HKU POP releases the results of the Policy Address second follow-up surveyBack

Press Release on October 25, 2011

Abstract

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong interviewed 518 Hong Kong people between 17 and 20 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 seventh Address of Donald Tsang, 47% said they were satisfied. However, in our first follow-up survey, the figure slightly dropped to 43%, while dissatisfaction rate increased from 18% to 25%. After another week, people's satisfaction rate further drops by 10 percentage points to 33% while dissatisfaction rate continues to increase by 7 percentage points to 32%, shrinking the net satisfaction rate to positive 1 percentage point, which is only slightly better than last year. People's net satisfaction with Donald Tsang's policy direction now stands at negative 12 percentage points, which is much poorer than this time last year. People's rating of the Policy Address now stands at 51.3 marks, significantly down by 4.8 marks as compared to that in the first follow-up survey, and slightly poorer than this time last year. In terms of key policy areas, our latest survey shows that people's support of the resumption of HOS remains high, with net a support rate of positive 74 percentage points. However they remain skeptical of the effectiveness of the housing and land supply policies on stabilizing the property market. They are more skeptical of the effectiveness of various measures to ease the burden of the grassroots, and most skeptical of their effectiveness on narrowing the wealth gap. As for CE's observation that Hong Kong's core values have remained intact after reunification, support has gone up slightly, giving a net support rate of negative 18 percentage points. All in all, people's response to Donald Tsang's seventh Policy Address remains to start high end low, but with a fluctuation bigger than that of last year. Dissatisfaction seems to have focused on poverty and wealth gap issues. After many rounds of discussion, the positive effect of the Address has receded very quickly, and it seems that the Tsang administration will need to face the problems of a weak government again. 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 +/-1.8. The response rate of the survey is 74%.

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 518 successful interviews, not 518 x 73.9% 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 +/-1.8 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. 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 13 and 18 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-2011. Herewith the contact information of various surveys:

Survey series	Date of survey	Sample base	Overall response rate	Sampling error of percentages^[6]
Survey series	Date of survey	Sample base	Overall response rate	Sampling error of percentages^[6]
2011 Second follow-up	17-20/10/11	518	73.9%	+/-4%
2011 First follow-up	13-14/10/11	520	65.5%	+/-4%
2011 Instant	12/10/11	1,032	65.6%	+/-3%
2010 Second follow-up	26-27/10/10	523	64.0%	+/-4%
2010 First follow-up	14-16/10/10	507	64.9%	+/-4%
2010 Instant	13/10/10	1,020	66.9%	+/-3%
2009 Second follow-up	20-26/10/09	513	72.1%	+/-4%
2009 First follow-up	15-17/10/09	508	70.6%	+/-4%
2009 Instant	14/10/09	1,007	71.9%	+/-3%
2008 Second follow-up	27-29/10/08	1,015	70.3%	+/-3%
2008 First follow-up	17-19/10/08	505	70.9%	+/-4%
2008 Instant	15/10/08	1,011	74.9%	+/-3%

[6] 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.

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:

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)
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.

Results of the second follow-up survey of Policy Address, together with the instant and first follow-up surveys, for 2010 and 2011 are tabulated below:

