HKU POP releases a Budget instant pollBack

 
Press Release on February 24, 2011

| Special Announcement | Abstract | Background | Latest Figures | Indepth Analysis | Future Release (Tentative) |
| Detailed Findings (Instant Poll of the 2011 Financial Budget/Popularity of Chief Executive)
| Detailed Findings (Popularity of Principal Officials
) |


Special Announcement

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong conducted an instant survey last night on the Budget, after Financial Secretary John Tsang gave his Budget Talk earlier in the day. Preliminary results of the survey have already been published by our media sponsors last night, including NOW TV News and Asia TV. We acknowledge their contribution, and are now releasing all the findings to the general public.

Moreover, a"POPCON" electronic platform which integrates social-networking, entertainment, shopping and education (SESE) activities targeted at young people was also launched yesterday, registering over 3,500 hits at the time of this release. POPCON carries a"Budget Forum for Youths" run by POP and the Boys' and Girls' Clubs Association of Hong Kong (BGCA), and the address of POPCON is http://popcon.hkupop.hku.hk.


Abstract

POP interviewed 1,031 Hong Kong people last night (23 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 instant survey showed that 27% were satisfied with the Budget, 35% were dissatisfied and 34% said"half-half". The average rating registered for the Budget was 51.5 marks, with a recognition rate of 86%. The survey also showed that the latest rating of FS John Tsang after his Budget Talk was 52.4 marks, with approval and disapproval rates of 36% and 22% respectively. The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-3 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures needs another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 73%.

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 1,031 successful interviews, not 1,031 x 72.8% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] The maximum sampling error of all percentages is +/-3 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures 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 +/-1.5 and sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3% at 95% confidence level".
[4] When quoting percentages of this survey, journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, but when quoting the rating figures, 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.



Background

Since 1992, HKUPOP has been conducting Policy Address instant surveys every year. From 1998 onwards, we expanded our instant surveys to cover the Budget Talks. 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. The instant survey released today is our first release under our new operation.


Latest Figures

The findings of the Budget instant poll released by the POP SITE today 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 of various surveys:

Year of survey

Date of survey

Total sample size

Response rate

Sampling error of %[6]

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 sample 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]

Satisfaction rate[7][9]

Half-half[7][9]

Dissatisfaction rate[7][9]

Satisfaction rating

23/2/2011

911

86%

27[10]+/-3%

34+/-3%

35[10]+/-3%

51.5[10]+/-1.5

24/2/2010

724

69%

47[10] +/-4%

35[10] +/-4%

14[10] +/-3%

60.8[10] +/-1.4

25/2/2009

669

63%

30[10] +/-4%

43[10] +/-4%

22[10] +/-3%

54.8[10] +/-1.5

27/2/2008

811

71%

68[10] +/-3%

21[10] +/-3%

6[10] +/-2%

70.6 +/-1.2

28/2/2007

673

64%

62[10] +/-4%

25 +/-3%

9[10] +/-2%

--

22/2/2006

577

54%

50 +/-4%

26 +/-4%

19[10] +/-3%

--

16/3/2005

544

46%

48[10] +/-4%

29 +/-4%

11 +/-3%

--

10/3/2004

395

32%

37[10] +/-5%

33[10] +/-5%

12[10] +/-3%

--

5/3/2003

495

44%

20[10] +/-4%

23 +/-4%

50[10] +/-4%

--

6/3/2002

539

45%

47[10] +/-4%

23 +/-4%

17 +/-3%

--

7-8/3/2001

263

49%

57[10] +/-6%

25[10] +/-5%

13[10] +/-4%

--

8/3/2000

643

65%

70[10] +/-4%

12[10] +/-3%

4[10] +/-2%

--

3/3/1999

598

42%

46[10] +/-4%

27[10] +/-4%

10[10] +/-2%

--

18/2/1998

638

65%

55 +/-4%

20 +/-3%

7 +/-2%

--

[7] 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.
[8] Sub-samples exclude those respondents who said they had heard nothing of the Budget, while"recognition rates" used to indicate people's knowledge level further exclude those who answered"don't know / hard to say".
[9] Collapsed from a 5-point scale, with sub-sample base excluding those who said they had heard nothing of the Budget. Since the base is smaller, the sampling error is bigger.
[10] 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.


After excluding those respondents who said they had heard nothing of the Budget, this year's instant survey showed that 27% were satisfied with the Budget, 35% were dissatisfied and 34% said "half-half". The average rating registered for the Budget was 51.5 marks, with a recognition rate of 86%.

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

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[12]

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 support rate at Budget instant survey[12]

--

--

--

--

64 +/-3%

61 +/-4%

62 +/-4%

Date of the latest survey before Budget Speech[14]

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[12]

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 support rate before the Budget[12]

--

--

--

--

--

65 +/-3%

63 +/-3%

Change in FS's rating

-2.2[15]

+6.2[15]

+1.7[15]

+2.5[15]

+3.6[15]

--

+3.3[15]

Change in FS's support rate

--

--

--

--

--

-4%

-1%

 

Popularity of John Tsang

Year of the Budget

2008-09

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

Date of Budget Speech[13]

27/2/2008

25/2/2009

24/2/2010

23/2/2011

FS's rating at Budget instant survey[12]

67.9 +/-1.5

54.9 +/-1.6

61.3 +/-1.4

52.4+/-1.3

FS's support rate at Budget instant survey[12]

58 +/-4%

43 +/-4%

53 +/-4%

36 +/-3%

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

FS's rating before the Budget[12]

56.0 +/-1.2

56.7 +/-1.1

58.3 +/-1.1

55.4+/-1.7

FS's support rate before the Budget[12]

35 +/-3%

47 +/-3%

57 +/-3%

51+/-4%

Change in FS's rating

+11.9[15]

-1.8[15]

+3.0[15]

-3.0[15]

Change in FS's support rate

+23%[15]

-4%

-4%

-15%[15]

[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] 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.
[13] These questions only use the concerned sub-samples for the tracking surveys between 2006 and 2010.
[14] The frequency of FS rating and approval rate was different before November 2005.
[15] 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.


