HKU POP releases a Budget instant pollBack

 

Press Release on February 23, 2017

| Detailed Findings (Budget Feature Page) |


Abstract

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at The University of Hong Kong interviewed 559 Hong Kong people last night (22 February) by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. After excluding those respondents who said they had heard nothing of the Budget, this year’s survey shows that people’s instant appraisal of the first Budget of FS Paul Chan can be considered positive, with a net satisfaction of positive 15 percentage points and a rating of 55.7 marks, both similar to the result from the instant survey conducted last year. In terms of popularity effect, both the support rating and net approval rate of Paul Chan have increased dramatically after his Budget Talk, meaning that he has gained much popularity from the Budget. Further analysis shows that respondents of age 50 or above are most satisfied with the Budget, and support Paul Chan most. How people’s reaction will change after knowing more about the Budget will be revealed by our next follow-up survey. The maximum 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 64%.

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 559 successful interviews, not 559 x 64.4% 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 figure and net value 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 +/-2.3, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, and sampling error of net values not more than +/-6% 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. From 1998 onwards, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Speeches. In free and democratic societies, instant surveys are indispensable sources of free information. Combined with appropriate follow-up surveys, and in parallel to expert analyses, they give a multi-dimensional picture of opinion development. They are an important part of a society’s interactive development. Starting 2008, we split up previous years’ instant survey into two surveys. In our first survey, we measure people’s overall appraisal of the Budget, their rating of the Budget, their change in confidence towards Hong Kong’s future, and FS’s popularity. In our second survey, we focus on people’s reactions towards different government proposals, their satisfaction with the government’s fiscal policies, and other relevant issues. Starting 2011, we revised our design to concentrate on people’s appraisal of the Budget and FS’s popularity in our instant survey, and move the remaining questions to our follow-up survey. There is no change to our operation this year.

Latest Figures

POP today releases the latest findings of the Budget 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

22/2/2017

559

64.4%

+/-4%

2016

24/2/2016

528

63.6%

+/-4%

2015

25/2/2015

610

67.4%

+/-4%

2014

26/2/2014

1,005

62.7%

+/-3%

2013

27/2/2013

1,024

67.3%

+/-3%

2012

1/2/2012

1,015

71.1%

+/-3%

2011

23/2/2011

1,031

72.8%

+/-3%

2010

24/2/2010

1,008

65.9%

+/-3%

2009

25/2/2009

1,015

67.7%

+/-3%

2008

27/2/2008

1,077

75.5%

+/-3%

2007

28/2/2007

1,018

65.2%

+/-3%

2006

22/2/2006

1,026

68.3%

+/-3%

2005

16/3/2005

1,041

65.2%

+/-3%

2004

10/3/2004

1,023

64.7%

+/-3%

2003

5/3/2003

1,047

71.4%

+/-3%

2002

6/3/2002

1,041

59.9%

+/-3%

2001

7-8/3/2001

502

67.1%

+/-4%

2000

8/3/2000

856

56.4%

+/-3%

1999

3/3/1999

1,190

62.1%

+/-3%

1998

18/2/1998

804

54.7%

+/-4%

[6] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level using full sample size. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sampling error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.


People’s satisfaction figures with this year’s Budget are summarized below together with the previous findings:

Date of survey

Sub-sample
base[8]

Recog.
rate[8]

Appraisal of Budget[7]

Satisfaction

rate[9]

Half-half[9]

Dissatisfaction
rate[9]

Net satisfaction rate

Mean value[9]

Satisfaction rating of Budget

22/2/17

502

90%

33+/-4%

30+/-4%

18+/-3%

15+/-6%

3.2+/-0.1 (Base=412)

55.7+/-2.1

24/2/16

500

82%

36[10]+/-4%

31+/-4%

20+/-4%

17[10]+/-7%

3.2+/-0.1 (Base=432)

57.2[10]+/-2.1

25/2/15

529

79%

45[10]+/-4%

28+/-4%

18[10]+/-3%

28[10]+/-6%

3.3[10]+/-0.1(Base=483)

60.2[10]+/-1.8

26/2/14

695

66%

24[10]+/-3%

26[10]+/-3%

45[10]+/-4%

-20[10]+/-6%

2.7[10]+/-0.1(Base=660)

49.8[10]+/-1.7

27/2/13

813

77%

30[10]+/-3%

37[10]+/-3%

31[10]+/-3%

-1[10]+/-5%

2.9[10]+/-0.1 (Base=793)

53.6[10]+/-1.5

1/2/12

826

79%

38[10]+/-3%

33+/-3%

26[10]+/-3%

12[10]+/-6%

3.1[10]+/-0.1 (Base=804)

57.0[10]+/-1.4

23/2/11

911

86%

27[10]+/-3%

34+/-3%

35[10]+/-3%

-8[10]+/-5%

2.8[10]+/-0.1 (Base=884)

51.5[10]+/-1.5

24/2/10

724

69%

47[10]+/-4%

35[10]+/-4%

14[10]+/-3%

32[10]+/-5%

3.4[10]+/-0.1 (Base=698)

