HKU POP SITE releases survey on Taiwan and Tibet issues, and Hong Kong people's ethnic identityBack

Press Release December 21, 2010

Abstract

The latest surveys conducted by the Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong show that Hong Kong people's opposition to the independence of Taiwan and Tibet has gone up somewhat and remains high. People's support of Taiwan rejoining the United Nations has also gone up but is still below opposition, while those who consider 'one country, two systems' applicable to Taiwan have also increased, to just 50%. However, people's net confidence in reunification across the strait has narrowed down to 7 percentage points, probably because of Mainland government's obstruction of Liu Xiaobo from receiving his Nobel Peace Prize, and the demonstration of violence in recent elections in Taiwan. These events may also have reduced Hong Kong people's sense of identity as 'Chinese citizens', 'citizens of PRC' and 'members of the Chinese race'. On the contrary, the flying results of Hong Kong athletes in the Asian Games, and the killing of Hong Kong hostages in Manila, may have boosted people's sense of identity as 'Hong Kong citizens'. The sampling error of ratings is not more than +/-2.3 while the maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-3 percentage points at 95% confidence level. The response rate of the surveys is between 65% and 67%.

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 Taiwan and Tibet issues survey is 1,011 successful interviews, not 1,011 x 65.0%. The sample size of the Hong Kong people's ethnic identity survey is 1,013 successful interviews, not 1,013 x 67.4% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-3 percentage points 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. When quoting these figures, journalists can state "sampling error of various ratings not more than +/-2.3 and sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3% at 95% confidence level".
[4] When quoting percentages of this survey, journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places 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.

Latest Figures

POP today releases via the POP Site the latest surveys on Taiwan and Tibet issues, and people's ethnic identity. 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-2010.

1. Taiwan and Tibet Issues

Herewith the contact information for the survey on Taiwan and Tibet issues:

Date of survey	Overall sample size	Response rate	Maximum sampling error of percentages^[6]
6-10/12/2010	1,011	65.0%	+/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.

Recent figures of people's opinions towards Taiwan and Tibet issues are summarized as follows:

Date of survey	8-11/12/09	9-15/3/10	9-13/6/10	7-11/9/10	6-10/12/10	Latest change
Sample base	1,007	1,004	1,004	1,011	1,011	--
Overall response rate	69.2%	66.4%	68.2%	65.3%	65.0%	--
Latest finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding and error^[7]	--
Taiwan independence: Opposition rate	75%	71%^[8]	73%	71%	75+/-3%	+4%^[8]
Taiwan independence: Support rate	14%	14%	17%^[8]	15%	15+/-2%	--
Tibet independence: Opposition rate	74%	72%	71%	69%	72+/-3%	+3%
Tibet independence: Support rate	13%[8]	11%	14%^[8]	12%	13+/-2%	+1%
Confidence in cross-strait reunification	62%[8]	49%^[8]	53%^[8]	49%^[8]	49+/-3%	--
No confidence in cross-strait reunification	27%[8]	40%^[8]	37%	38%	42+/-3%	+4%^[8]
Taiwan rejoining the United Nations: Support rate	40%	42%	41%	37%^[8]	42+/-3%	+5%^[8]
Taiwan rejoining the United Nations: Opposition rate	44%[8]	41%	43%	43%	43+/-3%	--
Believed 'one country, two systems' was applicable to Taiwan	55%	53%	46%^[8]	47%	50+/-3%	+3%
Believed 'one country, two systems' was not applicable to Taiwan	32%	35%	41%^[8]	38%	38+/-3%	--

[7] 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 +/-3% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[8] 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.

Latest survey revealed that 75% of Hong Kong people interviewed opposed the independence of Taiwan whereas only 15% showed support. Meanwhile, 72% objected Tibet becoming independent whilst only 13% held a positive view. Besides, 49% were confident in the ultimate reunification across the strait whilst 42% expressed no confidence. Moreover, 42% supported Taiwan rejoining the United Nations, 43% opposed it. As for the applicability of "one country, two systems" to Taiwan, 50% gave a positive view while 38% gave a negative answer.

2. Hong Kong People's Ethnic Identity

Herewith the latest contact information:

Date of survey	Sample base	Overall response rate	Sampling error of percentages^[9]	Sampling error of ethnicity indices^[9]
13-16/12/2010	1,013	67.4%	+/-3%	+/-2.3

[9] 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 sample error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.

