HKU POP SITE releases popularity figures of CE Donald Tsang, Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system Back

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong interviewed 1,005 Hong Kong people between March 1 and 3 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The survey shows that after the Budget, CE has accumulated an increase of 1.5 marks in his rating, and 9 percentage points in his approval rate. His net popularity now stands at zero. For the Secretaries of Departments, after the Budget, the support ratings and approval rates of CS Henry Tang and SJ Wang Yan-lung have remained stable, while FS John Tsang has accumulated a drop of 0.9 mark in his support rating, and a drop of 3 percentage points in his approval rate. The net approval rates of Tang, Tsang and Wong now stand at positive 29, 36 and 58 percentage points respectively. Wong Yan-lung remains to be the most popular Secretary of Department. As for the Directors of Bureaux, compared to one month ago, the approval rates of 7 among 12 Directors have gone up, 3 have gone down, 2 have remained unchanged. Among them, those with changes in approval rate beyond sampling error include, Secretary for Education Michael Suen, Secretary for Development Carrie Lam and Secretary for Food and Health York Chow, up by 8, 7 and 6 percentage points respectively while Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung down 6 percentage points. Among the Secretaries and Directors, no official registers negative popularity, meaning that their disapproval rates are higher than their approval rates. According to POP's standard, no official falls under the category of "ideal" performance. Wong Yan-lung, Ambrose Lee, John Tsang, York Chow, Matthew Cheung and Carrie Lam now fall under the category of "successful". Henry Tang, Eva Cheng, Donald Tsang, Michael Suen, Edward Yau, Stephen Lam and Tsang Tak-sing can be labeled as "mediocre". Denise Yue, Ceajer Chan and Rita Lau can be labeled as "inconspicuous". No official falls under the categories of "depressing" or "disastrous". The maximum sampling error of all approval and disapproval rates is between +/-2 and +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures needs another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 64%.

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 sample size of this survey is 1,005 successful interviews, not 1,005 x 64.2% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] The maximum sampling error of all approval and disapproval rates is between +/-2 and +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures needs another calculation. "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 +/-1.3 and sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% at 95% confidence level".
[4] When quoting percentages of this survey, journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, but when quoting the rating figures, one decimal place can be used, in order to match the precision level of the 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.

POP today releases on schedule via POP SITE the latest popularity figures of CE Donald Tsang, Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system. 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 2009 year-end. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:

Date of survey	Overall sample size	Response rate	Maximum sampling error of percentages[6]
1-3/3/2010	1,005	64.2%	+/-3%

[6] 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.

As different questions involve different sub-samples, the sample errors will vary accordingly. The table below briefly shows the relationship between sample size and maximum sampling errors for the readers to capture the corresponding changes:

Sample size (total sample or sub-sample)	Sampling error of percentages[7] (maximum values)	Sample size (total sample or sub-sample)	Sampling error of percentages[7] (maximum values)
1,300	+/- 2.8 %	1,350	+/- 2.7 %
1,200	+/- 2.9 %	1,250	+/- 2.8 %
1,100	+/- 3.0 %	1,150	+/- 3.0 %
1,000	+/- 3.2 %	1,050	+/- 3.1 %
900	+/- 3.3 %	950	+/- 3.2 %
800	+/- 3.5 %	850	+/- 3.4 %
700	+/- 3.8 %	750	+/- 3.7 %
600	+/- 4.1 %	650	+/- 3.9 %
500	+/- 4.5 %	550	+/- 4.3 %
400	+/- 5.0 %	450	+/- 4.7 %

[7] Based on 95% confidence interval.

"Maximum sampling errors" occur when survey figures are close to 50%. If the figures are close to 0% or 100%, the sampling error will diminish accordingly. The sampling errors of ratings, however, will depend on the distribution of the raw figures. Since January 2007, POP lists out the sampling errors of all survey figures in detail and explain them in due course. Recent popularity figures of CE Donald Tsang are summarized as follows:

Date of survey	18-21/1/2010	29/1-2/2/2010	24/2/2010	22-27/2/2010	1-3/3/2010	Latest Change
Sample base	1,013	1,003	1,003[10]	1,021	1,005	--
Overall response rate	66.9%	65.4%	65.9%	69.9%	64.2%	--
Latest finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error[8]	--
Rating of CE Donald Tsang	50.9[9]	51.6	54.4[9]	53.0[9]	53.1 +/-1.3	+0.1
Vote of confidence in CE Donald Tsang	37%[9]	33%[9]	38%[9]	36%[9]	42% +/-3%	+6%[9]
Vote of no confidence in CE Donald Tsang	44%	46%	41%[9]	43%[9]	42% +/-3%	-1%

[8] 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 rating not more than +/-1.3, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[9] 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 or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[10] The survey was conducted on February 24, and the sub-sample sizes of questions on CE's support rating and hypothetical voting were 680 and 672 respectively.