	2010				2011
	Instant survey	First follow-up survey	Second follow-up survey	Change	Instant survey	First follow-up survey	Second follow-up survey	Latest change
Date of survey	13/10/10	14-16/10/10	26-27/10/10	--	12/10/11	13-14/10/11	17-20/10/11	--
Sample base	1,020^[10]	507	523	--	1,032[10]	520	518	--
Overall response rate	66.9%	64.9%	64.0%	--	65.6%	65.5%	73.9%	--
Latest Finding	Finding and error^[8]	Finding and error^[8]	Finding and error^[8]		Finding and error^[8]	Finding and error^[8]	Finding and error^[8]	--
Policy Address: Satisfaction rate^[9]	41+/-3%	31+/-4%	31+/-4%	--	47+/-3%	43+/-4%	33+/-4%	-10%^[11]
Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate^[9]	19+/-2%	27+/-4%	33+/-4%	+6%^[11]	18+/-3%	25+/-4%	32+/-4%	+7%^[11]
Mean Value^[9]	3.2+/-0.1 (Base=695)	3.0+/-0.1 (Base=467)	2.9+/-0.1 (Base=487)	-0.1	3.3+/-0.1 (Base=791)	3.2+/-0.1 (Base = 484)	2.9+/-0.1 (Base=501)	-0.3^[11]
Rating of Policy Address (0 to 100 marks)	58.9+/-1.4	54.1+/-1.8	52.2+/-1.7	-1.9^[11]	59.1+/-1.4	56.1+/-1.9^[11]	51.3+/-1.8	-4.8^[11]
Satisfaction rate of Tsang's policy direction^[9]	--	32+/-4%	34+/-4%	+2%	--	33+/-4%	29+/-4%	-4%
Dissatisfaction rate of Tsang's policy direction^[9]	--	28+/-4%	36+/-4%	+8%^[11]]	--	36+/-4%	41+/-4%	+5%^[11]
Mean Value^[9]	--	3.0+/-0.1 (Base=477)	2.9+/-0.1 (Base=501)	-0.1	--	2.9+/-0.1 (Base = 495)	2.8+/-0.1 (Base=500)	-0.1

[8] 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. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
[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 2010 was 747 and that in 2011 was 816.
[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.

Latest second follow-up survey revealed that 33% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 32% were dissatisfied. The mean score is 2.9, meaning close to "half-half". The average rating registered for the Policy Address was 51.3 marks. As for people's satisfaction with Donald Tsang's policy direction, 29% of the respondents showed satisfaction while 41% were not satisfied. The mean score is 2.8, 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 – 2011) are tabulated below:

Date of survey	Sub-sample base	Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction^[13]	Appraisal of Policy Address: Half-half	Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction^[13]
Date of survey	Sub-sample base	Finding and error^[12]	Finding and error^[12]	Finding and error^[12]
17-20/10/11	518	33+/-4%	32+/-4%	32+/-4%
26-27/10/10	523	31^[14]+/-4%	30 +/-4%	33^[14]+/-4%
20-26/10/09	506	20+/-4%	28^[14] +/-4%	45^[14] +/-4%
27-29/10/08	556	24^[14] +/-4%	36% +/-4%	35 +/-4%
22-23/10/07	526	44^[14] +/-4%	31^[14] +/-4%	18^[14] +/-3%
23-24/10/06	506	26^[14] +/-4%	41^[14] +/-4%	23^[14] +/-4%
25-27/10/05	513	41^[14] +/-4%	24^[14] +/-4%	5^[14] +/-2%
27-31/1/05	1,012	17^[14] +/-2%	37^[14] +/-3%	23^[14] +/-3%
14-16/1/04	987	10^[14] +/-2%	27^[14] +/-3%	29^[14] +/-3%
23-28/1/03	1,049	13^[14] +/-2%	22^[14] +/-3%	37^[14] +/-3%
21-23/10/01	1,056	14 +/-2%	32^[14]+/-3%	31^[14] +/-3%
23-25/10/00	1,031	15 +/-2%	28 +/-3%	25 +/-3%
22/10/99	553	12 +/-3%	28 +/-4%	27 +/-4%
20/10/98	533	19^[14] +/-3%	27 +/-4%	32^[14] +/-4%
14-15/10/97	517	31^[14] +/-4%	27 +/-4%	14 +/-3%

[12] 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.
[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.

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 seven addresses, while it is still higher than all those registered for Tung's eight addresses.