60.8[10]+/-1.4

25/2/09

669

63%

30[10]+/-4%

43[10]+/-4%

22[10]+/-3%

8[10]+/-6%

3.1[10]+/-0.1 (Base=636)

54.8[10]+/-1.5

27/2/08

811

71%

68[10]+/-3%

21[10]+/-3%

5[10]+/-2%

63[10]+/-4%

3.8[10]+/-0.1 (Base=768)

70.6 +/-1.2

28/2/07

673

64%

62[10]+/-4%

25 +/-3%

9[10]+/-2%

53[10]+/-5%

3.6[10]+/-0.1 (Base=649)

--

22/2/06

577

54%

50 +/-4%

26 +/-4%

19[10]+/-3%

31+/-6%

3.3+/-0.1 (Base=550)

--

16/3/05

544

46%

47[10]+/-4%

29 +/-4%

11 +/-3%

36[10]+/-6%

3.4+/-0.1 (Base=478)

--

10/3/04

395

32%

37[10]+/-5%

33[10]+/-5%

12[10]+/-3%

25[10]+/-7%

3.3[10]+/-0.1 (Base=324)

--

5/3/03

495

44%

20[10]+/-4%

23 +/-4%

50[10]+/-4%

-30[10]+/-7%

2.5[10]+/-0.1 (Base=459)

--

6/3/02

539

45%

47[10]+/-4%

23 +/-4%

17 +/-3%

30[10]+/-6%

3.3[10]+/-0.1 (Base=472)

--

7-8/3/01

263

49%

57[10]+/-6%

25[10]+/-5%

13[10]+/-4%

44[10]+/-9%

3.5[10]+/-0.1 (Base=248)

--

8/3/00

643

65%

70[10]+/-4%

12[10]+/-3%

4[10]+/-2%

66[10]+/-4%

3.9[10]+/-0.1 (Base=553)

--

3/3/99

598

42%

46[10]+/-4%

27[10]+/-4%

10[10]+/-2%

36[10]+/-5%

3.4[10]+/-0.1 (Base=496)

--

18/2/98

638

65%

55 +/-4%

20 +/-3%

7 +/-2%

47+/-5%

3.6+/-0.1 (Base=520)

--

[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.

[8] Excluding respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Budget, while “recognition rates” used to indicate people’s knowledge level further exclude those who answered “don’t know / hard to say”. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected. Because of the smaller sample size, the sampling error has increased accordingly.

[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.


After excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of this year’s Budget, this year’s instant survey showed that 33% were satisfied with it, 18% were dissatisfied and 30% said “half-half”, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 15 percentage points. The mean score is 3.2, which is close to “half-half” in general. Meanwhile, the average rating registered for the Budget was 55.7 marks, with a recognition rate of 90%.


Figures on various Financial Secretaries’ popularity before and after their Budget Speeches since 2001[11] are summarized as follows:

Popularity

of Donald Tsang

Popularity of
Antony Leung

Popularity of Henry Tang

Year of the Budget

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06[12]

2006-07

2007-08

Date of Budget Speech[13]

7/3/2001

6/3/2002

5/3/2003

10/3/2004

16/3/2005

22/2/2006

28/2/2007

FS’s rating at Budget instant survey & error [14]

69.7+/-1.6

63.4+/-1.0

49.8+/-1.2

59.9+/-0.8

63.3+/-1.0

63.0+/-1.2

64.1+/-1.4

FS’s net approval rate at Budget instant survey & error [14]

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

59+/-4%

56+/-5%

56+/-5%

Date of the latest survey before Budget Speech [15]

19-21/2/2001

18-21/2/2002

1-4/3/2003

1-3/3/2004

1-3/3/2005

3-7/2/2006

1-6/2/2007

FS’s rating before the Budget & error [14]

71.9+/-0.9

57.2+/-1.2

48.1+/-1.3

57.4+/-1.0

59.7+/-1.0

63.0+/-1.0

60.8+/-1.2

FS’s net approval rate before the Budget & error [14]

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

57+/-4%

50+/-4%

Change in
FS’s rating

-2.2 [16]

+6.2 [16]

+1.7 [16]

+2.5 [16]

+3.6 [16]

--

+3.3 [16]

Change in FS’s
net approval rate

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

[Not applicable]

-1%

+6% [16]

Popularity of John Tsang

Year of the Budget

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14[17]

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Date of Budget Speech[13]

27/2/2008

25/2/2009

24/2/2010

23/2/2011

1/2/2012

27/2/2013

26/2/2014

25/2/2015

24/2/2016

FS’s rating at Budget instant survey & error [14]

67.9+/-1.5

54.9+/-1.6

61.3+/-1.4

52.4+/-1.3

54.1+/-1.2

56.6+/-1.3

54.0+/-1.4

61.0+/-1.7

62.2+/-1.8

FS’s net approval rate at Budget instant survey & error [14]