Figures on the latest popularity ratings of the three Secretaries of Departments under the accountability system are summarized below:

Date of survey	28/11-4/12/09	4-9/1/2010	29/1-2/2/2010	24/2/2010	1-3/3/2010	Latest Change[11]
Sample base	1,017	1,011	1,003	1,003[14]	1,005	--
Overall response rate	74.5%	68.0%	65.4%	65.4%	64.2%	--
Latest finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & Error[12]	--
Ratings of CS Henry Tang	54.0[13]	54.4	54.4	--	54.4 +/-1.2	--
Vote of confidence in CS Henry Tang	48%	43%[13]	43%	--	46% +/-3%	+3%
Vote of no confidence in CS Henry Tang	15%[13]	17%	16%	--	17% +/-2%	+1%
Ratings of FS John Tsang	56.2	58.4[13]	58.3	61.3[13]	57.4 +/-1.3	-3.9[13]
Vote of confidence in FS John Tsang	55%	56%	57%	53%	54% +/-3%	+1%
Vote of no confidence in FS John Tsang	14%	12%	11%	8%[13]	18% +/-2%	+10%[13]
Ratings of SJ Y.L. Wong	60.3[13]	60.8	61.9	--	61.2 +/-1.2	-0.7
Vote of confidence in SJ Y.L.Wong	66%	63%	64%	--	64% +/-3%	--
Vote of no confidence in SJ Y.L.Wong	5%	6%	5%	--	6% +/-2%	+1%

[11] 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.
[12] 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 various ratings not more than +/-1.3, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[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 or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[14] The survey was conducted on February 24, and the sub-sample sizes of questions on FS's support rating and hypothetical voting were 689 and 576 respectively.

Figures on the latest popularity ratings of Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system are summarized below:

Date of survey	4-9/1/2010		29/1-2/2/2010		1-3/3/2010		Latest Change
Total sample size[15]	1,011		1,003		1,005		--
Overall response rate	68.0%		65.4%		64.2%		--
Sample base for each question/ Percentage of answer	Base	%	Base	%	Base	% and Error[16]	--
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee	530	68%	534	62%[17]	510	64% +/-4%	+2%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee	530	7%	534	11%[17]	510	8% +/-2%	-3%[17]
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Food and Health York Chow	536	53%	529	47%[17]	540	53% +/-4%	+6%[17]
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Food and Health York Chow	536	24%	529	26%	540	23% +/-4%	-3%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung[18]	536	49%	532	58%[17]	531	52% +/-4%	-6%[17]
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung[18]	536	9%	532	8%	531	9% +/-3%	+1%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Development Carrie Lam[18]	536	49%	539	45%	521	52% +/-4%	+7%[17]
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Development Carrie Lam[18]	536	11%	539	16%[17]	521	13% +/-3%	-3%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng	537	38%[17]	541	45%[17]	561	43% +/-4%	-2%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng	537	14%	541	21%[17]	561	18% +/-3%	-3%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Education Michael Suen	541	35%	546	32%	519	40% +/-4%	+8%[17]
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Education Michael Suen	541	37%	546	36%	519	27% +/-4%	-9%[17]
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau	538	38%	544	37%	541	38% +/-4%	+1%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau	538	16%[17]	544	17%	541	15% +/-3%	-2%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue	542	30%[17]	551	35%[17]	548	35% +/-4%	--
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue	542	11%	551	12%	548	9% +/-2%	-3%[17]
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan[18]	536	34%	566	32%	527	32% +/-4%	--
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan[18]	536	11%	566	14%	527	9% +/-2%	-5%[17]
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam[18]	529	28%	528	29%	538	32% +/-4%	+3%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam[18]	529	33%	528	34%	538	31% +/-4%	-3%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing	544	31%	533	32%	563	31% +/-4%	-1%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing	544	28%[17]	533	27%	563	29% +/-4%	+2%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Rita Lau	551	27%	524	26%	518	27% +/-4%	+1%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Rita Lau	551	8%[17]	524	13%[17]	518	12% +/-3%	-1%

[15] Starting from 2006, these questions only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[16] 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.
[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 or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[18] The approval rates of Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung and Secretary for Development Carrie Lam are 52.3% and 52.2% respectively in 1 decimal place. The approval rates of Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan and Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam are 32.5% and 31.5% respectively.

The latest survey showed that, CE Donald Tsang scored 53.1 marks, and 42% supported him as the Chief Executive. Meanwhile, the corresponding ratings of CS Henry Tang, FS John Tsang and SJ Wong Yan-lung were 54.4, 57.4 and 61.2 marks and 46%, 54% and 64% 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, attaining 64%. The 2nd place belonged to Secretary for Food and Health York Chow, with 53% approval rate. Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung and Secretary for Development Carrie Lam both gained 52% vote of confidence from the public and shared the 3rd rank. Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng and Secretary for Education Michael Suen ranked the 5th and 6th, with 43% and 40% respectively. Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau, Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue, Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam, Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing, and Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Rita Lau ranked the 6th to 12th as they gained 38%, 35%, 32%, 32%, 31% and 27% support from the public respectively. In other words, only Ambrose Lee, York Chow, Matthew Cheung and Carrie Lam scored approval rates of over 50% among all Directors of Bureaux.

