HKU POP releases findings of an instant poll on Policy AddressBack

 

Press Release on January 19, 2017

| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |

Abstract


The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong interviewed 664 Hong Kong people last night (January 18, 2017) by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Some of its findings have already been released via our “HKU POP SITE” (http://hkupop.hku.hk) yesterday, today we release the more comprehensive and in-depth analyses. According to our Policy Address instant survey, among those who had some knowledge of the fifth and also least Address by CE CY Leung, 34% said they were satisfied, 29% said they were not, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 5 percentage points, which goes up significantly by 25 percentage points from that of last year. On a scale of 0-100, this year’s Address scored 52.3 marks, which is also significantly better than the last two years. It ranks the third among Leung’s five Addresses. Looking back, among the 20 Policy Addresses after the handover and counting both rating and net satisfaction of instant surveys alone, people’s appraisal of this year’s Address is very similar to that in 2014 or Leung’s second Address. Of course, how public opinion would change after CE and his officials explain their policies remains to be seen. As for Leung’s own popularity after the Address, his support rating has slightly increased by 0.4 mark to 41.7, while his net approval rate dropped significantly from negative 44 to negative 57 percentage points, which is his all-time record low since he became CE. Further analyses show that those who did not have any knowledge of Policy Address show stronger opposition against him as CE than those who had knowledge of Policy Address and give lower ratings to him. Looking back at the instant effect of CH Tung and Donald Tsang’s Policy Addresses across the years, Tung’s Addresses usually had a stimulating effect, while Tsang’s Addresses on the whole usually had a dampening effect. Leung enjoyed a stimulating effect from his first three Addresses but it turned negative in his last two Addresses. Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this year’s Policy Address, 24% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased after the Policy Address, 32% said their confidence had dropped, while 36% said “no change”, thereby giving a net effect of negative 8 percentage points on people’s confidence and back to level registered in 2014. Other further analyses show that the younger the respondents, the more dissatisfied they are with this fifth Address by CE CY Leung, give lower ratings to the Address and CE, also show stronger opposition against him as CE. For those of age 18-29 and 30-49, their confidence in Hong Kong is more likely to have decreased because of the Address. Our instant survey describes people’s instant reaction towards the Policy Address, their follow-up reactions remain to be seen. The sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling errors of rating figures and net values need another calculation. The response rate of the 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 664 successful interviews, not 664 x 67.1% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.

[3] The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 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 all percentages not more than +/-4%, that of ratings not more than +/-2.3 and net values not more than +/-7 percentage points, 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 1992, POP has been conducting Policy Address instant surveys every year. From 1998 onwards, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. Starting 2008, we split up previous years’ instant survey into two surveys. In our first 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. In our second survey, we focus on people’s reactions towards different government proposals, their satisfaction with CE’s policy direction, and other relevant issues. The instant survey we conducted this year is the ninth survey under our new operation. Some of its findings have already been released via our “POP Site” yesterday, today we release the more comprehensive and in-depth analyses.

Latest Figures


POP today releases the latest findings of the Policy Address instant poll. 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 2016 mid-year and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information of various surveys:

Year of survey

Date of survey

Total sample size

Response rate

Sampling error of %[6]

2017

18/1/17

664

6 7 . 1 %

+/- 4 %

2016

13/1/16

608

64.1%

+/-4%

2015

14/1/15

640

67.4%

+/-4%

2014

15/1/14

1,017

66.7%

+/-3%

2013

16/1/13

1,021

68.7%

+/-3%

2011

12/10/11

1,032

65.6%

+/-3%

2010

13/10/10

1,020

66.9%

+/-3%

2009

14/10/09

1,007

71.9%

+/-3%

2008

15/10/08

1,011

74.9%

+/-3%

2007

10/10/07

1,023

69.9%

+/-3%

2006

11/10/06

1,027

60.7%

+/-3%

2005

12/10/05

914

66.1%

+/-3%

2005

12/1/05

1,034

66.5%

+/-3%

2004

7/1/04

1,040

67.5%

+/-3%

2003

8-9/1/03

1,259

68.9%

+/-3%

2001

10/10/01

1,051

66.0%

+/-3%

2000

11/10/00

1,059

69.7%

+/-3%

1999

6/10/99

888

54.5%

+/-3%

1998

7/10/98

1,494

56.5%

+/-3%

1997

8/10/97

1,523

61.5%

+/-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. 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 CY Leung’s popularity are summarized as follows:

Date of survey

21-24/11/16

2-8/12/16

19-22/12/16

3-5/1/17

18/1/17

Latest change

Sample base

1,000

1,008

1,009

1,004

664

--

Overall response rate

70.8%

69.2%

70.9%

56.7%

6 7 . 1 %

--

Latest finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding and

Error [7 ]

--

Rating of CE CY Leung

40.7[8]

35.0[8]

39.0[8]

41.3[8]

41 . 7 +/-2.3

+0 . 4

Vote of confidence in CE CY Leung

23%

17%[8]

21%[8]

23%

18 +/-3%

-5 %[8]

Vote of no confidence in CE CY Leung

61%[8]

71%[8]

74%

67%[8]

75 +/- 3 %

+8 %[8]

Net approval rate

-37%[8]

-54%[8]

-53%

-44%[8]

- 57 +/- 6 %

-13 %[8]

[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 rating not more than +/-2.3, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3%, sampling error of net approval rates not more than +/-6% 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 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.

Figures on Chief Executive’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from the handover till present are summarized as follows:

CE Tung Chee-hwa’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 1997 to 2005

1st Policy Address

2nd Policy Address

3rd Policy Address

4th Policy Address

5th Policy Address

6th Policy Address

7th Policy Address

8th Policy Address

Date of PA Speech

8/10/97

7/10/98

6/10/99

11/10/00

10/10/01

8/1/03

7/1/04

12/1/05

CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error [9]

65.8 +/-1.4

55.8 +/-1.6

54.0 +/-1.8

48.2 +/-2.2

48.4 +/-1.4

46.6 +/-1.4

42.9 +/-1.4

47.2 +/-1.2

CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error [9]

66.1 +/-1.0

56.1 +/-1.0

54.3 +/-1.4

50.7 +/-1.4

50.6 +/-1.4

47.3 +/-1.4

44.6 +/-1.4

48.4 +/-1.4

Change in CE’s rating

+ 0.3

+0.3

+0.3

+2.5[10]

+2.2[10]

+0.7

+1.7[10]

+1.2

CE Donald Tsang’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 2005 to 201 1

1st Policy Address

2nd Policy Address

3rd Policy Address

4th Policy Address

5th Policy

Address

6th Policy Address

7th Policy Address

Date of Policy Address Speech

12/10/05

11/10/06

10/10/07

15/10/08

14/10/09

13/10/10

12/10/11

CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error [9]

68.0+/-1.0

62.9 +/-1.2

65.8+/-1.2

52.7+/-1.3

55.2+/-1.2

55.4+/-1.2

48.4+/-1.4

CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error [9]

67.4+/-1.1

59.8+/-1.1

64.4+/-1.0

53.9+/-1.6

54.2+/-1.4

56.2+/-1.6

50.6+/-1.6

Change in CE’s rating

-0.6

-3.1[10]

-1.4[10]

+1.2

-1.0

+0.8

+2.2[10]

CE’s net approval rate before the PA & error [9]

68+/-4%

48+/-5%

48+/-5%

5+/-6%

7+/-6%

-1+/-6%

-45+/-5%

CE’s net approval rate at PA instant survey & error [9]

65+/-4%

36+/-5%

48+/-5%

10+/-7%

8+/-7%

0+/-8%

-41+/-6%

Change in CE’s net approval rate [11]

-3%

-12% [10]

--

+5%

+1 %

+1 %

+4 %

CE CY Leung ’s popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech from 20 13 to 201 7

1st

Policy Address

2nd

Policy Address

3rd

Policy Address

4 th

Policy Address

5th

Policy Address

Date of Policy Address Speech

16/1/13

15/1/14

14/1/15

13/1/16

18/1/17

CE’s popularity rating before the PA & error [9]

