HKU POP releases the latest social indicatorsBack

 
Press Release on February 22, 2011

| Special Announcement | Abstract | Latest Figures | Indepth Analysis | Opinion Daily | Commentary |
| Future Release (Tentative) |
| Detailed Findings (Social Indicators/Rule of law indicators/Freedom Indicators) |


Special Announcement

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong will conduct an instant survey tomorrow evening after Financial Secretary John Tsang gives his Budget Talk. Results will be published by our media sponsors on the same day, followed by an open release the following day. Any media which would like to sponsor the survey in order to obtain results tomorrow evening please contact us.

Moreover, a "POPCON" electronic platform which integrates social-networking, entertainment, shopping and education (SESE) activities targeted at young people will also be launched tomorrow February 23 at 00:01 hr. POPCON will carry a "Budget Forum for Youths" run by POP and the Boys' and Girls' Clubs Association of Hong Kong (BGCA), which aims at promoting young people's interest and discussion on the Budget, through interesting activities and incentive schemes. The address of POPCON is http://popcon.hkupop.hku.hk.


Abstract

POP interviewed 1,035 Hong Kong people between February 9 and 17 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. The survey finds that compared to 6 months ago, among the 5 core social indicators (namely, stability, prosperity, democracy, freedom, and the rule of law), the rating of 'rule of law' has gone up to a record high since 2007*, probably due to the court case of Tony Chan Chun-chuen and that of assault on police officers. According to our records, the 'freedom indicator' has been on the high side for years, while the 'democracy indicator' remains at the bottom. As for the 7 non-core indicators, 'equality' and 'social welfare' have both dropped to record low since 1997, which warrants attention. As for the 10 freedom sub-indicators, our survey shows that with the exception of 'freedom to strike', all sub-indicators have ratings above 7 marks, meaning that people generally agree that Hong Kong is a free society. Further analysis shows that our 'post 80s' have rated 'deomcracy' and 'freedom' significantly lower than the 'non post 80s', verifying the quest of democracy and freedom among the younger generation. The sampling error of rating figure of various indicators is below +/-0.21 mark while that of Geoffrey Ma is below +/-2.0 marks. The response rate of the survey is 66%.

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 total sample size of this survey is 1,035 successful interviews, not 1,035 x 65.9% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] "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 of various indicators not more than +/-0.21 while that of Geoffrey Ma not more than +/-2.0 at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures.
[4] When quoting the rating figures of this survey, one decimal place can be used, in order to match the precision level of the figures.
[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.



Latest Figures

POP today releases on schedule via the "POP SITE" the latest social indicators, include 5 core indicators, 7 non-core indicators, 10 freedom sub-indicators, 2 rule of law sub-indicators, and the rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li. All the figures have been weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in mid-2010. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
Date of survey

Overall sample size

Response rate

Maximum sampling error of ratings[6]

9-17/2/2011

1,035

65.9%

+/-2.0

[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.

Herewith the latest figures of the 5 core social indicators:

Date of survey

10-12/2/09

11-16/8/09

4-9/2/10

10-13/8/10

9-17/2/11

Latest change

Total sample size[9]

1,011

1,006

1,060

1,007

1,035

--

Overall response rate

67.0%

70.9%

67.3%

61.3%

65.9%

--

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding & error[7]

--

Degree of freedom

7.67

7.51[8]

7.63[8]

7.52

7.42+/-0.15

-0.10

Degree of stability

6.96[8]

7.03

7.09

7.06

7.21+/-0.15

+0.15

Compliance with the rule of law

6.78

6.74

6.88[8]

6.61[8]

6.99+/-0.16

+0.38[8]

Degree of prosperity

6.82

6.88

7.03[8]

7.09

6.98+/-0.15

-0.11

Degree of democracy

6.11

6.02

5.99

6.57[8]

6.39+/-0.18

-0.18

[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 various ratings not more than +/-0.18 at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures.
[8] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.
[9] Starting from February 2011, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 532 to 548, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.


Herewith the latest figures of the 7 non-core social indicators:

Date of survey

10-12/2/09

11-16/8/09

4-9/2/10

10-13/8/10

9-17/2/11

Latest change

Total sample size[12]

1,011

1,006

1,060

1,007

1,035

--

Overall response rate

67.0%

70.9%

67.3%

61.3%

65.9%

--

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding & error[10]

--

Degree of public order

7.19[11]

7.19

7.34[11]

7.41

7.53+/-0.13

+0.12

Degree of corruption-free practices

6.93[11]

6.96

7.18[11]

7.21

7.26+/-0.16

+0.05

Degree of civilization

7.17[11]

7.21

7.29

7.33

7.20+/-0.14

-0.13

Degree of efficiency

6.62[11]

6.60

6.88[11]

6.95

6.84+/-0.16

-0.11

Degree of equality

6.09[11]

6.14

6.17

5.97[11]

5.92+/-0.18

-0.05

Degree of social welfare sufficiency

6.13[11]

6.28[11]

6.12

6.45[11]

5.86+/-0.17

-0.59[11]

Degree of fairness

5.65

5.64

5.60

5.62

5.60+/-0.18

-0.02

[10] 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 various ratings not more than +/-0.18 at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures.
[11] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.
[12] Starting from August 2010, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 512 to 577, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.