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 of some items was conducted from January 29 to February 2, 2010 while this survey was conducted from March 1 to 3, 2010. 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.

25/2/10	New residential land will be provided by the Government for auction.
24/2/10	Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah delivers a budget speech.
22/2/10	Sun Hung Kai Properties makes the winning bid for a residential site in Tseung Kwan O with its offer of HK$3.37 billion.
15/2/10	Fortune stick bodes moderate luck for Hong Kong in the Year of the Tiger, with difficulties expected in the beginning and then improvement.
6/2/10	A 30cm gap opens up between two buildings in Tai Kok Tsui.
2/2/10	Chan Chun-chuen was judged lost in the case of inheritance of billions from Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum.
1/2/10	The Hong Kong economy may be affected by the flow of hot money in the market.
31/1/10	Victims of the collapse of an old building in To Kwa Wan are not pleased with the arrangements of living in the temporary housing in Shek Lei.
30/1/10	The government starts checking all 4,000 old buildings in Hong Kong in the coming month.
29/1/10	Three killed, two injured and two missing in the collapse of an old building at 45 Ma Tau Wai Road.

Note: The following commentary was written by Director of POP Robert Chung.

Our series of surveys conducted over the last month or so shows that on the day the Budget was released, CE Donald Tsang's support rating increased by 2.8 marks, while his approval rate went up by 5 percentage points. A few days later, the Budget effect shrank to positive 1.4 marks and positive 3 percentage points. A few days more, his rating increased slightly by 0.1 mark while his approval rate rose by 6 percentage points. In other words, after the Budget, CE has accumulated an increase of 1.5 marks in his rating, and 9 percentage points in his approval rate. His net popularity now stands at zero.

For the Secretaries of Departments, after the Budget, the support ratings and approval rates of CS Henry Tang and SJ Wang Yan-lung have remained stable, while FS John Tsang has accumulated a drop of 0.9 mark in his support rating, and a drop of 3 percentage points in his approval rate. The net approval rates of Tang, Tsang and Wong now stand at positive 29, 36 and 58 percentage points respectively. Wong Yan-lung remains to be the most popular Secretary of Department.

As for the Directors of Bureaux, compared to one month ago, the approval rates of 7 among 12 Directors have gone up, 3 have gone down, 2 have remained unchanged. Among them, those with changes in approval rate beyond sampling error include, Secretary for Education Michael Suen, Secretary for Development Carrie Lam and Secretary for Food and Health York Chow, up by 8, 7 and 6 percentage points respectively while Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung down 6 percentage points.

Among the Secretaries and Directors, no official registers negative popularity, meaning that their disapproval rates are higher than their approval rates.

According to POP's standard, no official falls under the category of "ideal" performance. Wong Yan-lung, Ambrose Lee, John Tsang, York Chow, Matthew Cheung and Carrie Lam now fall under the category of "successful". Henry Tang, Eva Cheng, Donald Tsang, Michael Suen, Edward Yau, Stephen Lam and Tsang Tak-sing can be labeled as "mediocre". Denise Yue, Ceajer Chan and Rita Lau can be labeled as "inconspicuous". No official falls under the categories of "depressing" or "disastrous". As for the reasons affecting the popularity change of these officials, readers can make their own judgment using detailed records shown in our "Opinion Daily" feature page.

The following table summarizes the grading of the principal officials for readers' easy reference:

"Ideal": those with approval rates of over 66%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets

None

"Successful": those with approval rates of over 50%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets

SJ Wong Yan-lung (64%[19]); Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong (64%[19]); FS John Tsang Chun-wah (54%); Secretary for Food and Health York Chow Yat-ngok (53%); Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (52%[19]); Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (52%[19])

"Mediocre": those not belonging to other 5 types; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets

CS Henry Tang Ying-yen (46%); Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng Yu-wah (43%); CE Donald Tsang Yam-kuen (42%); Secretary for Education Michael Suen Ming-yeung (40%); Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah (38%); Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam Sui-lung (32%[19]); Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing (31%)

"Inconspicuous": those with recognition rates of less than 50%; ranked by their approval rates; the first figure inside bracket is approval rate while the second figure is recognition rate

Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue Chung-yee (35%, 44%); Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan Ka-keung (32%[19], 41%); Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Rita Lau Ng Wai-lan (27%, 39%)

"Depressing": those with disapproval rates of over 50%; ranked by their disapproval rates

None

"Disastrous": those with disapproval rates of over 66%; ranked by their disapproval rates

None

[19] The approval rates of Secretary for Development Carrie Lam and Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng are 45.4% and 45.0% respectively in 1 decimal place. The approval rates of Secretary for Education Michael Suen and Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing are, 32.3% and 31.9% respectively.

 

Because March 16, 2010 (Tuesday) is a holiday of the University of Hong Kong, our next regular release is tentatively postponed to March 18, 2010 (Thursday) 1pm to 2pm, topic being six trust and confidence indicators.