48.9+/-1.6

45.6+/-1.6

40.6+/-1.8

37.5+/-1.9

41.3+/-2.0

CE’s popularity rating at PA instant survey & error [9]

52.2+/-1.6

48.9+/-1.6

44.8+/-2.3

37.0+/-2.3

41 . 7 +/-2.3

Change in CE’s rating

+3.3 [10]

+3.3 [10]

+ 4 . 2[10]

-0 . 5

+0 . 4

CE’s net approval rate before the PA & error [9]

-20+/-6%

-31+/-5%

-39+/-5%

-44+/-5%

-44+/-5%

CE’s net approval rate at PA instant survey & error [9]

-11+/-6%

-24+/-6%

-35+/-7%

-54+/-6%

- 57 +/- 6 %

Change in CE’s net approval rate [11]

+9% [10]

+7% [10]

+ 4 %

-10 % [10]

-13 % [10]

[9] 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.

[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] Instant surveys on Policy Address included CE’s approval rate since 2004, so it is not listed under Tung’s series.


The install poll conducted last night showed that, after CE CY Leung announced his Policy Address, his latest support rating was 41.7 marks, with an approval and disapproval rate of 18% and 75% respectively, giving a net approval of negative 57 percentage points. As for people’s satisfaction of various Policy Addresses after the handover, the figures are summarized below:

Date of

Survey

Sub- sample base[13]

Appraisal of Policy Address[12]

Satisfaction rate[14]

Half-half

Dissatisfaction rate[14]

Net satisfaction rate

Mean value[14]

Satisfaction rating of Policy Address

1 8 /1/1 7

512

34 +/- 4 %[15]

22 +/-4%

29 +/-4%[15]

5 +/- 7 %[15]

3.0 +/-0.1[15] ( Base=431)

52.3 +/-2. 4 [1 5 ]

13/1/16

522

19+/-3%[15]

23+/-4%

39+/-4%

-20+/-6%[15]

2.5+/-0.1[15] (Base=423)

41.1+/-2.6[15]

14/1/15

503

30+/-4%[15]

24+/-4%[15]

35+/-4%

-5+/-7%[15]

2.8+/-0.1 (Base=449)

49.5+/-2.4[15]

15/1/14

611

36+/-4%

30+/-4%[15]

31+/-4%[15]

5+/-7%

3.0+/-0.1 (Base=593)

54.1+/-1.9[15]

16/1/13

759

36+/-3%[15]

35+/-3%

24+/-3% [15]

11+/-6%[15]

3.1+/-0.1 ( Base=7 17 )

56.4+/-1.7 [15]

12/10/11

816

47+/-3%[15]

32+/-3%

18+/-3%

28+/-5%[15]

3.3+/-0.1 (Base=791)

59.1+/-1.4

13/10/10

747

41+/-4%[15]

33+/-3%[15]

19+/-3%[15]

22+/-5%[15]

3.2+/-0.1 (Base=695)

58.9+/-1.4[15]

14/10/09

462

30+/-4%

37+/-4%

28+/-4%

2+/-7%

3.0+/-0.1 (Base=434)

53.5+/-2.1

15/10/08

515

31+/-4%[15]

35+/-4%[15]

26+/-4%[15]

4+/-7%[15]

3.0+/-0.1 (Base=474)

53.8+/-2.0[15]

10/10/07

602

52+/-4%[15]

29+/-4%[15]

10+/-2%[15]

42+/-5%[15]

3.5+/-0.1 (Base=551)

65.2+/-1.6[15]

11/10/06

445

30+/-4%[15]

37+/-5%

22+/-4%[15]

8+/-7%[15]

3.0+/-0.1 (Base=397)

55.8+/-2.0[15]

12/10/05

377

48+/-5% [15]

33+/-5%

9+/-3% [15]

39+/-7%[15]

3.5+/-0.1 ( Base=338)

66.4+/-1.9 [15]

12/1/05

391

38+/-5%[15]

30+/-5%

20+/-4%[15]

18+/-7%[15]

3.2+/-0.1 (Base=342)

56.3+/-2.4[15]

