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

 
Press Release on June 11, 2015

| Special Announcement | 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 Announcement

  1. The “HKU POP Site” (http://hkupop.hku.hk) run by the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong continues to release the results of the “Joint-University Rolling Survey on 2017 Chief Executive Election Proposal” on a daily basis except weekends and holidays. According to the latest findings, for the survey conducted from June 3 to 7, 42% “supported” the government’s proposal on CE election of 2017, 43% “opposed” and 15% did not give a definite answer. For details please refer to the feature page at http://hkupop.hku.hk/english/features/jointUrollingSurvey. Please note that the data released to public has a time lag of four days. Moreover, due to sampling errors, when quoting the figures, journalists should refrain from reporting the decimal places of the percentage figures.
  2.  

  3. To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, POP has already released for public examination some time ago via POP Site the raw data of all 73 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.



Abstract

POP conducted a survey on people’s satisfaction with the disciplinary forces from late May to early June 2015 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The survey shows that our first ever full-coverage survey of all Hong Kong disciplinary forces shows that the recognition rates of Hong Kong Immigration Department, Hong Kong Fire Services Department, Hong Kong Police Force, Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, and Independent Commission Against Corruption are all higher than 95%, while that of Auxiliary Medical Service, Government Flying Service, and Hong Kong Correctional Services Department are all higher than 80%. Even the least well known Civil Aid Service has a recognition rate of 75%. This shows that Hong Kong people are very familiar with our disciplinary forces. In terms of relative rankings of ratings, Hong Kong Fire Services Department ranks first. Auxiliary Medical Service and Government Flying Service rank second and third, while Civil Aid Service and Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department rank fourth and fifth. Hong Kong Immigration Department, Independent Commission Against Corruption, Hong Kong Correctional Services Department and Hong Kong Police Force rank sixth to ninth. In terms of absolute ratings, all nine disciplinary forces get more than 60 marks, eight of which are above 70, which is very good. In terms of net satisfaction, Hong Kong Fire Services Department registers positive 92 percentage points, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong, while Hong Kong Police Force registers positive 21 percentage points, which is its record low since July 1997. Meanwhile, both the popularity rating and net satisfaction rate of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison have not changed much compared to the last survey, now at 63.7 marks and positive 34 percentage points. The maximum sampling error of all percentage figures is +/-4 percentage points, while that of rating figures is below +/-2.6 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 this survey is 1,038 successful interviews, not 1,038 x 66.5% 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 errors of rating figures and net values need 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 +/-2.6, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, and that 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. In October 2003, the survey was spaced out to once every three months to cope with the changing social conditions, until December 2011 when it was further 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 was conducted first, followed by another survey on people’s satisfaction with top 6 most familiar disciplinary forces, as well as the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. Three years later, in mid-2015, POP expanded the scope of the satisfaction survey to cover all nine disciplinary forces in Hong Kong, plus PLA Hong Kong Garrison, thus doing away with the naming survey while increasing the reference value of the entire survey. All findings of these surveys are published regularly at the HKU POP Site, and this is the first release of the expanded survey.



Latest Figures

POP today releases on schedule via the POP Site the latest popularity figures of Hong Kong disciplinary forces and the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. 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 2014 year-end and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:

 

Date of survey

Overall sample size

Response rate

Maximum sampling error of percentages/ratings[6]

29/5-2/6/2015

1,038

66.5%

+/-3% / +/-2.6

[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.

 

Latest figures of Hong Kong disciplinary forces are summarized as follows:

Date of survey

26/6-2/7/13

29/11-3/12/13

25-30/6/14

25-28/11/14

29/5-2/6/15

Latest change

Sample base[7]

578-616

568-602

552-584

522-545

613-658

--

Overall response rate

67.8%

70.7%

67.1%

66.6%

66.5%

--

Finding/ Recognition rate

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding and error[8]

Recog %

--

Satisfaction rating of HK Fire Services Department

78.7{1}

77.3{1}[10]

77.0{1}

80.2{1}[10]

82.0+/-1.1{1}

98.5%

+1.8[10]

Satisfaction rate of HK Fire Services Department[9]

89%

91%

90%

94%[10]

92+/-2%

 