Herewith the latest figures of the 10 freedom sub-indicators:

Date of survey

12-13/1/09

20-23/7/09

11-13/1/10

10-13/8/10

9-17/2/11

Latest change

Total sample size[15]

1,015

1,003

1,008

1,007

1,035

--

Overall response rate

70.2%

68.7%

70.3%

61.3%

65.9%

--

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding & error[13]

--

Degree of freedom (repeated listing)

Because the survey dates are different,
please refer to the previous table.

7.52

7.42+/-0.15

-0.10

Freedom of religious belief

8.82

8.82

8.83

8.96[14]

8.66+/-0.15

-0.30[14]

Freedom to enter or leave Hong Kong

8.52

8.35[14]

8.44

8.60[14]

8.19+/-0.15

-0.41[14]

Freedom to engage in academic research

8.12

8.07

8.20[14]

8.14

7.89+/-0.16

-0.25[14]

Freedom to engage in artistic and literary creation

7.93

7.95

7.99

7.71[14]

7.71+/-0.17

--

Freedom of publication

7.60

7.46[14]

7.71[14]

7.59

7.43+/-0.16

-0.16

Freedom of speech

7.69[14]

7.56[14]

7.62

7.49

7.40+/-0.16

-0.09

Freedom of procession and demonstration

7.49[14]

7.85[14]

7.69[14]

7.42[14]

7.17+/-0.18

-0.25[14]

Freedom of press

7.66[14]

7.35[14]

7.60[14]

7.40[14]

7.12+/-0.16

-0.28[14]

Freedom of association

7.29

7.37

7.41

7.34

7.09+/-0.17

-0.25[14]

Freedom to strike

7.31

7.06[14]

6.93

7.04

6.55+/-0.21

-0.49[14]

[13] 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 various ratings not more than +/-0.21 at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures.
[14] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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.
[15] Starting from August 2010, all questions of sub-indicators only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 511 to 560, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.


Herewith the latest figures of the 2 rule of law sub-indicators and the rating of the Chief Justice:

Date of survey

10-12/2/09

11-16/8/09

4-9/2/10

10-13/8/10

9-17/2/11

Latest change

Total sample size[18]

1,011

1,006

1,060

1,007

1,035

--

Overall response rate

67.0%

70.9%

67.3%

61.3%

65.9%

--

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding & error[16]

--

Compliance with the rule of law (repeated listing)

6.78

6.74

6.88[17]

6.61[17]

6.99+/-0.16

+0.38[17]

Impartiality of the courts

6.84[17]

7.10[17]

7.40[17]

6.16[17]

6.90+/-0.15

+0.74[17]

Fairness of the judicial system

6.56[17]

6.73[17]

7.05[17]

6.06[17]

6.64+/-0.15

+0.58[17]

Support rating of Andrew Li/Geoffrey Ma[19]

60.9

61.0

68.1[17]

67.5

62.9+/-2.0

-4.6[17]

[16] 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 various ratings not more than +/-0.16 at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures, and that "sampling error is not more than +/-2.0 at 95% confidence level" when citing Geoffrey Ma's rating.
[17] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level, 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] Starting from August 2010, all questions of sub-indicators only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of this survey range from 520 to 581, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.
[19] Geoffrey Ma has become the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal since September 1, 2010, and the popularity rating of Ma was asked in this survey, while that of Andrew Li was asked in August 2010 and before.


Regarding the core social indicators, latest results showed that, on a scale of 0-10, Hong Kong's degree of "freedom" scored the highest rating with 7.42 marks, followed by "stability" with 7.21 marks, and then "compliance with the rule of law", "prosperity"and "democracy", with 6.99, 6.98 and 6.39 marks respectively.

As for the non-core social indicators, "public order" has the highest score of 7.53 marks, followed by "corruption-free practices", "civilization", "efficiency", "equality", "social welfare sufficiency" and "fairness", with scores of 7.26, 7.20, 6.84, 5.92, 5.86 and 5.60 marks correspondingly.

As for the freedom sub-indicators, the freedom of "religious belief" scored the highest rating with 8.66 marks. Freedom of "entering or leaving Hong Kong" came second with 8.19 marks. Freedoms of "academic research", "artistic and literary creation", "publication", "speech", "procession and demonstration", "press", and "association" formed the next tier, with respective scores of 7.89, 7.71, 7.43, 7.40, 7.17, 7.12 and 7.09 marks. Finally, the freedom to "strike" attained 6.55 marks.