7/1/04

381

25+/-4%

26+/-4%

33+/-5%[15]

-8+/-8%

2.8+/-0.1 (Base=322)

49.3+/-2.4

8/1/03[16]

377

22+/-4%[15]

29+/-5%

27+/-5%

-5+/-7%

2.8+/-0.1 (Base=561)

51.6+/-2.6[15]

10/10/01

433

29+/-4%

33+/-5%

27+/-4%

1+/-7%

3.0+/-0.1 (Base=386)

56.7 +/-2.2

11/10/00

262

25+/-5%[15]

28+/-6%

31+/-6%

-6+/-9%[15]

2.9+/-0.1 (Base=219)

55.2 +/-2.8

6/10/99

236

31+/-6%[15]

30+/-6%

25+/-6%[15]

6+/-10%[15]

3.0+/-0.1 (Base=202)

57.3 +/-2.8

7/10/98

508

22+/-4%[15]

35+/-4%[15]

35+/-4%[15]

-14+/-7%[15]

2.8+/-0.1 (Base=469)

--

8/10/97

534

45 +/-4%

30+/-4% [15]

14+/-3% [15]

31+/-6%

3.4+/-0.1 (Base=474)

--

[12] 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.

[13] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Because of the smaller sample size, the sampling error has increased accordingly.

[14] 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.

[15] 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.

[16] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis. Aggregate results are available in our “POP SITE”.

After excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of this year’s Policy Address, this year’s instant survey showed that 34% were satisfied with it, 29% were dissatisfied and 22% said “half-half”, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 5 percentage points. The mean score is 3.0, meaning “half-half”. Meanwhile, the average rating registered for the Policy Address was 52.3 marks. Because part of the respondents said they were not familiar with the Policy Address during the instant poll, the valid sub-sample of this item was smaller. The sampling error for this question has increased accordingly.

The survey also gauged the change of people’s confidence towards Hong Kong’s future after CE CY Leung has delivered his Policy Address. Results are as follows:

Date of survey

Sub-sample base[18]

Overall response rate

Confidence in HK’s future[17]

Increased

Unchanged

Decreased

Don’t know/

Hard to say

Net effect on confidence

1 8 /1/1 7

511

6 7 . 1 %

24 +/- 4 %[1 9 ]

3 6 +/- 4 %[1 9 ]

32 +/- 4 %[1 9 ]

7 +/- 2 %[1 9 ]

- 8 +/- 7 % [1 9 ]

13/1/16

521

64.1%

16+/-3%[19]

31+/-4%

44+/-4%[19]

10+/-3%[19]

-27+/-6%[19]

14/1/15

501

67.4%

22+/-4%

35+/-4%

38+/-4%[19]

5+/-2%

-16+/-7%

15/1/14

846

66.7%

24+/-3%[19]

38+/-3%

32+/-3%[19]

5+/-2%[19]

-9+/-5%[19]

16/1/13

913

68.7%

31+/-3%

38+/-3%[19]

23+/-3%

7+/-2%[19]

8+/-5%

12/10/11

957

65.6%

29+/-3%

45+/-3%

21+/-3%

5+/-1%

8+/-5%[19]

13/10/10

914

66.9%

31+/-3%[19]

45+/-3%

18+/-3%[19]

6+/-2%

14+/-5%[19]

14/10/09

749

71.9%

27+/-3%[19]

47+/-4%[19]

22+/-3%[19]

5+/-2%

5+/-5%[19]

15/10/08

761

74.9%

23+/-3%[19]

38+/-4%[19]

32+/-3%[19]

7+/-2%

-9+/-5%[19]

10/10/07

388

69.9%

53+/-5%[19]

31%/-5%[19]

7+/-3%[19]

9+/-3%

46+/-6%[19]

11/10/06

431

60.7%

25+/-4%[19]

51+/-5%[19]

16+/-4%[19]

8+/-3%

9+/-6%[19]

12/10/05

476

66.1%

54+/-5%[19]

33+/-4%[19]

5+/-2%[19]

8+/-2%[19]

49+/-5%[19]

12/1/05

658

66.5%

34+/-4%

41+/-4%

12+/-3%[19]

