HKU POP SITE releases the results of the Policy Address second follow-up surveyBack
| Press Release on October 28, 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Abstract | Background | Latest Figures | Commentary | Future Release (Tentative) | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract
The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong interviewed 523 Hong Kong people between 26 and 27 October by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers, in order to measure again people's reaction to this year's Policy Address. According to our Policy Address instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of the sixth Address of Donald Tsang, 41% said they were satisfied. However, in our first follow-up survey, the figure dropped to 31%, while dissatisfaction rate increased from 19% to 27%. After about two weeks, people's satisfaction rate remains the same, but their dissatisfaction rate continues to increase by 6 percentage points to 33%, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 2 percentage points, which is the same as that of people's net satisfaction with Donald Tsang's policy direction. People's rating of the Policy Address now stands at 52.2 marks, down by 1.9 marks. In terms of the Address' theme and content, according to our latest follow-up survey, over 60% still agree that "Sharing Prosperity for a Caring Society" is an appropriate theme for the Address. There is a small drop, but the overall appraisal is still positive, with a net value of positive 40 percentage points. As for Donald Tsang's analysis of livelihood issues, and his suggested "My Home Purchase Plan", some drops in support are registered, but their net support rates still stand at positive 74 and positive 4 percentage points respectively. However, appraisal is becoming more and more negative in terms of effectiveness of CE's housing policies and the poverty alleviation measures, as their net values become negative 62 and negative 64 percentage points respectively. Net support for CE's decision not to kick off local legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law stands at positive 52 percentage points. To sum up, after rounds of discussion, people's appraisal of this year's Policy Address can be considered as half and half. People do not seem to have too much objection against Donald Tsang's policy principles, but they are not optimistic of the outcome of his policy proposals. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is between +/-2 and +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figure is +/-1.7. 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 523 successful interviews, not 523 x 64.0% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake. [3] The maximum sampling error of all percentages 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 +/-1.7 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. From 1998 onwards, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. In general, such surveys would be repeated some time later to measure people's more matured reactions. In 2008, we further enhanced our survey design by splitting our Policy Address instant survey into two. In our instant 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 started to conduct our first follow-up survey, which mainly studies people's reactions towards different government proposals, and any change in their satisfaction of the Policy Address. Our second follow-up survey would be conducted a short period later, to repeat our measurement of people's reactions towards different government proposals, and any change in their satisfaction of the Policy Address. We believe this is a better way to study public opinion on these issues: measuring people's instant reaction first, and then repeat our measurement some time later to check people's more matured reaction. Our Policy Address's instant and first follow-up surveys this year were released on October 14 and 19 respectively, while the findings of the second follow-up poll are released today.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Latest Figures
The findings of the second follow-up survey of Policy Address released by POP SITE 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:
As different questions involve different sub-samples, the sample errors will vary accordingly. The table below briefly shows the relationship between sampling errors and sample size for the readers to capture the corresponding changes:
Results of the second follow-up survey of Policy Address, together with the instant and first follow-up surveys, for 2009 and 2010 are tabulated below:
[9] 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. [10] Excluding respondents who were not clear about the Policy Address. The sub-sample size in 2009 was 462 and that in 2010 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. * Erratum: The figures in the original release were mistyped, with regret. Latest second follow-up survey revealed that 31% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 33% were dissatisfied. The mean score is 2.9, meaning close to "half-half". The average rating registered for the Policy Address was 52.2 marks. As for people's satisfaction with Donald Tsang's policy direction, 34% of the respondents showed satisfaction while 36% were not satisfied. The mean score is 2.9, meaning close to "half-half". Results of people's satisfaction with the Policy Address in previous similar surveys (follow-up survey of Policy Address in 1997, 1998 and 2000 – 2007 and second follow-up surveys of Policy Address in 1999, 2008 and 2009) are tabulated below:
[13] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. [14] 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. ** Erratum: The sub-sample size in the original release was mistyped, with regret. Compared to similar surveys conducted after the handover, people's satisfaction rate with this year's Policy Address is the third highest among Tsang's six addresses, while it is still higher than all those registered for Tung's second to eighth addresses. Results of both first and second follow-up surveys of Policy Address 2010 are tabulated below:
[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. Results showed that 63% thought the theme of the Policy Address "Sharing Prosperity for a Caring Society" concurred with the current needs of the society while 23% did not think so. Besides, Donald Tsang mentioned livelihood issues are now the community's principal concerns, with housing, the wealth gap and elderly welfare drawing the greatest attention, a respective of 84% and 10% agreed and disagreed with this. Regarding the effect of the recommendations on housing policies in the Policy Address in solving the housing problems, 8% said the effect would be large while 70% said the effect would be small. Findings also showed that a respective of 43% and 39% of respondents supported and opposed the "My Home Purchase Plan" to help sandwich class to purchase property. Meanwhile, regarding the effect of the poverty alleviation measures in the Policy Address in bridging the wealth gap, 6% and 70% said the effect would be large and small respectively. Finally, 66% supported that legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law would not be implemented in the current term of government while 14% opposed this. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 the sixth Address of Donald Tsang, 41% said they were satisfied. However, in our first follow-up survey, the figure dropped to 31%, while dissatisfaction rate increased from 19% to 27%. After about two weeks, people's satisfaction rate remains the same, but their dissatisfaction rate continues to increase by 6 percentage points to 33%, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 2 percentage points, which is the same as that of people's net satisfaction with Donald Tsang's policy direction. People's rating of the Policy Address now stands at 52.2 marks, down by 1.9 marks. In terms of the Address' theme and content, according to our latest follow-up survey, over 60% still agree that "Sharing Prosperity for a Caring Society" is an appropriate theme for the Address. There is a small drop, but the overall appraisal is still positive, with a net value of positive 40 percentage points. As for Donald Tsang's analysis of livelihood issues, and his suggested "My Home Purchase Plan", some drops in support are registered, but their net support rates still stand at positive 74 and positive 4 percentage points respectively. However, appraisal is becoming more and more negative in terms of effectiveness of CE's housing policies and the poverty alleviation measures, as their net values become negative 62 and negative 64 percentage points respectively. Net support for CE's decision not to kick off local legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law stands at positive 52 percentage points. To sum up, after rounds of discussion, people's appraisal of this year's Policy Address can be considered as half and half. People do not seem to have too much objection against Donald Tsang's policy principles, but they are not optimistic of the outcome of his policy proposals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Future Release (Tentative)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Abstract | Background | Latest Figures | Commentary | Future Release (Tentative) | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