-2%

Dissatisfaction rate of HK Fire Services Department[9]

2%

1%

1%

1%

1+/-1%

 

--

Net satisfaction rate

87%

90%

88%

93%[10]

92+/-2%

 

-1%

Mean value[9]

4.2
(Base=597)

4.2
(Base=567)

4.2
(Base=533)

4.4[10]
(Base=541)

4.4+/-0.1
(Base=630)

 

--

Satisfaction rating of Auxiliary Medical Service

--[11]

75.1{2}

--[11]

--[11]

79.1+/-1.2{2}

88.5%

--

Satisfaction rate of Auxiliary Medical Service[9]

--[11]

79%

--[11]

--[11]

82+/-3%

 

--

Dissatisfaction rate of Auxiliary Medical Service[9]

--[11]

2%

--[11]

--[11]

1+/-1%

 

--

Net satisfaction rate

--[11]

78%

--[11]

--[11]

81+/-3%

 

--

Mean value[9]

--[11]

4.1
(Base=507)

--[11]

--[11]

4.2+/-0.1
(Base=551)

 

--

Satisfaction rating of Government Flying Service

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

77.4+/-1.3{3}

85.8%

--

Satisfaction rate of Government Flying Service[9]

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

78+/-3%

 

--

Dissatisfaction rate of Government Flying Service[9]

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

1+/-1%

 

--

Net satisfaction rate

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

77+/-4%

 

--

Mean value[9]

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

4.1+/-0.1
(Base=551)

 

--

Satisfaction rating of Civil Aid Service

--[11]

--[11]

69.7{4}

71.6{4}[10]

73.8+/-1.5{4}

75.1%

+2.2[10]

Satisfaction rate of Civil Aid Service[9]

--[11]

--[11]

58%

64%[10]

62+/-4%

 

-2%

Dissatisfaction rate of Civil Aid Service[9]

--[11]

--[11]

1%

1%

2+/-1%

 

+1%

Net satisfaction rate

--[11]

--[11]

57%

63%[10]

60+/-4%

 

-3%

Mean value[9]

--[11]

--[11]

3.9
(Base=431)

4.0
(Base=428)

4.0+/-0.1
(Base=465)

 

--

Satisfaction rating of HK Customs and Excise Department

74.4{2}[10]

71.9{3}[10]

71.3{2}

73.0{3}[10]

73.1+/-1.3{5}

95.7%

+0.1

Satisfaction rate of HK Customs and Excise Department[9]

77%

81%[10]

74%[10]

79%[10]

76+/-3%

 

-3%

Dissatisfaction rate of HK Customs and Excise Department[9]

3%

3%

4%

3%

4+/-1%

 

+1%

Net satisfaction rate

74%

78%

71%[10]

76%[10]

73+/-4%

 

-3%

Mean value[9]

4.0
(Base=551)

4.0
(Base=548)

3.9
(Base=558)

4.0
(Base=498)

3.9+/-0.1
(Base=605)

 

-0.1

Satisfaction rating of HK Immigration Department

73.5{3}[10]

71.4{4}[10]

70.6{3}

73.3{2}[10]

71.6+/-1.4{6}

98.7%

-1.7[10]

Satisfaction rate of HK Immigration Department[9]

79%[10]

84%[10]

78%[10]

79%

69+/-4%

 

-10%[10]

Dissatisfaction rate of HK Immigration Department[9]

4%

5%

3%

5%

6+/-2%

 

+1%

Net satisfaction rate

75%

79%

75%

74%

64+/-5%

 

-10%[10]

Mean value[9]

4.0
(Base=558)

3.9
(Base=568)

3.9
(Base=545)

4.0
(Base=516)

3.8+/-0.1
(Base=651)

 

-0.2[10]

Satisfaction rating of Independent Commission Against Corruption

63.7{5}

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

70.5+/-1.6{7}

95.3%

--

Satisfaction rate of Independent Commission Against Corruption[9]

47%

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

60+/-4%

 

--

Dissatisfaction rate of Independent Commission Against Corruption[9]

22%

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

12+/-3%

 

--

Net satisfaction rate

25%

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

49+/-6%

 

--

Mean value[9]

3.3
(Base=544)

--[11]

--[11]

