POP releases findings of Policy Address instant poll (2019-10-17)

Press Conference Live

Press Release on October 17, 2019

POP releases findings of Policy Address instant poll

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 745 Hong Kong residents (including 157 landline, 147 mobile and 441 panel samples) after CE Carrie Lam delivered her third Policy Address speech by video yesterday. The survey was conducted by random telephone survey by real interviewers, as well as by online or telephone survey for previously recruited random panel samples. Results show that after excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 17% said they were satisfied with it, 65% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 47 percentage points, while the average rating is 29.7 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All figures are at their worst since records began in 1997. As for CE Carrie Lam, as compared to early October, her popularities have not changed much after she delivered her Policy Address yesterday. Her latest support rating now stands at 22.7 marks, approval rate 15% and disapproval 79%, giving a net approval rate of negative 64 percentage points. Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 12% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 22% said there was no change, while 61% said their confidence had decreased, giving a net effect of negative 49 percentage points on people’s confidence. The net figure is also at its worst since record began in 1998. The instant poll describes people’s instant reaction toward the Policy Address. Their reactions later remain to be seen. The effective response rate of the survey excluding panel samples is 80.0%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-6% and that of ratings is +/-2.4 at 95% confidence level.

Contact Information

Date of survey : 16/10/2019
Survey method : Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers, as well as
online or telephone survey for previously recruited random panel samples
Target population : Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above
Sample size : 745 (including 157 landline, 147 mobile and 441 panel samples)
Effective response rate excluding panel samples[1] : 80.0%
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 +/-2.4 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

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

Date of survey Sample size[3] Appraisal of Policy Address
Satisfaction rate[4] Half-half Dissatisfaction rate[4] Net satisfaction rate Mean value[4] