HKU POP releases popularity figures of top 5 Hong Kong disciplinary forces and the PLA Hong Kong GarrisonBack

 
Press Release on July 8, 2014

| Special Announcements | Abstract| Background | Latest Figures |Commentary | Future Release (Tentative) |
| Detailed Findings (People's Satisfaction with the Discipilnary Force/People's Satisfaction with the Performance of the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison /People's Satisfaction with the Performance of the Hong Kong Police Force) |


Special Announcements

(1) Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong conducted a headcount of July 1 Rally participants on July 1, and released its preliminary results via the “HKU POP SITE” in the evening on the same day. Same as last year, to facilitate the public to do their own headcount of the Rally, POP will upload the full version of video record of the Rally to the “PopCon” e-platform (http://popcon.hk) 10 days after the Rally.

 

(2) To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, POP has already released for public examination some time ago via the “HKU POP Site” (http://hkupop.hku.hk) the raw data of all 50 regular rating surveys of CE CY Leung, as well as the 181 regular rating surveys of former CE Donald Tsang and 239 regular rating surveys of former CE CH Tung, along with related demographics of respondents. Please follow normal academic standards when using or citing such data. POP is planning to put up a “POP Education Page” to centralize all raw data and educational material as a one-stop service.



Abstract

POP conducted a double stage survey on people’s satisfaction with the top 5 disciplinary forces in the second half of June 2014 by means of random telephone surveys conducted by real interviewers. The survey shows that compared to seven months ago, the popularity ratings and net satisfaction rates of most disciplinary forces have dropped, although the figures are still quite positive. In terms of relative rankings of ratings, among the “top 5” Hong Kong disciplinary forces, Hong Kong Fire Services Department stays at the top. Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department and Hong Kong Immigration Department each goes up one position to rank second and third. Civil Aid Service gets into “top 5” for the second time since December 2012 to rank fourth, while Hong Kong Police Force stays at the fifth position. In terms of absolute ratings, all “top 5” disciplinary forces get more than 60 marks, three of which are above 70, which is very good. In terms of net satisfaction, Hong Kong Fire Services Department registers positive 88 percentage points, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong. That of Hong Kong Police Force stands at positive 36 percentage points, which is record low since July 1997. Meanwhile, the popularity rating and net satisfaction rate of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison are 62.5 marks and positive 31 percentage points respectively. The latter is also record low since July 1997. There is little doubt that the current political environment has contributed to the popularity drop of the disciplinary forces, especially that of the Police which registers the biggest drop. To overcome the situation, the forces might well need to stress their professionalism in executing their duties, and their affection and care for the society, and not be entangled by political forces. It should be noted that our list of “top 5” only includes disciplinary forces best known to the public, ranked according to their satisfaction ratings. Some of other disciplinary forces may well have very high or low satisfaction ratings, but because they are not the most well-known forces, they do not appear on the list by design. The maximum sampling error of all percentage figures is +/-4 percentage points, while that of rating figures is below +/-2.5 marks at 95% confidence level, and the sampling error of net values need another calculation. The response rate of the satisfaction survey is 67%.

Points to note:

[1] The address of the “HKU POP SITE” is http://hkupop.hku.hk, journalists can check out the details of the survey there.
[2] The sample size of the first stage naming survey on the disciplinary forces is 1,018 successful interviews, not 1,018 x 68.4% response rate, while that of the second stage satisfaction survey is 1,009 successful interviews, not 1,009 x 67.1% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figure 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 rating not more than +/-2.5, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net values not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level”. Because POP introduced “rim weighting” in 2014, during the transition period, whether changes in various figures are beyond sampling errors are based on tests using the same weighting methods. That is, to test whether the first set of figures collected in 2014 is significantly different from that of the previous survey, both sets of data are rim weighted before testing, instead of using simple computation of the published figures.
[4] Because of sampling errors in conducting the survey(s) and the rounding procedures in processing the data, the figures cannot be too precise, and the totals may not be completely accurate. Therefore, when quoting percentages of the survey(s), journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, but when quoting the rating figures, one decimal place can be used.
[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 its establishment in 1991, POP has been conducting different types of opinion studies on social and political issues. Shortly after the handover of Hong Kong in July 1997, POP began our regular surveys on people’s satisfaction with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force and PLA Hong Kong Garrison. At the beginning, the surveys were conducted once every month. Then in September 2000 the frequency was changed to once every two months. Since October 2003, the surveys have been conducted once every three months to cope with the changing social conditions until December 2011 when the frequency was changed to once every six months. In 2012, as Hong Kong marks its 15th anniversary of the handover, POP again revised the design of this survey series, by splitting the survey into two stages. A naming survey of people’s most familiar disciplinary forces in Hong Kong would be conducted first, then a survey on people’s satisfaction with their top 6 most familiar disciplinary forces as well as the PLA Hong Kong Garrison would be conducted according to the results of the naming survey. All findings of these surveys are published regularly at the HKU POP Site.



Latest Figures

POP today releases on schedule via the POP Site the latest survey results. From 2014, POP enhanced the previous simple weighting method based on age and gender distribution to “rim weighting” based on age, gender and education (highest level attended) distribution. The latest figures released today have been rim-weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in 2013 year-end and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census.

 

Date of survey

Overall sample size

Response rate

Maximum sampling error of percentages/ratings[6]

16-19/6/2014 (First stage naming survey)

1,018

68.4%

+/-3%

25-30/6/2014 (Second stage satisfaction survey)

1,009

67.1%

+/-3% / +/-2.5

[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. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
[7] The figures shown in the “latest change” column of this press release have been tested after “rim weighted” data collected in this and last survey. The structural effect of using the new weighting method is small, around -4% to +3% for percentage figures, around -0.9 to +0.5 for rating figures, while just some statistical significance tests are affected.

 

The research design of our “Top 5 Hong Kong disciplinary forces” satisfaction survey is similar to that of various “Top 10” series conducted by POP, it is explained in detail under “Survey Method” in our web page. The Hong Kong disciplinary forces listed in our latest survey are those which obtained highest unprompted mentions in our first stage naming survey conducted in mid-June. In that survey, respondents could name, unaided, up to 5 Hong Kong disciplinary forces which they knew best, with the following results:

 

Date of survey

4-12/6/2012

22-29/11/2012

20-25/6/2013

22-28/11/2013

16-19/6/2014

Latest change

Sample base[8]

1,003

1,013

1,047

1,030

1,018

--

Overall response rate

63.4%

64.8%

66.9%

66.3%

68.4%

--

Finding / Error

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding & error[9]

--

Hong Kong Police Force

74%{1}

86%{1}[10]

78%{1}[10]

82%{1}[10]

82+/-3%{1}

--

Hong Kong Fire Services Department

65%{2}

75%{2}[10]

66%{2}[10]

69%{2}

68+/-4%{2}

-1%

Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department

49%{3}

53%{3}

48%{3}[10]

51%{3}

43+/-4%{3}

-8%

Hong Kong Correctional Services

34%{5}[11]

34%{5}

31%{5}

30%{5}

35+/-4%{4}

+5%[10]

Hong Kong Immigration Department

34%{4}[11]

43%{4}[10]

34%{4}[10]

38%{4}

33+/-4%{5}

-5%

Civil Aid Service

7%

15%{6}[10]

9% [10] [12]

9%[13]

12+/-3%{6}

+3%

Independent Commission Against Corruption

5%

10%

9%{6}[12]

7%

9+/-3%[14]

+2%

Auxiliary Medical Service

7%

12%

8%

9%{6}[13]

9+/-2%[14]

--

Government Flying Service

9%{6}

9%

7%

6%

6+/-2%

--

Don’t know / hard to say

24%

12%[10]

18%[10]

15%

15+/-3%

--

[8] The sub-sample size in the survey conducted in June 2012 was 645, November 2012 was 684, June 2013 was 673, November 2013 was 602 while that in June 2014 was 542.
[9] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level”, meaning 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. Numbers in square brackets { } indicates rankings in our naming survey.
[10] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, 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.
[11] The percentages of respondents who could name Hong Kong Immigration Department and Hong Kong Correctional Services were 34.28% and 34.26%, so Hong Kong Immigration Department ranked the 4th, while Hong Kong Correctional Services ranked the 5th.
[12] The percentages of respondents who could name Independent Commission Against Corruption and Civil Aid Service were 9.3% and 8.6%, so Independent Commission Against Corruption ranked the 6th, while Civil Aid Service was not short-listed.
[13] The percentages of respondents who could name Auxiliary Medical Service and Civil Aid Service were 9.0% and 8.9%, so Auxiliary Medical Service ranked the 6th, while Civil Aid Service was not short-listed.
[14] The percentages of respondents who could name Independent Commission Against Corruption and Auxiliary Medical Service were 9.4% and 8.6%, both of them were not short-listed.

 

The naming survey conducted in mid-June showed that Hong Kong Police Force was named most frequently with a recognition rate of 82%. Hong Kong Fire Services Department, Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, Hong Kong Correctional Services, Hong Kong Immigration Department and Civil Aid Service with recognition rate of 68%, 43%, 35%, 33% and 12%, ranked the 2nd to 6th. However, 15% could not name any disciplinary forces.

 

The 6 disciplinary forces which were named most frequently then entered into the second stage satisfaction survey. At the second stage satisfaction survey conducted in late June, respondents were asked to rate each of the 6 short-listed disciplinary forces in turn using a 0-100 scale, with 0 meaning very dissatisfied, 100 meaning very satisfied, and 50 meaning half-half. After calculation, the bottom disciplinary force in terms of recognition rate was dropped; the remaining 5 were then ranked according to their satisfaction ratings, then by satisfaction rates if they are the same, giving the following results for “top 5 disciplinary forces”:

 

Date of survey

13-20/6/2012

4-12/12/2012

26/6-2/7/2013

29/11-3/12/2013

25-30/6/2014

Latest change

Sample base

540-601

635-685

578-616

568-602

552-584

--

Overall response rate

68.0%

66.9%

67.8%

70.7%

67.1%

--

Finding/ Recognition rate

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding and error[15]

Recog %

--

Satisfaction rating of Hong Kong Fire Services Department

80.1{1}

79.8{1}

78.7{1}

77.3{1}[17]

77.0+/-1.2{1}

97.5%

-0.3

Satisfaction rate of Hong Kong Fire Services Department[16]

89%

90%

89%

91%

90+/-3%

 

-1%

Dissatisfaction rate of Hong Kong Fire Services Department[16]

2%

1%

2%

1%

1+/-1%

 

--

Net satisfaction rate

87%

89%

87%

90%

88+/-3%

 

-2%

Mean value [16]

4.3+/-0.1
(Base=528)

4.3+/-0.1
(Base=637)

4.2+/-0.1
(Base=597)

4.2+/-0.1
(Base=567)

4.2+/-0.1
(Base=533)

 

--

Satisfaction rating of Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department

72.6{3}

72.3{2}

74.4{2}[17]

71.9{3}[17]

71.3+/-1.4{2}

93.6%

-0.6

Satisfaction rate of Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department[16]

75%

77%

77%

81%[17]

74+/-4%

 

-7%[17]

Dissatisfaction rate of Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department [16]

6%

4%[17]

3%

3%

4+/-2%

 

+1%

Net satisfaction rate

69%

73%

74%

78%

71+/-4%

 

-7%[17]

Mean value [16]

3.9+/-0.1
(Base=521)

3.9+/-0.1
(Base=604)

4.0+/-0.1
(Base=551)

4.0+/-0.1
(Base=548)

3.9+/-0.1
(Base=558)

 

-0.1

Satisfaction rating of Hong Kong Immigration Department

72.4{4}

71.9{3}

73.5{3}[17]

71.4{4}[17]

70.6+/-1.3{3}

97.1%

-0.8

Satisfaction rate of Hong Kong Immigration Department[16]

76%

75%

79%[17]

84%[17]

78+/-3%

 

-6%[17]

Dissatisfaction rate of Hong Kong Immigration Department[16]

4%

4%

4%

5%

3+/-2%

 

-2%

Net satisfaction rate

72%

71%

75%

79%

75+/-4%

 

-4%

Mean value [16]

3.9+/-0.1
(Base=526)

3.9+/-0.1
(Base=619)

4.0+/-0.1
(Base=558)

3.9+/-0.1
(Base=568)

3.9+/-0.1
(Base=545)

 

--

Satisfaction rating of Civil Aid Service

--

71.2{5}

--

--

69.7+/-1.4{4}

72.9%

--

Satisfaction rate of Civil Aid Service [16]

--

58%

--

--

58+/-4%

 

--

Dissatisfaction rate of Civil Aid Service [16]

--

1%

--

--

1+/-1%

 

--

Net satisfaction rate

--

57%

--

--

57+/-4%

 

--

Mean value [16]

--

3.9+/-0.1
(Base=509)

--

--

3.9+/-0.1
(Base=431)

 

--

Satisfaction rating of Hong Kong Police Force

63.0{5}

67.0{4}[17]

66.4{4}

63.7{5}[17]

62.3+/-1.9{5}

97.9%

-1.4

Satisfaction rate of Hong Kong Police Force [16]

55%

66%[17]

59%[17]

64%[17]

56+/-4%

 

-8%[17]

Dissatisfaction rate of Hong Kong Police Force [16]

14%

9%[17]

13%[17]

13%

19+/-3%

 

+6%[17]

Net satisfaction rate

41%

57%[17]

46%[17]

51%

36+/-7%

 

-15%[17]

Mean value [16]

3.5+/-0.1
(Base=540)

3.7+/-0.1[17]
(Base=626)

3.6+/-0.1
(Base=569)

3.6+/-0.1
(Base=567)

3.4+/-0.1
(Base=567)

 

-0.2[17]

Satisfaction rating of Hong Kong Correctional Services

68.5 {6}

67.7{6}

69.0{6}

67.7{6}

68.0+/-1.4{6}

72.3%

+0.3

Satisfaction rate of Hong Kong Correctional Services [16]

54%

52%

56%

58%

57+/-4%

 

-1%

Dissatisfaction rate of Hong Kong Correctional Services [16]

2%

3%

4%

4%

2+/-1%

 

-2%

Net satisfaction rate

52%

49%

52%

54%

55+/-4%

 

+1%

Mean value [16]

3.8+/-0.1
(Base=422)

3.7+/-0.1
(Base=495)

3.8+/-0.1
(Base=469)

3.8+/-0.1
(Base=469)

3.8+/-0.1
(Base=430)

 

--

Satisfaction rating of Auxiliary Medical Service

--

--

--

75.1{2}

--

--

--

Satisfaction rate of Auxiliary Medical Service[16]

--

--

--

79%

--

 

--

Dissatisfaction rate of Auxiliary Medical Service[16]

--

--

--

2%

--

 

--

Net satisfaction rate

--

--

--

78%

--

 

--

Mean value [16]

--

--

--

4.1+/-0.1
(Base=507)

--

 

--

Satisfaction rating of Independent Commission Against Corruption

--

--

63.7{5}

--

--

--

--

Satisfaction rate of Independent Commission Against Corruption[16]

--

--

47%

--

--

 

--

Dissatisfaction rate of Independent Commission Against Corruption[16]

--

--

22%

--

--

 

--

Net satisfaction rate

--

--

25%

--

--

 

--

Mean value [16]

--

--

3.3+/-0.1
(Base=544)

--

--

 

--

Satisfaction rating of Government Flying Service

77.1{2}

--

--

--

--

--

--

Satisfaction rate of Government Flying Service [16]

72%

--

--

--

--

 

--

Dissatisfaction rate of Government Flying Service [16]

<1%

--

--

--

--

 

--

Net satisfaction rate

72%

--

--

--

--

 

--

Mean value [16]

4.1+/-0.1
(Base=465)

--

--

--

--

 

--

[15] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level”, meaning 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 +/-1.9 marks, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net values not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. Numbers in square brackets { } indicate the rankings.
[16] 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 positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[17] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, 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.

