Oct 22, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
POP releases findings of Policy Address first follow-up survey
Special Announcement
The predecessor of Hong Kong Public Opinion Program (HKPOP) was The Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP). “POP” in this release can refer to HKPOP or its predecessor HKUPOP.
Abstract
POP successfully interviewed 512 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in two days after the Policy Address was delivered. Results show that right after the Policy Address was delivered, people’s appraisal has turned even more negative. Only 11% were satisfied with the Policy Address and 73% were dissatisfied, thus a net satisfaction rate of negative 62 percentage points, registering a plunge of 15 percentages points. The satisfaction rating also plunged by 6.4 marks to 23.3. The net satisfaction rate and the rating hit their record low since the surveys began in 1997 and 1999 respectively. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at negative 67 percentage points, representing a plunge of 75 percentage points compared to her Address last year, which is also the lowest since record began in 1998. How public opinion would further change would be revealed by our second follow-up survey to be conducted weeks later. The effective response rate of the survey excluding panel samples is 63.7%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-6% and that of ratings is +/-2.5 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 17-18/10/2019 |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size | : | 512 (including 255 landline and 257 mobile samples) |
| Effective response rate[1] | : | 63.7% |
| Sampling error[2] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, that of net values not more than +/-6% and that of ratings not more than +/-2.5 at 95% confidence level |
| Weighting method | : | Rim-weighted according to figures provided by the Census and Statistics Department. The gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population came from “Mid-year population for 2018”, while the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and economic activity status distribution came from “Women and Men in Hong Kong – Key Statistics (2018 Edition)”. |
[1] Before September 2017, “overall response rate” was used to report surveys’ contact information. Starting from September 2017, “effective response rate” was used. In July 2018, POP further revised the calculation of effective response rate. Thus, the response rates before and after the change cannot be directly compared.
[2] All error figures in this release are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times with different random samples, we would expect 95 times having the population parameter within the respective error margins calculated. Because of sampling errors, when quoting percentages, journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, whereas one decimal place can be used when quoting rating figures.
Latest Figures
Results of the Policy Address first follow-up surveys of 2017 to 2019 together with their corresponding instant polls are tabulated below:
| Instant poll[3] | First follow-up survey | Change | |
| 2019 | |||
| Date of survey | 16/10/19 | 17-18/10/19 | — |
| Sample size | 679 | 512 | — |
| Response rate | 80.0% | 63.7% | — |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[4] | 17% | 11+/-3% | -6%[5] |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[4] | 65% | 73+/-4% | +8%[5] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -47% | -62+/-6% | -15%[5] |
| Mean value[4] | 2.0 | 1.8+/-0.1 | -0.3[5] |
| Satisfaction rating of Policy Address | 29.7 | 23.3+/-2.5 | -6.4[5] |
| 2018 | |||
| Date of survey | 10/10/18 | 11-12/10/18 | — |
| Sample size | 534 | 503 | — |
| Response rate | 65.9% | 65.3% | — |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[4] | 33% | 32% | -1% |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[4] | 34% | 33% | -1% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -1% | -1% | — |
| Mean value[4] | 2.9 | 2.8 | — |
| Satisfaction rating of Policy Address | 48.5 | 50.5 | +2.0 |
| 2017 | |||
| Date of survey | 11/10/17 | 12-13/10/17 | — |
| Sample size | 526 | 508 | — |
| Response rate | 63.5% | 60.8% | — |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[4] | 48% | 43% | -5%[5] |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[4] | 14% | 24% | +10%[5] |
| Net satisfaction rate | 34% | 18% | -16%[5] |
| Mean value[4] | 3.5 | 3.3 | -0.2[5] |
| Satisfaction rating of Policy Address | 62.4 | 60.6 | -1.8 |
[3] Questions in instant surveys would exclude respondents who had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Figures in the table are subsample sizes.
[4] 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.
[5] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
The first follow-up survey after the Policy Address was delivered shows that 11% were satisfied with the Policy Address and 73% were dissatisfied, thus a net satisfaction rate of negative 62 percentage points, a plunge of 15 percentages points. The mean value was 1.8, meaning in between “quite dissatisfied / not quite satisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. The satisfaction rating also plunged by 6.4 marks to 23.3. The net satisfaction rate and the rating are at their lowest since records began in 1997 and 1999 respectively.
People’s appraisals of the policy direction in the first follow-up surveys in recent years are tabulated below:
| Date of survey | 14-15/1/16 | 19-20/1/17 | 12-13/10/17 | 11-12/10/18 | 17-18/10/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 514 | 513 | 508 | 503 | 512 | — |
| Response rate | 65.8% | 68.4% | 60.8% | 65.3% | 63.7% | — |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | — |
| Satisfaction rate of CE’s policy direction[6] | 22% | 37%[7] | 50%[7] | 42%[7] | 11+/-3% | -31%[7] [8] |
| Dissatisfaction rate of CE’s policy direction[6] | 54% | 40%[7] | 22%[7] | 35%[7] | 78+/-4% | +44%[7] [8] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -31% | -3%[7] | 28%[7] | 7%[7] | -67+/-6% | -75%[7] [8] |
| Mean value[6] | 2.4 | 2.8[7] | 3.4[7] | 3.0[7] | 1.7+/-0.1 | -1.3[7] [8] |
[6] 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.
[7] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
[8] The original figures were mistaken, they are hereby corrected.
The survey also shows that 11% were satisfied with Carrie Lam’s policy direction, while 78% expressed dissatisfaction, thus a net satisfaction rate of negative 67 percentage points, a plunge of 75 percentages points, the lowest since record began in 1998. The mean value was 1.7, meaning in between “quite dissatisfied / not quite satisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general.
Data Analysis
Survey shows that right after the Policy Address was delivered, people’s appraisal has turned even more negative. Only 11% were satisfied with the Policy Address and 73% were dissatisfied, thus a net satisfaction rate of negative 62 percentage points, registering a plunge of 15 percentages points. The satisfaction rating also plunged by 6.4 marks to 23.3. The net satisfaction rate and the rating hit their record low since the surveys began in 1997 and 1999 respectively. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at negative 67 percentage points, representing a plunge of 75 percentage points compared to her Address last year, which is also the lowest since record began in 1998. How public opinion would further change would be revealed by our second follow-up survey to be conducted weeks later.