--[11]

3.6+/-0.1
(Base=597)

 

--

Satisfaction rating of HK Correctional Services Department

69.0[12]

67.7[12]

68.0[12]

71.1[10] [12]

70.2+/-1.5{8}

81.2%

-0.9

Satisfaction rate of HK Correctional Services Department[9]

56%

58%

57%

61%

60+/-4%

 

-1%

Dissatisfaction rate of HK Correctional Services Department[9]

4%

4%

2%

1%

3+/-1%

 

+2%

Net satisfaction rate

52%

54%

55%

60%[10]

57+/-4%

 

-3%

Mean value[9]

3.8
(Base=469)

3.8
(Base=469)

3.8
(Base=430)

3.9
(Base=433)

3.8+/-0.1
(Base=517)

 

-0.1

Satisfaction rating of HK Police Force

66.4{4}

63.7{5}[10]

62.3{5}

61.0{5}

61.0+/-2.2{9}

97.4%

--

Satisfaction rate of HK Police Force[9]

59%[10]

64%[10]

56%[10]

56%

50+/-4%

 

-6%[10]

Dissatisfaction rate of HK Police Force[9]

13%[10]

13%

19%[10]

27%[10]

29+/-4%

 

+2%

Net satisfaction rate

46%[10]

51%

36%[10]

29%

21+/-7%

 

-8%[10]

Mean value[9]

3.6
(Base=569)

3.6
(Base=567)

3.4 [10]
(Base=567)

3.4
(Base=530)

3.2+/-0.1
(Base=639)

 

-0.2[10]

[7]These questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[8] 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 +/-2.2 marks, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, and that of net values not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. Numbers in square brackets { } indicate the rankings.
[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 positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[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] No satisfaction rating / rate available. The surveys conducted in 2012 to 2014 were split into two stages, only the 6 most frequently mentioned disciplinary forces in naming stage would enter into the second stage rating survey. The naming results of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[12] No ranking available. According to the survey design in 2012 to 2014, the disciplinary force with the lowest recognition rate at each round was dropped from the “top 5” list. The recognition rates in previous satisfaction surveys can be found at the POP Site.

The latest survey conducted from late May to early June showed that Hong Kong Fire Services Department ranked first, attaining 82.0 marks, 92% of the citizens interviewed were satisfied with its performance, 1% were not satisfied, with a net satisfaction rate of positive 92 percentage points and a mean value of 4.4 marks, which is between “quite satisfied” and “very satisfied” in general. Auxiliary Medical Service and Government Flying Service ranked 2nd and 3rd, with satisfaction ratings at 79.1 and 77.4 marks respectively. Their corresponding satisfaction rates obtained were 82% and 78%, their net satisfaction rates stand at positive 81 and 77 percentage points respectively, while their respective mean values registered were 4.2 and 4.1 marks, meaning close to “quite satisfied” in general. The 4th and 5th ranks went to Civil Aid Service and Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, with satisfaction ratings at 73.8 and 73.1 marks respectively. Their corresponding satisfaction rates obtained were 62% and 76%, their net satisfaction rates stand at positive 60 and 73 percentage points respectively, while their respective mean values registered were 4.0 and 3.9 marks, meaning close to “quite satisfied” in general. Meanwhile, Hong Kong Immigration Department, Independent Commission Against Corruption and Hong Kong Correctional Services Department ranked 6th to 8th, with satisfaction ratings at 71.6, 70.5 and 70.2 marks respectively. Their corresponding satisfaction rates obtained were 69%, 60% and 60%, their net satisfaction rates stand at positive 64, 49 and 57 percentage points respectively, while their respective mean values registered were 3.8, 3.6 and 3.8 marks, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general. Besides, Hong Kong Police Force ranked 9th, with a satisfaction rating at 61.0 marks, satisfaction rate at 50%, net satisfaction at positive 21 percentage points, and mean value at 3.2 marks, meaning close to “half-half”.

