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

 

Press Release on January 24, 2017

| Detailed Findings (Policy Address Feature Page) |

Abstract

According to the Policy Address instant survey conducted by the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong, among respondents who had some knowledge of CY Leung’s fifth Policy Address, net satisfaction was positive 5 percentage points. In our follow-up survey, it decreases by 8 percentage points to negative 3 percentage points, while satisfaction rating also drops 3.5 marks to 48.8. In other words, after some initial discussions, people’s appraisal of this year’s Policy Address has turned more negative. Most of those who did not express an opinion on the day of the Address now hold a negative view. POP will conduct another round of follow-up survey to map people’s further reaction. Regarding the theme of the Address, 69% agree that “Make Best Use of Opportunities, Develop the Economy, Improve People’s Livelihood, Build an Inclusive Society” meets the need of society, which is the highest among the five CY Leung’s Policy Addresses. In terms of key policy areas, the housing policies proposed as well as the general measures taken to address Hong Kong’s current problems all receive more opposition than support, yet they are the best figures in the past three years already. Moreover, only 20% agree to the view “all commitments in my Election Manifesto have basically been implemented” that CY Leung mentioned in his conclusion. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at negative 3 percentage points, representing a significant increase of 28 percentage points from that of last year. POP will release another round of Policy Address survey findings in two weeks’ time. Whether public opinion would change after many rounds of discussion remains to be seen. The follow-up survey interviewed 513 Hong Kong people by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while that of rating figure is +/-2.4 and net value needs another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 68%.

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 513 successful interviews, not 513 x 68.4% 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, while the sampling error of rating figures and net values 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 +/-2.4, that of percentages not more than +/-4% and net values not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level”.

[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. In 1998, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. In general, such instant polls which measure people’s instant reactions would be repeated later by a follow-up survey which measure people’s more matured reactions. We believe this is the correct way to study public opinion. In 2008, we further split our instant survey into two. 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. One to two days later, we would conduct our first follow-up survey to study people’s reactions towards different government proposals, and any change in their satisfaction of the Policy Address. The findings of this year’s instant survey were already released on January 18 and 19. Today, we release the results of our first follow-up survey.

Latest Figures

POP today releases the latest findings of the Policy Address follow-up survey. 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 mid-year 2016 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

Overall sample size

Response rate

Maximum sampling error of percentages[6]

2017 Follow-up

19-20/1/17

513

68.4%

+/-4%

2017 Instant

18/1/17

664

67.1%

+/-4%

2016 Follow-up

14-15/1/16

514

65.8%

+/-4%

2016 Instant

13/1/16

608

64.1%

+/-4%

2015 Follow-up

15-16/1/15

500

65.7%

+/-4%

2015 Instant

14/1/15

640

67.4%

+/-4%

2014 Follow-up

16-17/1/14

519

68.7%

+/-4%

2014 Instant

15/1/14

1,017

66.7%

+/-3%

2013 Follow-up

17-18/1/13

530

66.2%

+/-4%

2013 Instant

16/1/13

1,021

68.7%

+/-3%

2011 Follow-up

13-14/10/11

520

65.5%

+/-4%

2011 Instant

12/10/11

1,032

65.6%

+/-3%

2010 Follow-up

14-16/10/10

507

64.9%

+/-4%

2010 Instant

13/10/10

1,020

66.9%

+/-3%

2009 Follow-up

15-17/10/09

508

70.6%

+/-4%

2009 Instant

14/10/09

1,007

71.9%

+/-3%

2008 Follow-up

17-19/10/08

505

70.9%

+/-4%

2008 Instant

15/10/08

1,011

74.9%

+/-3%

2007 Instant

10/10/07

1,023

69.9%

+/-3%

2006 Instant

11/10/06

1,027

60.7%

+/-3%

2005 Instant

12/10/05

914

66.1%

+/-3%

2005 Instant

12/1/05

1,034

66.5%

+/-3%

2004 Instant

7/1/04

1,040

67.5%

+/-3%

2003 Instant

8-9/1/03

1,259

68.9%

+/-3%

2001 Instant

10/10/01

1,051

66.0%

+/-3%

2000 Instant

11/10/00

1,059

69.7%

+/-3%

1999 Instant

6/10/99

888

54.5%

+/-3%

1998 Instant

7/10/98

1,494

56.5%

+/-3%

1997 Instant

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.


