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 Prgramme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong interviewed 1,010 Hong Kong people between June 1 and 3 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Our latest survey finds that CE Donald Tsang's popularity remains low, as his support rating remains under 50 marks for three consecutive times and his disapproval rate exceeds 50% for two consecutive times. His net popularity now stands at negative 16 percentage points. Recent events which might have affected CE's popularity include his inviting Audrey Eu to a TV debate on political reform, meetings between the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government and the pan-democrats on political development, principal government officials' community campaigns for the government's political reform package, and various events related to June 4. For the Secretaries of Departments, compared to one month ago, the popularity of CS Henry Tang, FS John Tsang and SJ Wong Yan-lung have not changed much. All figures have fluctuated within sampling errors. However, the popularity of Henry Tang has dropped to record low since he became CS. The net approval rates of Tang, Tsang and Wong now stand at positive 20, 29 and 56 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 9 among 12 Directors have gone up, 2 have gone down and 1 remained unchanged. Among them, those with changes in approval rate beyond sampling error include Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee, down by 6 percentage points, Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue, Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung, and Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng, up by 10, 5 and 5 percentage points respectively. Among the Secretaries and Directors, only Secretary for Education Michael Suen and Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing register negative popularity, meaning that their disapproval rates are higher than their approval rates. Their net popularity figures now stand at negative 5 and negative 4 percentage points. According to POP's standard, no official falls under the category of "ideal" performance. Wong Yan-lung, Ambrose Lee and Matthew Cheung now fall under the category of "successful". Carrie Lam, John Tsang, York Chow, Eva Cheng, Henry Tang, Edward Yau, Denise Yue, Stephen Lam, Michael Suen and Tsang Tak-sing can be labeled as "mediocre". Ceajer Chan and Rita Lau can be labeled as "inconspicuous". Donald Tsang can be labeled as "depressing". No official falls under the category of "disastrous". The maximum sampling error of all approval and disapproval rates is between +/-1 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 68%.

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 1,010 successful interviews, not 1,010 x 67.9% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] The maximum sampling error of all approval and disapproval rates is between +/-1 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 +/-1.5 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]
1-3/6/10	1,010	67.9%	+/-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	7-12/4/10	26-29/4/10	30/4-6/5/10	18-20/5/10	1-3/6/10	Latest Change
Sample base	1,009	1,010	1,031	1,015	1,010	--
Overall response rate	65.3%	69.5%	72.4%	72.5%	67.9%	--
Latest finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error[8]	--
Rating of CE Donald Tsang	50.7[9]	51.8	49.2[9]	49.0	49.2+/-1.5	+0.2
Vote of confidence in CE Donald Tsang	34%[9]	37%	34%	33%	35+/-3%	+2%
Vote of no confidence in CE Donald Tsang	49%	46%	48%	51%	51+/-3%	--

[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 +/-1.5, 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.

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

Date of survey	24/2/10	1-3/3/10	7-12/4/10	30/4-6/5/10	1-3/6/10	Latest Change[10]
Sample base	1,003[13]	1,005	1,009	1,031	1,010	--
Overall response rate	65.4%	64.2%	65.3%	72.4%	67.9%	--
Latest finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error[11]	--
Ratings of CS Henry Tang	--	54.4	52.5[12]	51.8	51.3+/-1.4	-0.5
Vote of confidence in CS Henry Tang	--	46%	42%[12]	42%	40+/-3%	-2%
Vote of no confidence in CS Henry Tang	--	17%	18%	18%	20+/-3%	+2%
Ratings of FS John Tsang	61.3[12]	57.4[12]	54.5[12]	53.1 [12]	54.0+/-1.3	+0.9
Vote of confidence in FS John Tsang	53%	54%	53%	49%[12]	48+/-3%	-1%
Vote of no confidence in FS John Tsang	8%[12]	18%[12]	19%	20%	19+/-2%	-1%
Ratings of SJ Y.L. Wong	--	61.2	59.9[12]	58.9	59.7+/-1.2	+0.8
Vote of confidence in SJ Y.L.Wong	--	64%	59%[12]	62%	62+/-3%	--
Vote of no confidence in SJ Y.L.Wong	--	6%	7%	6%	6+/-2%	--

[10] 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.
[11] 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 +/-1.4, 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 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	7-12/4/10		30/4-6/5/10		1-3/6/2010		Latest Change
Total sample size[14]	1,009		1,031		1,010		--
Overall response rate	65.3%		72.4%		67.9%		--
Sample base for each question/ Percentage of answer	Base	%	Base	%	Base	%& error[15]	--
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee	589	65%	540	65%	530	59+/-4%	-6%[16]
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee	589	8%	540	8%	530	11+/-3%	+3%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung	540	51%	580	48%	509	53+/-4%	+5%[16]
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung	540	14%[16]	580	16%	509	14+/-3%	-2%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Development Carrie Lam[17]	533	48%	515	46%	527	50+/-4%	+4%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Development Carrie Lam	533	18%[16]	515	18%	527	16+/-3%	-2%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Food and Health York Chow	564	47%[16]	576	45%	509	47+/-4%	+2%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Food and Health York Chow	564	25%	576	30%[16]	509	29+/-4%	-1%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng	512	41%	550	40%	519	45+/-4%	+5%[16]
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng	512	22%	550	26%	519	25+/-4%	-1%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau	514	39%	519	37%	517	40+/-4%	+3%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau	514	16%	519	22%[16]	517	19+/-3%	-3%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue	517	30%[16]	564	29%	508	39+/-4%	+10%[16]
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue	517	15%[16]	564	13%	508	13+/-3%	--
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam[17]	590	29%	523	29%	517	33+/-4%	+4%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam	590	33%	523	39%[16]	517	33+/-4%	-6%[16]
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Education Michael Suen[17]	602	33%[16]	534	30%	514	33+/-4%	+3%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Education Michael Suen	602	36%[16]	534	38%	514	38+/-4%	--
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan	551	28%	557	33%[16]	516	31+/-4%	-2%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan	551	15%[16]	557	11%[16]	516	16+/-3%	+5%[16]
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing	580	29%	528	28%	517	29+/-4%	+1%
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing	580	33%	528	31%	517	33+/-4%	+2%
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Rita Lau	533	29%	528	28%	513	28+/-4%	--
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Rita Lau	533	12%	528	15%	513	13+/-3%	-2%