14+/-3%

22+/-5%[19]

7/1/04

602

67.5%

32+/-4%[19]

40+/-4%

16+/-3%[19]

12+/-3%

16+/-5%[19]

8/1/03[20]

513

67.3%

25+/-4%

40+/- 4%[19]

22+/-4%

14+/-3%[19]

3+/-6%

10/10/01

591

66.0%

22+/-3%

50+/- 4%[19]

21+/-3%[19]

7+/-2%[19]

1+/-5%[19]

11/10/00

292

69.7%

22+/-5%[19]

40+/-6%

15+/-4%

22+/-5%[19]

7+/-7%[19]

6/10/99

233

54.5%

40+/-6%[19]

36+/- 6%[19]

16+/-5%[19]

8+/-4%

24+/-9%[19]

7/10/98

505

56.5%

21+/-4%

52+/-4%

22+/-4%

5+/-2%

-1+/-6%

[17] 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. This survey series began in 1998. Net effect on confidence means “increased” figure minus “decreased” figure.

[18] Excluding respondents who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Because of the smaller sample size, the sampling error has increased accordingly.

[19] 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.

[20] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis. Aggregate results are available in our “HKU POP SITE”.

Results showed that, excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this year’s Policy Address, 24% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 36% opted for “no change”, whilst 32% said their confidence had dropped, giving a net effect on confidence of negative 8 percentage points.

Indepth Analysis

In the survey, we also asked respondents for their age. If they were reluctant to give their exact age, they could give us a range. According to their answers, we grouped them into 18-29, 30-49, and 50 years or older. Herewith further analysis of public’s satisfaction rate of the Policy Address, CE’s popularity and effect of the Policy Address on their confidence in HK’s future by respondents’ age:

Date of survey: 18/1/17

18-29

30-49

50 or above

Overall

Satisfaction rating of

Policy Address[21]

41.7+/- 5.9

( 79 )

49.0+/-3.7

(158)

58.2+/-3.3

(232)

52.3+/-2.4

(469)

Satisfaction rate of the Policy Address[21]

Satisfaction

23+/-9%

(20)

25+/-6%

(43)

44+/-6%

(109)

34+/-4%

(172)

Half-half

24+/-9%

(21)

23+/-6%

(40)

20+/-5%

(50)

22+/-4%

(111)

Dissatisfaction

35+/-10%

(30)

32+/-7%

(56)

25+/-6%

(62)

29+/-4%

(148)

Don’t know/ hard to say

18+/-8%

(15)

21+/-6%

(38)

11+/-4%

(27)

16+/-3%

(80)

Total

100%

(86)

100%

(177)

100%

(248)

100%

(511)

Mean value

2.6+/-0.3

(71)

2.8+/-0.2

(139)

3.2+/-0.2

(221)

3.0+/-0.1

(431)

[21] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Date of survey: 18/1/17

18-29

30-49

50 or above

Overall

Rating of CE CY Leung[22]

29.8 +/- 4.7

(114)

37.3+/-3.7

(238)

49.9+/-3.3

(297)

41.8+/-2.3

(649)

Vote of confidence/ no confidence in CE CY Leung [22]

Support

7+/-5%

(8)

12+/-4%

(28)

27+/-5%

(81)

18+/-3%

(117)

Oppose

92+/-5%

(104)

85+/-5%

(201)

61+/-6%

(184)

75+/-3%

(489)

Don’t know/ hard to say

1+/-1%

(2)

4+/-2%

(9)

12+/-4%

(37)

7+/-2%

(47)

Total

100%

(114)

100%

(237)

100%

(302)

100%

(653)

[22] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.