Finally, for the two rule of law sub-indicators, the impartiality of the courts scored 6.90 marks, while the rating of the fairness of the judicial system was 6.64 marks. Meanwhile, the latest popularity rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, a representative figure of the judicial system, was 62.9 marks, on a scale of 0-100.


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 5 core social indicators by respondents' age:
Date of survey: 9-17/2/11

18-29 years old

30-49 years old

50 years old or above

Degree of freedom[20]

7.43+/-3.42
(Base=534)

7.06+/-3.14
(Base=104)

7.30+/-3.31
(Base=208)

7.73+/-3.55
(Base=221)

Degree of stability

7.22+/-3.56
(Base=537)

7.27+/-3.01
(Base=111)

7.14+/-3.40
(Base=225)

7.28+/-4.00
(Base=201)

Compliance with the rule of law

7.00+/-3.66
(Base=534)

7.27+/-2.87
(Base=109)

6.99+/-3.78
(Base=214)

6.87+/-3.89
(Base=211)

Degree of prosperity

6.98+/-3.50
(Base=536)

6.81+/-2.84
(Base=105)

7.02+/-3.41
(Base=223)

7.01+/-3.88
(Base=209)

Degree of democracy[20]

6.39+/-4.05
(Base=526)

6.02+/-3.27
(Base=102)

6.22+/-4.03
(Base=205)

6.73+/-4.30
(Base=218)

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


Opinion Daily

In January 2007, POP opened a feature page called "Opinion Daily" at the "POP Site", to record significant events and selected polling figures on a day-to-day basis, in order to provide readers with accurate information so that they can judge by themselves the reasons for the ups and downs of different opinion figures. In July 2007, POP collaborated with Wisers Information Limited whereby Wisers supplies to POP since July 24 each day a record of significant events of that day, according to the research method designed by POP. These daily entries would be uploaded to the "Opinion Daily" feature page as soon as they are verified by POP.

For the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from August 10 to 13, 2010 while the latest one was conducted from February 9 to 17, 2011. In between these two surveys, herewith the significant events selected from counting newspaper headlines and commentaries on a daily basis and covered by at least 25% of the local newspaper articles. Readers can make their own judgment if these significant events have any impacts to different polling figures.

14/2/11

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Tony Chan Chun-chuen.

11/2/11

Government adjusts Work Incentive Transport Subsidy Scheme.

31/1/11

China sends planes for Hong Kong travelers as protests continued in Egypt.

15/1/11

Henry Tang encourages Hong Kong youngsters to be more tolerant of different views in the society.

14/1/11

The grown-up mainland children of Hong Kong people are allowed the right of abode in Hong Kong.

29/12/10

Hong Kong people concerns Zhao Lianhai's case.

23/12/10

Bokhary jails for six weeks

10/11/10

Minimum wage payment set at $28 per hour.

16/9/10

Stephen Chan is being charged by ICAC with corruption and conspiracy to defraud TVB.

23/8/10

One Hong Kong travel tour was hostaged in Manila, ended up with eight tourists dead and seven injured.



Commentary

Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, observed, "Our latest survey shows that compared to 6 months ago, among the 5 core social indicators (namely, stability, prosperity, democracy, freedom, and the rule of law), the rating of 'rule of law' has gone up to a record high since 2007*, probably due to the court case of Tony Chan Chun-chuen and that of assault on police officers. According to our records, the 'freedom indicator' has been on the high side for years, while the 'democracy indicator' remains at the bottom. As for the 7 non-core indicators, 'equality' and 'social welfare' have both dropped to record low since 1997, which warrants attention. As for the 10 freedom sub-indicators, our survey shows that with the exception of 'freedom to strike', all sub-indicators have ratings above 7 marks, meaning that people generally agree that Hong Kong is a free society. Further analysis shows that our 'post 80s' have rated 'deomcracy' and 'freedom' significantly lower than the 'non post 80s', verifying the quest of democracy and freedom among the younger generation. As for the reasons affecting the ups and downs of various indicators, we leave it for our readers to make their own judgement after reading detailed records shown in our 'Opinion Daily' feature page."


Future Release (Tentative)
  • February 24, 2011 (Thursday) 1pm to 2pm: Budget Instant Poll
  • March 1, 2011 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and SARG, Budget Second Poll


* In the earliest version of our online press relese, it was mistakenly written as "record high since 1997". We apololgize for this typographical error, which did not appear in our fax version.

| Special Announcement | Abstract | Latest Figures | Indepth Analysis | Opinion Daily | Commentary |
| Future Release (Tentative) |
| Detailed Findings (Social Indicators/Rule of law indicators/Freedom Indicators) |