[14] Starting from 2006, these questions only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[15] 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.
[16] 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.
[17] In one decimal place, the approval rate of Secretary for Development Carrie Lam is 49.9%, while that of Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam Sui-lung and Secretary for Education Michael Suen Ming-yeung are 33.4% and 33.2% respectively.

The latest survey showed that, CE Donald Tsang scored 49.2 marks, and 35% supported him as the Chief Executive. Meanwhile, the corresponding ratings of CS Henry Tang, FS John Tsang and SJ Wong Yan-lung were 51.3, 54.0 and 59.7 marks and 40%, 48% 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, attaining 59%. The 2nd and 3rd places belonged to Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung and Secretary for Development Carrie Lam, with approval rate 53% and 50% respectively. Secretary for Food and Health York Chow and Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng ranked 4th and 5th, with approval rate 47% and 45% respectively. Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau, Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam, Secretary for Education Michael Suen, Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan, Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing and Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Rita Lau ranked 6th to 12th, as they gained 40%, 39%, 33%, 33%, 31%, 29% and 28% support from the public respectively. In other words, only Ambrose Lee and Matthew Cheung scored approval rate 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 April 30 to May 6, 2010 while this survey was conducted from June 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.

1/6/10	Hong Kong Government consults public on whether to subsidize home ownership.
29/5/10	Government principal officials promote political reform package to the public.
28/5/10	The Nam Cheong property development project isn't been tendered and property development companies say the land premium is too high.
24/5/10	Central government liaison office meets with the Democratic Party to talk about Hong Kong political development.
20/5/10	Chief Executive Donald Tsang invites Audrey Eu to a TV debate on political reform.
17/5/10	Traffic accident in Sha Tin leaves 1 dead and 6 injured.
17/5/10	Many newspapers on the following day follow and discuss the impacts of the Legislative Council by-election on Hong Kong's political development.
16/5/10	The tunrout rate of the Legislative Council by-election is less than 20%.
11/5/10	Hong Kong government auctions a piece of land in Tung Chung, but the response was poor.
8/5/10	A madman kills two and hurts three people in Kwai Shing East Estate.
6/5/10	Many newspapers report and discuss the housing policy in Hong Kong.
3/5/10	The Urban Renewal Authority announces 8 new measures on property sales.
1/5/10	Large amount of people visits the Shanghai World Expo.

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

Our survey finds that CE Donald Tsang's popularity remains low, as his support rating remains under 50 marks for three consecutive times and his disapproval rate exceeds 50% for two consecutive times. His net popularity now stands at negative 16 percentage points. Recent events which might have affected CE's popularity include his inviting Audrey Eu to a TV debate on political reform, meetings between the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government and the pan-democrats on political development, principal government officials' community campaigns for the government's political reform package, and various events related to June 4.

For the Secretaries of Departments, compared to one month ago, the popularity of CS Henry Tang, FS John Tsang and SJ Wong Yan-lung have not changed much. All figures have fluctuated within sampling errors. However, the popularity of Henry Tang has dropped to record low since he became CS. The net approval rates of Tang, Tsang and Wong now stand at positive 20, 29 and 56 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 9 among 12 Directors have gone up, 2 have gone down and 1 remained unchanged. Among them, those with changes in approval rate beyond sampling error include Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee, down by 6 percentage points, Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue, Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung, and Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng, up by 10, 5 and 5 percentage points respectively.

Among the Secretaries and Directors, only Secretary for Education Michael Suen and Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing register negative popularity, meaning that their disapproval rates are higher than their approval rates. Their net popularity figures now stand at negative 5 and negative 4 percentage points.

According to POP's standard, no official falls under the category of "ideal" performance. Wong Yan-lung, Ambrose Lee and Matthew Cheung now fall under the category of "successful". Carrie Lam, John Tsang, York Chow, Eva Cheng, Henry Tang, Edward Yau, Denise Yue, Stephen Lam, Michael Suen and Tsang Tak-sing can be labeled as "mediocre". Ceajer Chan and Rita Lau can be labeled as "inconspicuous". Donald Tsang can be labeled as "depressing". No official falls under the category of "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 (62%); Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong (59%); Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (53%); Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (50%)

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

Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (50%[18]); FS John Tsang Chun-wah (48%); Secretary for Food and Health York Chow Yat-ngok (47%); Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng Yu-wah (45%); CS Henry Tang Ying-yen (40%); Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah (40%); Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue Chung-yee (39%); Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam Sui-lung (33%); Secretary for Education Michael Suen Ming-yeung (33%); Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing (29%)

"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 Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan Ka-keung (31%, 47%); Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Rita Lau Ng Wai-lan (28%, 41%)

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

CE Donald Tsang Yam-kuen (51%)

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

None

[18] In one decimal place, the approval rate of Secretary for Development Carrie Lam is 49.9%.

• June 15, 2010 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Trust and Confidence Indicators and Taiwan Issues