Date of survey: 18/1/17

18-29

30-49

50 or above

Overall

Confidence in HK’s future[23]

Increased

20+/-9%

(17)

15+/-5%

(27)

32+/-6%

(80)

24+/-4%

(124)

Unchanged

40+/-11%

(34)

38+/-7%

(67)

34+/-6%

(84)

36+/-4%

(185)

Decreased

39+/-11%

(34)

40+/-7%

(71)

25+/-5%

(61)

33+/-4%

(166)

Don’t know/ hard to say

1+/-1%

(1)

7+/-4%

(12)

9+/-4%

(23)

7+/-2%

(36)

Total

100%

(86)

100%

(177)

100%

(247)

100%

(510)

[23] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Besides, we grouped them into having or not having knowledge of Policy Address. Herewith further analysis of CE’s popularity by respondents’ knowledge of Policy Address:

Date of survey: 18/1/17

Had knowledge of Policy Address

Do not have knowledge of Policy Address

Overall

Rating of CE CY Leung[24]

43.4+/-2.5

(506)

35.9+/-4.8

(145)

41.7+/-2.3

(652)

Vote of confidence/ no confidence in CE CY Leung [24]

Support

21+/-4%

(99)

13+/-6%

(19)

19+/-3%

(118)

Oppose

79+/-4%

(367)

87+/-6%

(123)

81+/-3%

(491)

Total

100%

(466)

100%

(142)

100%

(608)

[24] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Commentary

Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Lee.

According to our Policy Address instant survey, among those who had some knowledge of the fifth and also least Address by CE CY Leung, 34% said they were satisfied, 29% said they were not, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 5 percentage points, which goes up significantly by 25 percentage points from that of last year. On a scale of 0-100, this year’s Address scored 52.3 marks, which is also significantly better than the last two years. It ranks the third among Leung’s five Addresses. Looking back, among the 20 Policy Addresses after the handover and counting both rating and net satisfaction of instant surveys alone, people’s appraisal of this year’s Address is very similar to that in 2014 or Leung’s second Address. Of course, how public opinion would change after CE and his officials explain their policies remains to be seen.

As for Leung’s own popularity after the Address, his support rating has slightly increased by 0.4 mark to 41.7, while his net approval rate dropped significantly from negative 44 to negative 57 percentage points, which is his all-time record low since he became CE. Further analyses show that those who did not have any knowledge of Policy Address show stronger opposition against him as CE than those who had knowledge of Policy Address and give lower ratings to him. Looking back at the instant effect of CH Tung and Donald Tsang’s Policy Addresses across the years, Tung’s Addresses usually had a stimulating effect, while Tsang’s Addresses on the whole usually had a dampening effect. Leung enjoyed a stimulating effect from his first three Addresses but it turned negative in his last two Addresses.

Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of this year’s Policy Address, 24% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased after the Policy Address, 32% said their confidence had dropped, while 36% said “no change”, thereby giving a net effect of negative 8 percentage points on people’s confidence and back to level registered in 2014.

Other further analyses show that the younger the respondents, the more dissatisfied they are with this fifth Address by CE CY Leung, give lower ratings to the Address and CE, also show stronger opposition against him as CE. For those of age 18-29 and 30-49, their confidence in Hong Kong is more likely to have decreased because of the Address.

Our instant survey describes people’s instant reaction towards the Policy Address, their follow-up reactions remain to be seen.

Future Releases (Tentative)

  • January 24, 2017 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Policy Address first follow-up survey
  • January 26, 2017 (Thursday) 1pm to 2pm: Ratings of Top 10 Legislative Councillors
  • About HKUPOP: “Outline of our operation for the Policy Address instant survey of 201 7

    Ÿ After the HKSAR government announced the date of Policy Address, we started our planning for the instant survey.

    Ÿ About one month ago, we began to keep track of news about the Policy Address, in order to lay the ground work of questionnaire design.

    Ÿ About one week ago, we began our manpower deployment and internal preparation.

    Ÿ On the day CE announces the Address, we monitored the media and the Internet, including the entire Address and CE’s subsequent press conferences, and then drafted the questionnaire.

    Ÿ Our random telephone interviews began at 6 p.m. on that day, involving around 110 interviewers and other staff. The interviews finished around 9:30 p.m., after collecting 664 samples.

    Ÿ Data verification and quantitative analyses followed immediately, together with the release of preliminary results at around 10 p.m., and drafting of the press release.

    Ÿ On the following day, the survey findings were verified again, while our POP Site was re-designed. Our press release was compiled, proofread, and then released for public consumption.