Results of both first and second follow-up surveys of Policy Address 2011 are tabulated below:

	First follow-up survey	Second follow-up survey	Change
Date of survey	13-14/10/11	17-20/10/11	--
Sample base	520	518	--
Overall response rate	65.5%	73.9%	--
Latest Finding	Finding and error^[15]	Finding and error^[15]	--
The theme of this year's Policy Address "From Strength to Strength" concurs the current needs of the society.	43+/-4%	39+/-4%	-4%
The theme of this year's Policy Address "From Strength to Strength" does not concur the current needs of the society.	36+/-4%	34+/-4%	-2%
Agree that resumption of the HOS for low and middle-income families.	83+/-3%	84+/-3%	+1%
Disagree that resumption of the HOS for low and middle-income families.	11+/-3%	10+/-3%	-1%
Support Donald Tsang's observation that "there have been worries that our core values would be lost after reunification. In fact, these core values have remained intact."	26+/-4%	30+/-4%	+4%
Oppose to Donald Tsang's observation that "there have been worries that our core values would be lost after reunification. In fact, these core values have remained intact."	54+/-4%	48+/-4%	-6%^[16]
Regard the effect of the housing and land supply policies proposed by Donald Tsang on stabilizing the property market will be large.	19+/-3%	21+/-4%	+2%
Regard the effect of the housing and land supply policies proposed by Donald Tsang on stabilizing the property market will be small.	56+/-4%	51+/-4%	-5%^[16]
Regard the effect of various measures proposed by Donald Tsang on easing the burden of the grassroots will be large.	21+/-4%	14+/-3%	-7%^[16]
Regard the effect of various measures proposed by Donald Tsang on easing the burden of the grassroots will be small.	56+/-4%	59+/-4%	+3%
Regard the effect of various measures proposed by Donald Tsang on narrowing the wealth gap will be large.	8+/-2%	7+/-2%	-1%
Regard the effect of various measures proposed by Donald Tsang on narrowing the wealth gap will be small.	76+/-4%	79+/-4%	+3%

[15] 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.
[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 39% thought the theme of the Policy Address "From Strength to Strength" concurred with the current needs of the society while 34% did not think so. Besides, Donald Tsang mentioned resumption of the HOS for low and middle-income families, a respective of 84% and 10% agreed and disagreed with this. Findings also showed that a respective of 30% and 48% of respondents support and oppose to Donald Tsang's observation that "there have been worries that our core values would be lost after reunification. In fact, these core values have remained intact." Regarding the effect of the housing and land supply policies proposed by Donald Tsang on stabilizing the property market, 21% said the effect would be large while 51% said the effect would be small. Meanwhile, regarding the effect of various measures proposed by Donald Tsang on easing the burden of the grassroots, 14% said the effect would be large while 59% thought the opposite. Finally, regarding the effect of various measures proposed by Donald Tsang on narrowing the wealth gap, 7% and 79% said the effect would be large and small respectively.

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 seventh Address of Donald Tsang, 47% said they were satisfied. However, in our first follow-up survey, the figure slightly dropped to 43%, while dissatisfaction rate increased from 18% to 25%. After another week, people's satisfaction rate further drops by 10 percentage points to 33% while dissatisfaction rate continues to increase by 7 percentage points to 32%, shrinking the net satisfaction rate to positive 1 percentage point, which is only slightly better than last year. People's net satisfaction with Donald Tsang's policy direction now stands at negative 12 percentage points, which is much poorer than this time last year. People's rating of the Policy Address now stands at 51.3 marks, significantly down by 4.8 marks as compared to that in the first follow-up survey, and slightly poorer than this time last year.

In terms of key policy areas, our latest survey shows that people's support of the resumption of HOS remains high, with net a support rate of positive 74 percentage points. However they remain skeptical of the effectiveness of the housing and land supply policies on stabilizing the property market. They are more skeptical of the effectiveness of various measures to ease the burden of the grassroots, and most skeptical of their effectiveness on narrowing the wealth gap. As for CE's observation that Hong Kong's core values have remained intact after reunification, support has gone up slightly, giving a net support rate of negative 18 percentage points.

All in all, people's response to Donald Tsang's seventh Policy Address remains to start high end low, but with a fluctuation bigger than that of last year. Dissatisfaction seems to have focused on poverty and wealth gap issues. After many rounds of discussion, the positive effect of the Address has receded very quickly, and it seems that the Tsang administration will need to face the problems of a weak government again.

Future Release (Tentative)

November 1, 2011 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Ratings of Top 10 Legislative Councillors