HKU POP SITE releases the latest results of subjective freedom indicatorsBack
| Press Release on January 21, 2010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | Latest Figures | Opinion Daily | Commentary | Next Release (Tentative) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong interviewed 1,008 Hong Kong people from 11 to 13 January by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The survey finds that 8 out of the 10 subjective freedom indicators covered in the survey have gone up, 2 have gone down. Of the 8 ups, 3 have gone beyond sampling errors, including freedoms of "publication", "press" and "academic research". That of "publication" has even reached a record high since this survey series began in 1997. As for the 2 downs, only the freedom of "possession and demonstration" has dropped beyond sampling error, down from its record high registered last time, and signaling a receding of the July 1 effect. In terms of relative ranking, the freedom of "religious belief" continues to top the list with over 8.5 marks, while the freedoms of "entry and exit", "academic research", and "artistic and literary creation" consistently occupy the 2nd, 3rd and 4th places, marks spreading. For the remaining 6 indicators, other than the freedom to "strike" which stays at the bottom to become a class of its own, the other 5 are clustered near the 7.5 mark, which is not bad. The maximum sampling error of all subjective freedom indicators is between +/-0.10 and +/-0.15 at 95% confidence level, while the response rate of the survey is 70%. 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 figures in this release come from tracking survey conducted by HKUPOP repeated once every six months, they are also good for general reviews of Hong Kong's development. Because the handover of Hong Kong occurred on July 1, it may be more useful to analyze general changes of Hong Kong society using half-yearly rather than yearly figures. [3] The sample size of this survey is 1,008 successful interviews, not 1,008 x 70.3% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake. [4] "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 various ratings not more than +/-0.15 at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. In view of the error margins, 2 decimal places can be used when quoting these rating figures. [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 POP today releases on schedule via the "POP SITE" the latest results of subjective freedom indicators. All the figures have been weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in mid 2009. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
Recent trends of these indicators are summarized as follows:
[8] 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 or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful. The survey conducted in the first half of Janurary revealed that, on a scale of 0-10, the freedom of "religious belief" scored the highest rating with 8.83 marks. Freedom of "entering or leaving Hong Kong" came second with 8.44 marks, followed by freedoms to engage in "academic research", attaining 8.20 marks. Freedoms of "artistic and literary creation", "publication", "procession and demonstration", "speech", "press", and "association" formed the next tier, with respective scores of 7.99, 7.71, 7.69, 7.62, 7.60 and 7.41 marks. Finally, the freedom to "strike" attained 6.93 marks.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 provide readers with accurate information so that they can 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 since July 24 each day a record of significant events of that day, according to the research method designed by POP. These daily entries would be uploaded to the "Opinion Daily" feature page as soon as they are verified by POP. For the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from July 20 to 23, 2009 while the latest one was conducted from January 11 to 13, 2010. In between these two surveys, 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, observed, "Compared to 6 months ago, our latest survey shows that 8 out of the 10 subjective freedom indicators covered in the survey have gone up, 2 have gone down. Of the 8 ups, 3 have gone beyond sampling errors, including freedoms of "publication", "press" and "academic research". That of "publication" has even reached a record high since this survey series began in 1997. As for the 2 downs, only the freedom of "possession and demonstration" has dropped beyond sampling error, down from its record high registered last time, and signaling a receding of the July 1 effect. In terms of relative ranking, the freedom of "religious belief" continues to top the list with over 8.5 marks, while the freedoms of "entry and exit", "academic research", and "artistic and literary creation" consistently occupy the 2nd, 3rd and 4th places, marks spreading. For the remaining 6 indicators, other than the freedom to "strike" which stays at the bottom to become a class of its own, the other 5 are clustered near the 7.5 mark, which is not bad. We leave it for our readers to figure out the reasons for the ups and downs of these indicators using detailed records shown in our "Opinion Daily" feature page."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next Release (Tentative)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | Latest Figures | Opinion Daily | Commentary | Next Release (Tentative) |