 

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

 

Date of survey

26/6-2/7/13

29/11-3/12/13

25-30/6/14

25-28/11/14

29/5-2/6/15

Latest changes

Sample base[13]

606

579

540

497

653

--

Overall response rate

67.8%

70.7%

67.1%

66.6%

66.5%

--

Finding / Error

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding and error[14]

Recog %

--

Satisfaction rating of PLA

65.9

61.4 [16]

62.5

63.1

63.7+/-2.6

65.6

+0.6

Satisfaction rate of PLA[15]

45%

42%

39%

46% [16]

42+/-4%

-4%

Dissatisfaction rate of PLA[15]

8%

9%

8%

10%

8+/-2%

-2%

Net satisfaction rate

37%

33%

31%

35%

34+/-5%

-1%

Mean value[15]

3.7
(Base=411)

3.6
(Base=371)

3.6
(Base=365)

3.6
(Base=367)

3.6+/-0.1
(Base=448)

--

[13]Starting from 2011, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[14]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 +/-2.6 marks, that of percentages not more than +/-4%, and that 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.
[15]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.
[16]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.


Survey results showed that the satisfaction rating of PLA is 63.7 marks, 42% are satisfied with the performance of the PLA stationed in Hong Kong, only 8% are dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction of positive 34 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 first ever full-coverage survey of all Hong Kong disciplinary forces shows that the recognition rates of Hong Kong Immigration Department, Hong Kong Fire Services Department, Hong Kong Police Force, Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department, and Independent Commission Against Corruption are all higher than 95%, while that of Auxiliary Medical Service, Government Flying Service, and Hong Kong Correctional Services Department are all higher than 80%. Even the least well known Civil Aid Service has a recognition rate of 75%. This shows that Hong Kong people are very familiar with our disciplinary forces. In terms of relative rankings of ratings, Hong Kong Fire Services Department ranks first. Auxiliary Medical Service and Government Flying Service rank second and third, while Civil Aid Service and Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department rank fourth and fifth. Hong Kong Immigration Department, Independent Commission Against Corruption, Hong Kong Correctional Services Department and Hong Kong Police Force rank sixth to ninth. In terms of absolute ratings, all nine disciplinary forces get more than 60 marks, eight of which are above 70, which is very good. In terms of net satisfaction, Hong Kong Fire Services Department registers positive 92 percentage points, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong, while Hong Kong Police Force registers positive 21 percentage points, which is its record low since July 1997. Meanwhile, both the popularity rating and net satisfaction rate of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison have not changed much compared to the last survey, now at 63.7 marks and positive 34 percentage points. 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.”


Supplementary Information: Development of popularity surveys on Hong Kong disciplinary forces and PLA Hong Kong Garrison

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 its regular surveys on people’s satisfaction with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force and PLA Hong Kong Garrison, and it evolved to be the current popularity survey of Hong Kong disciplinary forces and PLA Garrison after many rounds of enhancement over the past 18 years. Today, we put down the development of this survey by means of a supplementary information section for readers’ easy reference.



In July 1991, the survey series began and was conducted once every month. The questions were “Are you satisfied with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force / People’s Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison?” Interviewers then probed respondents’ degree of satisfaction and respondents could choose a single response ranged from “very satisfied”, “quite satisfied”, “half-half”, “not quite satisfied” to “very dissatisfied”.



In September 2000, the survey frequency was changed to once every two months, and then in October 2003, it was further to once every three months until December 2011.



In June 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 was 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. The survey was conducted once every six months. The questions asked in the satisfaction survey were “Please rate on a scale of 0-100 your satisfaction with the XXX as a disciplinary force. 0 stands for very dissatisfied, 100 stands for very satisfied, 50 stands for half-half.” and “Are you satisfied with the XXX?”, options for the latter included “very satisfied”, “quite satisfied”, “half-half”, “not quite satisfied” and “very dissatisfied”.



In May 2015, approaching the 18th anniversary of the handover, POP revised the design of this survey series again, by expanding our satisfaction survey to cover all nine Hong Kong disciplinary forces, thus taking away the naming survey. The frequency and questions of the survey remain unchanged.



Before May 2000, the sample size of our regular surveys was set at slightly over 500, which was increased to at least 1,000 after that. The above surveys are no exceptions. The findings of these surveys are now published regularly on-line at our HKU POP Site, while all previous findings published via our newsletter POP Express have also been uploaded on-line in various formats.




Future Release (Tentative)

  • June 16, 2015 (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) |