Results of the follow-up survey of Policy Address, together with the instant poll, for 2016 and 2017 are tabulated below:


2016

2017

Instant survey [7]

Follow-up survey

Change

Instant survey [8]

Follow-up survey

Latest Change

Date of survey

13/1/16

14-15/1/16

--

18/1/17

19-20/1/17

--

Sample base

608

514

--

664

513

--

Overall response rate

64.1%

65.8%

--

67.1%

68.4%

--

Latest finding

Finding

Finding

--

Finding

Finding and error [9]

--

Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction rate [10]

19%

17+/-3%

-2%

34%

33+/-4%

-1%

Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate [10]

39%

53+/-4%

+14%[11]

29%

36+/-4%

+7%[11]

Net value

-20%

-37+/-7%

-17%[11]

5%

-3+/-7%

-8%[11]

Mean value [10]

2.5

(Base=423)

2.3+/-0.1

(Base=451)

-0.2[11]

3.0

(Base=431)

2.9+/-0.1

(Base= 456 )

-0.1

Satisfaction rating of Policy Address (0 to 100 marks)

41.1

37.5+/-2.5

-3.6[11]

52.3

48.8+/-2.4

-3.5[11]

[7] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. The sub-sample size was 522.

[8] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. The sub-sample size was 512.

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

[10] 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.

[11] 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.


Our latest survey revealed that 33% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 36% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 3 percentage points. The mean score is 2.9, which is close to “half-half”. The average rating registered for the Policy Address was 48.8 marks. With respect to people’s specific reactions towards the contents of this year’s Policy Address, relevant findings are summarized below:


Date of Survey

Sample base

Policy Address

Finding and error [12]

Big

Half-half

Small (including no effect)

Don’t know / hard to say

Do you think the effect of the housing and land supply policies proposed by CY Leung on tackling housing problems would be big or small?

19-20/1/17

513

5th

28+/-4%

15+/-3%

50+/-4%

7+/-2%

14-15/1/16

514

4th

23+/-4%

19+/-3%

52+/-4%

7+/-2%

15-16/1/15

500

3rd

19+/-4%

18+/-3%

57+/-4%

6+/-2%

Do you think the effect of the various policies proposed by CY Leung in the Policy Address on tackling current problems facing Hong Kong would be big or small?

19-20/1/17

513

5th

17+/-3%

19+/-3%

52+/-4%

12+/-3%

14-15/1/16

514

4th

11+/-3%

17+/-3%

62+/-4%

10+/-3%

15-16/1/15

500

3rd

12+/-3%

20+/-4%

60+/-4%

7+/-2%

[12] Errors 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.


Results showed that 28% consider the effect of the housing and land supply policies on tackling housing problems would be big while 50% said it would be small (including no effect). Besides, 17% believed the effect of various policies proposed by CY Leung in the Policy Address on tackling current problems facing Hong Kong would be big, while 52% said there would be small or even no effect.

Finding and error [13]

Support

Half-half

Oppose

Don’t know /
hard to say

Total

Net Support

CY Leung mentioned in his conclusion that “all commitments in my Election Manifesto have basically been implemented”. Do you support or oppose this view?

20+/-4%

16+/-3%

54+/-4%

10+/-3%

100%

-34+/-7%

[13] Errors 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.


Besides, CY Leung mentioned in his conclusion that “all commitments in my Election Manifesto have basically been implemented”, 20% showed support for such a view while 54% opposed.

Findings on people’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address concurred with the current needs of the society from 1997 up to this year are summarized as follows:

People’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address delivered by CY Leung
concurred with the current needs of the society from 2013 till 2017 [14]

Date of Survey

Sample/ Sub sample base [15]

Policy Address

Theme

Finding and error [16]

Yes

Half-half

No

Don’t know /
hard to say

19-20/1/17

513

5th

Make Best Use of Opportunities

Develop the Economy

Improve People’s Livelihood

Build an Inclusive Society

69[17]+/-4%

10[17]+/-3%

15[17]+/-3%

5+/-2%

14-15/1/16

514

4th

Innovate for the Economy
Improve Livelihood
Foster Harmony
Share Prosperity

47%[17]

15%

33%[17]

5%

15-16/1/15

500

3rd

Uphold the Rule of Law
Seize the Opportunities
Make the Right Choices
Pursue Democracy
Boost the Economy
Improve People’s Livelihood

54%

14%

28%[17]

3%

16-17/1/14

519

2nd

Support the Needy
Let Youth Flourish
Unleash Hong Kong’s Potential

56%

17%[17]

22%

5%[17]

17-18/1/13

530

1st

Seek Change
Maintain Stability
Serve the People with Pragmatism

53%

12%

27%

8%

People’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address delivered by Donald Tsang
concurred with the current needs of the society from 2005 till 2011 [14]

Date of Survey

Sample/ Sub sample base [15]

Policy Address

Theme

Finding and error [16]

Yes

Half-half

No

Don’t know /
hard to say

13-14/10/11

520

7th

From Strength to Strength

43%[17]

9%[17]

36%[17]

12%[17]

14-16/10/10

507

6th

Sharing Prosperity
for a Caring Society

66%[17]

13%

18%[17]

4%[17]

15-17/10/09

506

5th

Breaking New Ground Together

45%[17]

16%[17]

30%[17]

