or low, but they are not statistically different from those registered last time." "Record high or low" encompasses the concepts of ranking and ordering, whereas statistical differences relate to absolute values. They belong to different levels, each with its own logic and rationale. Take a real life example - if a student won the first position by only one mark's difference, from a statistical point of view, he is simply lucky, because there is no significant difference between his/her results and his/her peer in the second place. But from a normal person's perspective, first is first, once means once. How to describe this student's results depends on the system of the school, and some long-term observations.
Q: Will HKUPOP reprimand newspapers for inaccurate reporting?
A: Maybe, but we will be extremely careful. Take our latest release of "June Fourth Annual Survey" as an example. Different newspapers had different ways of reporting the survey. Some said "record high for supporting a reversion of the official stand on June 4", some said "record high since handover for objecting a reversion of the official position". Some chose to report people's views on China's human rights only, while some simply neglected the survey. HKUPOP's strategy is to encourage free and diversified reporting, provided that everybody respects the truth. In the absence of a professional code of practice, there are bounded to be biases in newspaper reports. We encourage all newspaper readers to go to our POP Site to study the details of all our surveys.
|