Recent figures on Hong Kong people's sense of ethnic identity are summarized as follows:

Date of survey	8-13/6/09	8-11/12/09	9-13/6/10	13-16/12/10	Latest change
Sample base	1,002	1,007	1,004	1,013	--
Overall response rate	67.7%	69.2%	68.2%	67.4%	--
Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding and error^[10]	--
Identified themselves as "Hong Kong citizens"	25%	38%^[12]	25%^[12]	36+/-3%	+11%^[12]
Identified themselves as "Chinese citizens"	29%^[12]	24%^[12]	28%^[12]	21+/-3%	-7%^[12]
Identified themselves with a mixed identity of "Hong Kong citizens" plus "Chinese citizens"^[11]	45%	37%^[12]	46%^[12]	41+/-3%	-5%^[12]
Identified themselves as "Hong Kong People" in broad sense	57%^[12]	61%^[12]	57%^[12]	63+/-3%	+6%^[12]
Identified themselves as "Chinese People" in broad sense	43%^[12]	37%^[12]	43%^[12]	35+/-3%	-8%^[12]

[10] 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 +/-3% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[11] This means the percentage of "Chinese Hong Kong citizens" plus "Hong Kong Chinese citizens".
[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.

When asked to make a choice among 4 given identities, namely, "Hong Kong citizens", "Chinese Hong Kong citizens", "Chinese citizens" and "Hong Kong Chinese citizens", 36% of the respondents identified themselves as "Hong Kong citizens", 21% as "Chinese citizens", 28% as "Chinese Hong Kong citizens", while 14% identified themselves as "Hong Kong Chinese citizens". In other words, 63% of the respondents identified themselves as "Hong Kong People" in the broader sense (i.e. either as "Hong Kong citizens" or "Chinese Hong Kong citizens"), whereas 35% identified themselves as "Chinese People" in the broader sense (i.e. either as "Chinese citizens" or "Hong Kong Chinese citizens"), 41% chose a mixed identity of "Hong Kong citizens plus Chinese citizens" (i.e. either as "Chinese Hong Kong citizens" or "Hong Kong Chinese citizens").

Because the concepts of "Hong Kong citizens", "Chinese Hong Kong citizens", "Chinese citizens" and "Hong Kong Chinese citizens" may overlap with each other, and making a one-in-four choice may not reflect the actual strengths of one's ethnic identities, POP has right from the beginning conducted parallel tests on the strengths of people's separate identities as "Hong Kong citizens" and "Chinese citizens" using a scale of 0-10. In June 2007, POP expanded its study to include four new identities for strength rating, namely, "citizens of PRC", "members of the Chinese race", "Asians" and "global citizens". In December 2008, the study was further expanded by including separate importance ratings for different identities, and the compilation of a separate index for each identity using geometric means. Herewith the latest results:

Date of survey		8-13/6/09		8-11/12/09		9-13/6/10		13-16/12/10		Latest change
Sample base^[14]		523-565		525-563		531-558		528-550		--
Finding		Finding		Finding		Finding		Finding and error^[13]		--
Strength rating of being "Hong Kong citizens"	Identity index of being "Hong Kong citizens"^[16]	7.83	74.9	8.14^[15]	76.7	7.90^[15]	74.8^[15]	8.12 +/-0.17	77.7 +/-1.7	+0.22^[15]	+2.9^[15]
Importance rating of being "Hong Kong citizens"^[16]		7.38		7.44		7.38		7.62 +/-0.19		+0.24^[15]
Strength rating of being "Members of the Chinese race"	Identity index of being "Members of the Chinese race"^[16]	7.73	74.8	7.78	75.2	7.87	76.1	7.42 +/-0.20	72.1 +/-2.0	-0.45^[15]	-4.0^[15]
Importance rating of being "Members of the Chinese race"^[16]		7.39		7.40		7.49		7.12 +/-0.21		-0.37^[15]
Strength rating of being "Chinese citizens"	Identity index of being "Chinese citizens"^[16]	7.72	75.9	7.79	76.1	7.63	74.5	7.10 +/-0.21	69.7 +/-2.0	-0.53^[15]	-4.8^[15]
Importance rating of being "Chinese citizens"^[16]		7.57		7.59		7.42		7.01 +/-0.22		-0.41^[15]
Strength rating of being "Asians"	Identity index of being "Asians"^[16]	7.79	72.0	7.80	72.9	7.96	73.4	7.45 +/-0.19	69.3 +/-1.9	-0.51^[15]	-4.1^[15]
Importance rating of being "Asians"^[16]		6.95		7.03		7.07		6.67 +/-0.22		-0.40^[15]
Strength rating of being "global citizens"	Identity index of being "global citizens"^[16]	6.74	64.7	6.73	64.5	6.87	65.6	6.66 +/-0.23	64.6 +/-2.0	-0.21	-1.0
Importance rating of being "global citizens"^[16]		6.45		6.39		6.51		6.47 +/-0.24		-0.04
Strength rating of being "citizens of PRC"	Identity index of being "citizens of PRC"^[16]	6.99	68.2	6.92	66.9	6.38^[15]	61.6^[15]	6.27 +/-0.24	60.8 +/-2.3	-0.11	-0.8
Importance rating of being "citizens of PRC"^[16]		6.83		6.71		6.20^[15]		6.07 +/-0.24		-0.13