9%

17-19/10/08

503

4th

Embracing New Challenges

57%[17]

10%

24%[17]

9%[17]

10/10/07

512

3rd

A New Direction for Hong Kong

69%

8%

9%[17]

15%[17]

11/10/06

582

2nd

Proactive Pragmatic
Always People First

71%

10%

14%[17]

5%[17]

12/10/05

913

1st

Strong Governance for the People

72%

10%

8%

10%

People’s opinion on whether the theme of Policy Address delivered by Tung Chee-hwa
concurred with the current needs of the society from 1997 till 2005 [14]

Date of Survey

Sample/ Sub sample base [15]

Policy Address

Theme

Finding and error [16]

Yes

Half-half

No

Don’t know /
hard to say

12/1/05

1,031

8th

Working Together for Economic Development and Social Harmony

77%[17]

7%[17]

10%[17]

6%[17]

7/1/04

1,031

7th

Seizing Opportunities for Development: Promoting People-based Governance

49%[17]

12%[17]

19%

20%[17]

8-9/1/03

1,250

6th

Capitalising on Our Advantages:
Revitalizing our Economy

61%[17]

7%[17]

18%[17]

13%[17]

10/10/01

1,048

5th

Building on our Strengths,
Investing in our Future

45%[17]

12%[17]

25%[17]

18%[17]

11/10/00

1,041

4th

Serving the Community,
Sharing Common Goals

63%[17]

6%

17%

15%[17]

6/10/99

888

3rd

Quality People, Quality Home

69%

7%

15%

8%

7/10/98[18]

--

2nd

From Adversity to Opportunity

--

--

--

--

8/10/97[18]

--

1st

Building Hong Kong for a New Era

--

--

--

--

[14] The question wordings were “The theme of this year’s Policy Address is ‘XXXX’. Do you think this theme concurs with the current needs of the society?”

[15] Excluding those respondents who refused to answer this question. In 2006 and 2007 surveys, this series of question only use sub-sample.

[16] Errors 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.

[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.

[18] This question was not covered in the instant Policy Address poll in 1997 and 1998.


The latest results showed that 69% thought the theme of the Policy Address “Make Best Use of Opportunities, Develop the Economy, Improve People’s Livelihood, Build an Inclusive Society” concurred with the current needs of the society while 15% did not think so.

Respondents’ appraisals of CY Leung’s policy direction are tabulated below:

Date of survey

16-17/1/14

15-16/1/15

14-15/1/16

19-20/1/17

Latest change

Sample base

519

500

514

513

--

Overall response rate

68.7%

65.7%

65.8%

68.4%

--

Latest finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding and error [19]

Satisfaction rate of Leung’s
policy direction [20]

29%[21]

24%[21]

22%

37+/-4%

+15%[21]

Dissatisfaction rate of Leung’s
policy direction [20]

42%[21]

52%[21]

54%

40+/-4%

-14%[21]

Net value

-12[21]

-27%[21]

-31%

-3+/-8%

+28%[21]

Mean value [20]

2.7[21]

(Base=489)

2.5[21]

(Base=483)

2.4

(Base=487)

2.8+/-0.1

(Base=492)

+0.4[21]

[19] Errors 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. 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 importance 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.


Lastly, as for people’s satisfaction with CY Leung’s policy direction, 37% of the respondents showed satisfaction while 40% were not satisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 3 percentage points. The mean score is 2.8, which is close to “half-half”.

Commentary

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

According to our Policy Address instant survey, among respondents who had some knowledge of CY Leung’s fifth Policy Address, net satisfaction was positive 5 percentage points. In our follow-up survey, it decreases by 8 percentage points to negative 3 percentage points, while satisfaction rating also drops 3.5 marks to 48.8. In other words, after some initial discussions, people’s appraisal of this year’s Policy Address has turned more negative. Most of those who did not express an opinion on the day of the Address now hold a negative view. POP will conduct another round of follow-up survey to map people’s further reaction.

Regarding the theme of the Address, 69% agree that “Make Best Use of Opportunities, Develop the Economy, Improve People’s Livelihood, Build an Inclusive Society” meets the need of society, which is the highest among the five CY Leung’s Policy Addresses. In terms of key policy areas, the housing policies proposed as well as the general measures taken to address Hong Kong’s current problems all receive more opposition than support, yet they are the best figures in the past three years already. Moreover, only 20% agree to the view “all commitments in my Election Manifesto have basically been implemented” that CY Leung mentioned in his conclusion. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at negative 3 percentage points, representing a significant increase of 28 percentage points from that of last year.

POP will release another round of Policy Address survey findings in two weeks’ time. Whether public opinion would change after many rounds of discussion remains to be seen.

Future Releases (Tentative)

  • January 26, 2017 (Thursday) 1pm to 2pm: Ratings of Top 10 Legislative Councillors
  • February 1, 2017 (Wednesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and HKSAR Government