The survey showed that the latest rating of FS John Tsang after his Budget Talk was 52.4 marks, with approval and disapproval rates of 36% and 22% respectively.


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 John Tsang's rating and approval rates by respondents' age:
Date of survey: 23/2/11

18-29

30-49

50+

Overall

Satisfaction rate of the
Budget Speech[16]

Satisfaction

19+/-5%
(31)

24+/-5%
(85)

35+/-6%
(131)

27+/-3%
(247)

Half-half

46+/-6%
(73)

34+/-5%
(122)

30+/-5%
(112)

34+/-3%
(307)

Dissatisfaction

30+/-5%
(48)

41+/-6%
(149)

32+/-6%
(123)

36+/-3%
(320)

Don't know /
hard to say

5+/-3%
(8)

2+/-2%
(6)

3+/-2%
(13)

3+/-1%
(26)

Total

100%
(160)

100%
(362)

100%
(379)

100%
(900)

Mean value[16]

2.8+/-0.1
(152)

2.7+/-0.1
(357)

2.9+/-0.1
(366)

2.8+/-0.1
(874)


Date of survey: 23/2/11

18-29

30-49

50+

Overall

Rating of FS John Tsang

50.6+/-2.5
(199)

50.8+/-2.1
(402)

54.7+/-2.3
(399)

52.3+/-1.3
(1,000)

Vote of confidence /
no confidence in
FS John Tsang

Support

29+/-6%
(59)

31+/-5%
(126)

44+/-5%
(175)

36+/-3%
(359)

Oppose

19+/-6%
(38)

25+/-4%
(101)

22+/-4%
(89)

23+/-3%
(227)

Don't know /
hard to say

52+/-7%
(103)

44+/-5%
(177)

34+/-5%
(138)

42+/-3%
(418)

Total

100%
(199)

100%
(403)

100%
(402)

100%
(1,004)


Besides, we also asked respondents to classify themselves which one of the five social strata they belonged to. The options were: upper, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle and lower stratum or grassroots. According to the choice of respondents, we grouped them into relatively upper, relatively middle and relatively lower strata, or in short form upper, middle and lower strata. Each stratum contains about one-third of the sample. The following table shows the mapping between respondents' choice and their final grouping:

Self-reported social stratum

Social stratum group

Upper stratum

Relatively upper stratum (about one-third)

Upper-middle stratum

Middle-middle stratum

Lower-middle stratum

Relatively middle stratum (about one-third)

Lower stratum or grassroots

Relatively lower stratum (about one-third)

Don't know/hard to say/refuse to answer

Unclassified


Herewith further analysis by respondents' social strata:
Date of survey: 23/2/11

Upper

Middle

Lower

Overall

Satisfaction rate of the
Budget Speech[16]

Satisfaction

23+/-5%
(66)

26+/-5%
(79)

34+/-6%
(95)

27+/-3%
(239)

Half-half

31+/-5%
(89)

39+/-6%
(119)

33+/-6%
(93)

34+/-3%
(301)

Dissatisfaction

44+/-6%
(127)

33+/-5%
(99)

31+/-6%
(88)

36+/-3%
(314)

Don't know /
hard to say

3+/-2%
(8)

2+/-2%
(7)

3+/-2%
(7)

3+/-1%
(22)

Total

100%
(289)

100%
(304)

100%
(283)

100%
(877)

Mean value[16]

2.7+/-0.1
(281)

2.9+/-0.1
(297)

2.9+/-0.1
(276)

2.8+/-0.1
(855)


Date of survey: 23/2/11

Upper

Middle

Lower

Overall

Rating of FS John Tsang

51.5+/-2.4
(322)

53.1+/-2.2
(336)

51.6+/-2.4
(317)

52.1+/-1.3
(975)

Vote of confidence /
no confidence in
FS John Tsang

Support

35+/-5%
(114)

39+/-5%
(129)

32+/-5%
(104)

35+/-3%
(347)

Oppose

27+/-5%
(87)

23+/-5%
(79)

19+/-4%
(60)

23+/-3%
(226)

Don't know /
hard to say

38+/-5%
(123)

38+/-5%
(127)

49+/-6%
(157)

42+/-3%
(407)

Total

100%
(323)

100%
(335)

100%
(322)

100%
(980)

[16] 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.


Future Release (Tentative)

  • March 1, 2011 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Popularity of CE and SARG, Budget Second Survey

| Special Announcement | Abstract | Background | Latest Figures | Indepth Analysis | Future Release (Tentative) |
| Detailed Findings (Instant Poll of the 2011 Financial Budget/Popularity of Chief Executive)
| Detailed Findings (Popularity of Principal Officials
) |