54+/-5%

28+/-6%

46+/-5%

13+/-5%

3+/-5%

35+/-4%

27+/-6%

44+/-6%

48+/-6%

Date of the latest survey before Budget Speech

1-5/2/2008

2-4/2/2009

29/1-2/2/2010

7-11/2/2011

3-6/1/2012

1-6/2/2013

4-6/2/2014

30/1-4/2/15

1-4/2/16

FS’s rating before the Budget & error [14]

56.0+/-1.2

56.7+/-1.1

58.3+/-1.1

55.4+/-1.7

50.6+/-1.6

57.8+/-1.4

56.7+/-1.4

58.6+/-1.8

62.3+/-1.5

FS’s net approval rate before the Budget & error [14]

24+/-4%

32 +/-5%

46 +/-4%

33+/-6%

13+/-7%

45+/-5%

33+/-6%

42+/-6%

51+/-5%

Change in
FS’s rating

+11.9 [16]

-1.8 [16]

+3.0 [16]

-3.0 [16]

+3.5 [16]

-1.2

-2.7 [16]

+2.4 [16]

-0.1

Change in FS’s
net approval rate

+30% [16]

-4%

--

-20% [16]

-10% [16]

-10% [16]

-6%

+2%

-3%

Popularity of Paul Chan

Year of the Budget

2017-18

Date of Budget Speech[13]

22/2/2017

FS’s rating at Budget instant survey & error [14]

47.4+/-2.3

FS’s net approval rate at Budget instant survey & error [14]

4+/-6%

Date of the latest survey before Budget Speech

6-9/2/17

FS’s rating before the Budget & error [14]

34.0+/-2.1

FS’s net approval rate before the Budget & error [14]

-29+/-6%

Change in FS’s rating

+13.4 [16]

Change in FS’s net approval rate

+33% [16]

[11] FS rating was introduced in our Budget instant poll in 2001, while approval rate was introduced in 2005. This table therefore starts from 2001.

[12] This was the first Budget by Henry Tang after Donald Tsang became the Acting Chief Executive.

[13] These questions only use the concerned sub-samples for the tracking surveys between 2006 and 2010.

[14] All errors 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. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sample error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.

[15] The frequency of FS rating and approval rate was different before November 2005.

[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.

[17] This was the first Budget by John Tsang after CY Leung became the Chief Executive.


The survey showed that the latest popularity rating of FS Paul Chan after his Budget Speech was 47.4 marks, with an approval and disapproval rates of 30% and 26% respectively, giving a net approval of positive 4 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 Budget, and Paul Chan’s rating and approval rates by respondents’ age:

Date of survey: 22/2/2017

18-29

30-49

50+

Overall

Satisfaction rate of the Budget Speech[18]

Satisfaction

22+/-9%
(18)

25+/-6%
(46)

44+/-6%
(103)

33+/-4%
(167)

Half-half

26+/-10%
(20)

36+/-7%
(67)

27+/-6%
(64)

30+/-4%
(152)

Dissatisfaction

21+/-9%
(17)

22+/-6%
(40)

15+/-5%
(36)

19+/-3%
(93)

Don’t know / hard to say

31+/-10%
(24)

17+/-6%
(31)

13+/-4%
(32)

17+/-3%
(87)

Total

100%
(79)

100%
(184)

100%
(235)

100%
(498)

Mean value

2.8+/-0.3
(55)

2.9+/-0.2
(152)

3.4+/-0.1
(204)

3.2+/-0.1
(411)

[18] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 99% confidence level.


Date of survey: 22/2/2017

18-29

30-49

50+

Overall

Rating of FS Paul Chan[19]

38.0+/-4.5
(90)

41.2+/-3.6
(192)

56.2+/-3.3
(237)

47.5+/-2.3
(519)

Vote of confidence/ no confidence in FS Paul Chan [19]

Support

14+/-7%
(14)

21+/-6%
(41)

44+/-6%
(107)

30+/-4%
(162)

Oppose

24+/-9%
(23)

35+/-7%
(69)

20+/-5%
(49)

26+/-4%
(141)

Don’t know / hard to say

61+/-10%
(58)

45+/-7%
(89)

35+/-6%
(86)

44+/-4%
(233)

Total

100%
(95)

100%
(199)

100%
(241)

100%
(536)

[19] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 99% confidence level.

Commentary

Frank Lee, Research Manager of Public Opinion Programme, observed, “Based on those who understand the Budget, our survey finds that people’s instant appraisal of the first Budget of FS Paul Chan can be considered positive, with a net satisfaction of positive 15 percentage points and a rating of 55.7 marks, both similar to the result from the instant survey conducted last year. In terms of popularity effect, both the support rating and net approval rate of Paul Chan have increased dramatically after his Budget Talk, meaning that he has gained much popularity from the Budget. Further analysis shows that respondents of age 50 or above are most satisfied with the Budget, and support Paul Chan most. How people’s reaction will change after knowing more about the Budget will be revealed by our next follow-up survey.”

Future Releases (Tentative)

  • February 28, 2017 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Budget first follow-up survey
  • March 1, 2017 (Wednesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and HKSAR Government