 

The satisfaction survey conducted in late June showed that Hong Kong Fire Services Department ranked first, attaining 77.0 marks, 90% of the citizens interviewed were satisfied with its performance, 1% were not satisfied, with a net satisfaction rate of positive 88 percentage points and a mean value of 4.2 marks, which is close to “quite satisfied” in general. Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department ranked the second with 71.3 marks, 74% were satisfied with its performance. Its net satisfaction rate stands at positive 71 percentage points, with a mean value of 3.9 marks, meaning close to “quite satisfied”. The 3rd and 4th ranks went to Hong Kong Immigration Department and Civil Aid Service, with satisfaction ratings at 70.6 and 69.7 marks respectively. Their corresponding satisfaction rates obtained were 78% and 58%, their net satisfaction stand at positive 75 and 57 percentage points respectively, while their respective mean values registered were both 3.9, meaning close to “quite satisfied” in general. Meanwhile, Hong Kong Police Force ranked 5th, with a satisfaction rating at 62.3 marks, satisfaction rate at 56%, net satisfaction at positive 36 percentage points, and mean value at 3.4 marks, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general. In this survey, Hong Kong Correctional Services obtained a rating of 68.0 marks, 57% of the citizens interviewed were satisfied with its performance, but it was dropped due to its relatively low recognition rate.

 

Meanwhile, this survey series registered people’s satisfaction level of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. Here are the results of the latest five surveys:

 

Date of survey

13-20/6/12

4-12/12/12

26/6-2/7/13

29/11-3/12/13

25-30/6/2014

Latest changes

Sample base[18]

601

682

606

579

540

--

Overall response rate

68.0%

66.9%

67.8%

70.7%

67.1%

--

Finding / Error

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding and error[19]

--

Satisfaction rating of PLA

67.3

66.0

65.9

61.4 [21]

62.5+/-2.5

+1.1

Satisfaction rate of PLA [20]

49%

46%

45%

42%

39+/-4%

-3%

Dissatisfaction rate of PLA[20]

4%

6%

8%

9%

8+/-2%

-1%

Net satisfaction rate

45%

40%

37%

33%

31+/-5%

-2%

Mean value [20]

3.8+/-0.1
(Base=431)

3.8+/-0.1
(Base=469)

3.7+/-0.1
(Base=411)

3.6+/-0.1
(Base=371)

3.6+/-0.1
(Base=365)

--

[18] Starting from 2011, these questions only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[19] 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 +/-2.5 marks, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net values not more than +/-5% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site. 
[20] 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 positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[21] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, 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 of survey conducted in late June showed that the satisfaction rating of PLA is 62.5 marks, 39% are satisfied with the performance of the PLA stationed in Hong Kong, only 8% are dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of positive 31 percentage points, and a mean scores of 3.6, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general.


Commentary

Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, observed, “Our latest survey conducted before July 1st handover shows that, compared to seven months ago, the popularity ratings and net satisfaction rates of most disciplinary forces have dropped, although the figures are still quite positive. In terms of relative rankings of ratings, among the ‘top 5’ Hong Kong disciplinary forces, Hong Kong Fire Services Department stays at the top. Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department and Hong Kong Immigration Department each goes up one position to rank second and third. Civil Aid Service gets into ‘top 5’ for the second time since December 2012 to rank fourth, while Hong Kong Police Force stays at the fifth position. In terms of absolute ratings, all ‘top 5’ disciplinary forces get more than 60 marks, three of which are above 70, which is very good. In terms of net satisfaction, Hong Kong Fire Services Department registers positive 88 percentage points, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong. That of Hong Kong Police Force stands at positive 36 percentage points, which is record low since July 1997. Meanwhile, the popularity rating and net satisfaction rate of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison are 62.5 marks and positive 31 percentage points respectively. The latter is also record low since July 1997. There is little doubt that the current political environment has contributed to the popularity drop of the disciplinary forces, especially that of the Police which registers the biggest drop. To overcome the situation, the forces might well need to stress their professionalism in executing their duties, and their affection and care for the society, and not be entangled by political forces. It should be noted that our list of ‘top 5’ only includes disciplinary forces best known to the public, ranked according to their satisfaction ratings. Some of other disciplinary forces may well have very high or low satisfaction ratings, but because they are not the most well-known forces, they do not appear on the list by design. As for the reasons affecting the differences as well as the ups and downs of these figures, we leave it to our readers to form their own judgment using the detailed records displayed in the ‘Opinion Daily’ of our POP Site.”


Future Release (Tentative)

  • July 15, 2014 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and Principal Officials


| Abstract| Background | Latest Figures |Commentary | Future Release (Tentative) |
| Detailed Findings (People's Satisfaction with the Discipilnary Force/People's Satisfaction with the Performance of the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison /People's Satisfaction with the Performance of the Hong Kong Police Force) |