HKU POP SITE releases the results of Policy Address follow-up surveyBack
| Press Release on October 19, 2010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | Background | Latest Figures | Commentary | Future Release (Tentative) | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract
The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong interviewed 507 Hong Kong people between 14 and 16 October by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The survey finds that people's satisfaction with CE Donald Tsang's sixth Policy Address has dropped to 31% in our follow-up survey, while dissatisfaction rate increases from 19% to 27%. This situation has repeated itself for many years. In terms of satisfaction rate registered in follow-up surveys, people's appraisal of this year's Policy Address ranks third among Tsang's six Addresses. In terms of rating, our follow-up survey records a significant drop of 4.8 marks to 54.1, which is similar to previous years. All in all, after some initial discussions, people's appraisal of the Policy Address appears to have turned from positive to neutral. However, POP will conduct another round of follow-up survey in due course to map people's further reaction. Regarding the theme of the Address, 66% of respondents agree that "Sharing Prosperity for a Caring Society" meets the need of society. It is the fourth highest figure across Tsang's six Policy Addresses. Moreover, 88% support Tsang's view that livelihood issues are the community's biggest concern, with housing, disparity of wealth and elderly welfare drawing the greatest attention. However, 63% and 59% think the effect of the poverty alleviation measures and his proposed housing policies would be "small" in bridging the wealth gap and solving housing problems. Nevertheless, 51% and 66% respectively support Tsang's proposed "My Home Purchase Plan", and his decision not to kick off local legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law. Finally, on our tracking question of people's satisfaction with Donald Tsang's policy direction, net satisfaction now stands at positive 4 percentage points, which is much better than this time last year. The sampling error of all percentages is between +/-1 and +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figure is +/-1.8. The response rate of the survey is 65%.
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 507 successful interviews, not 507 x 64.9% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake. [3] The maximum sampling error of all percentages 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 +/-1.8 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background
Since 1992, POP has been conducting Policy Address instant surveys every year. In 1998, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. In general, such instant polls which measure people's instant reactions would be repeated weeks later by a follow-up survey which measure people's more matured reactions. We believe this is the correct way to study public opinion. In 2008, we further split our instant survey into two. In our first survey, we measure people's overall appraisal of the Policy Address, their rating of the Policy Address, their change in confidence towards Hong Kong's future, and CE's popularity. One to two days later, we would conduct our first follow-up survey to study people's reactions towards different government proposals, and any change in their satisfaction of the Policy Address. The findings of this year's instant survey were already released on October 14. Today, we release the results of our first follow-up survey.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Latest Figures
The findings of the Policy Address follow-up survey released by POP today 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-2010. Herewith the contact information of various surveys:
Results of the follow-up survey of Policy Address, together with the instant poll, for 2009 and 2010 are tabulated below:
[8] Collapsed from a 5-point scale, the mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of importance level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean. [9] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not know the details of the Policy Address. The sub-sample size was 462. [10] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not know the details of the Policy Address. The sub-sample size was 747. [11] 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. Our latest survey revealed that 31% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 27% were dissatisfied. The mean score is 3.0, meaning close to "half-half" in general. The average rating registered for the Policy Address was 54.1 marks. With respect to people's specific reactions towards the contents of this year's Policy Address, relevant findings are summarized below:
Findings on people's opinion whether the theme of Policy Address concurred with the current needs of the society from 1997 till present are summarized as follows:
[14] The question wordings were "The theme of this year's Policy Address is "XXXX". Do you think this theme concurs with the current needs of the society?" [15] Excluding those respondents who refused to answer this question. Since 2006, this series of question only use sub-sample. [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] This question was not covered in the instant Policy Address poll in 1997 and 1998. Results showed that 66% thought the theme of the Policy Address "Sharing Prosperity for a Caring Society" concurred with the current needs of the society while 18% did not think so. Besides, 88% agreed with Donald Tsang's statement that livelihood issues are now the community's principal concerns, with housing, the wealth gap and elderly welfare drawing the greatest attention, while 6% disagreed. Regarding the "My Home Purchase Plan" proposed by Donald Tsang, that is, "to rent before purchase" in order to help sandwich class to purchase property, 51% supported while 29% held an opposite view. Donald Tsang also said legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law will not be implemented in the current term of government. A total of 66% supported while 11% opposed to this. Moreover, regarding the effect of the recommendations on housing policies in the Policy Address, 13% said the effect would be large while 59% held an opposite view. On the other hand, as for the effect of the poverty alleviation measures in the Policy Address in bridging the wealth gap, 14% said the effect would be large while 63% expressed the effect would be small. Respondents' appraisal of Donald Tsang's policy direction is summarized as follows:
[19] Collapsed from a 5-point scale, the mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of importance level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean. [20] 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. As for people's satisfaction with Donald Tsang's policy direction, 32% of the respondents showed satisfaction while 28% were not satisfied. The mean score is 3.0, meaning close to "half-half" in general. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Director of POP Robert Chung.
According to our Policy Address instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of Donald Tsang's sixth Policy Address, 41% said they were satisfied. However, in our follow-up survey, the figure drops to 31%, while dissatisfaction rate increases from 19% to 27%. This situation has repeated itself for many years. In terms of satisfaction rate registered in follow-up surveys, people's appraisal of this year's Policy Address ranks third among Tsang's six Addresses. In terms of rating, our follow-up survey records a significant drop of 4.8 marks to 54.1, which is similar to previous years. All in all, after some initial discussions, people's appraisal of the Policy Address appears to have turned from positive to neutral. However, POP will conduct another round of follow-up survey in due course to map people's further reaction. Regarding the theme of the Address, 66% of respondents agree that "Sharing Prosperity for a Caring Society" meets the need of society. It is the fourth highest figure across Tsang's six Policy Addresses. Moreover, 88% support Tsang's view that livelihood issues are the community's biggest concern, with housing, disparity of wealth and elderly welfare drawing the greatest attention. However, 63% and 59% think the effect of the poverty alleviation measures and his proposed housing policies would be "small" in bridging the wealth gap and solving housing problems. Nevertheless, 51% and 66% respectively support Tsang's proposed "My Home Purchase Plan", and his decision not to kick off local legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law. Finally, on our tracking question of people's satisfaction with Donald Tsang's policy direction, net satisfaction now stands at positive 4 percentage points, which is much better than this time last year. POP will release another round of Policy Address survey findings in about two weeks' time. Whether public opinion would change around many rounds of discussion remains to be seen. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Future Release (Tentative)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | Background | Latest Figures | Commentary | Future Release (Tentative) | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