[13] 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 ratings not more than +/-0.24 and sampling error of identity indices not more than +/-2.3 at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[14] Since December 2008, the sub-sample size of these questions is controlled at slightly over 500 cases.
[15] 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.
[16] New items since December 2008. "Identity index" is calculated for each identity of a respondent by taking the geometric mean of the strength and importance ratings of a certain identity, multiply by 10. If either the strength or importance rating of a respondent is missing, it is substituted by the sample mean of that identity.

Latest findings showed that the identity ratings for "Hong Kong citizens", "Asians", "members of the Chinese race" and "Chinese citizens" were 8.12, 7.45, 7.42 and 7.10 marks respectively. Using the same rating method, the strength of people's identity as "global citizens" and "citizens of PRC" were 6.66 and 6.27 marks respectively. As for the importance ratings, "Hong Kong citizens", "members of the Chinese race" and "Chinese citizens" scored 7.62, 7.12 and 7.01 marks respectively, while those for "Asians", "global citizens" and "citizens of PRC" were 6.67, 6.47 and 6.07 marks respectively.

Taking the geometric mean of the strength and importance ratings of each respondent and then multiply it by 10, we have an 'identity index' for the respondent for a certain identity between 0 and 100, with 0 meaning no feeling, 100 meaning extremely strong feeling, and 50 meaning half and half. Using these identity indices, the rank order of Hong Kong people's six identities were "Hong Kong citizens", "members of the Chinese race", "Chinese citizens", "Asians", "global citizens" and "citizens of PRC". Their scores were 77.7, 72.1, 69.7, 69.3, 64.6 and 60.8 marks respectively.

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 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 some of the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from June 9 to 13, 2010 while this survey was conducted from December 6 to 16, 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.

10/12/10	An empty chair represents Liu Xiaobo to be honoured by the Nobel Peace Prize.
27/11/10	The municipal elections is held in Taiwan.
26/11/10	Lien Sheng-wen was shot in the head during a campaign rally for the Taiwan municipal elections.
13/11/10	Hu Jintao and Donald Tsang meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Leaders Meeting in Yokohama.
12/11/10	Asian Games opened in Guangzhou.
16/10/10	The sovereignty dispute over Diaoyu Islands triggered large-scale demonstrations in both China and Japan.
11/10/10	No official is filed criminal charge in the investigation report of the hostage case of Hong Kong travel tour in Manila.
8/10/10	Beijing human rights activist Liu Xiaobo wins Nobel Peace Prize.
1/10/10	China's lunar probe "Chang'e-2" blasts off to explore for renewable energy.
24/9/10	Captain Zhan is finally released after a 17-days detention by Japan.
29/8/10	People marched in silence to mourn the eight Hong Kong people who were killed in the Manila hostage incident.
23/8/10	One Hong Kong travel tour was hostaged in Manila, ended up with eight tourists dead and seven injured.
15/8/10	August 15 was set the National Mourning Day for mudflow in Zhouqu.
1/7/10	Many newspapers on the following day report and discuss the July 1 demonstration and also the public criticism to the Democratic party.
29/6/10	Mainland China and Taiwan sign ECFA.

Commentary

Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, observed, "According our latest survey, Hong Kong people's opposition to the independence of Taiwan and Tibet has gone up somewhat and remains high. People's support of Taiwan rejoining the United Nations has also gone up but is still below opposition, while those who consider 'one country, two systems' applicable to Taiwan have also increased, to just 50%. However, people's net confidence in reunification across the strait has narrowed down to 7 percentage points, probably because of Mainland government's obstruction of Liu Xiaobo from receiving his Nobel Peace Prize, and the demonstration of violence in recent elections in Taiwan. These events may also have reduced Hong Kong people's sense of identity as 'Chinese citizens', 'citizens of PRC' and 'members of the Chinese race'. On the contrary, the flying results of Hong Kong athletes in the Asian Games, and the killing of Hong Kong hostages in Manila, may have boosted people's sense of identity as 'Hong Kong citizens'. As for other reasons which may have affected the ups and downs of different figures, readers are free to form their own judgment using the detailed records displayed in our 'Opinion Daily'."

Future Releases (Tentative)

December 23, 2010 (Thursday) 1pm to 2pm: People's appraisal of society's conditions
December 28, 2010 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2 pm: Trust and confidence indicators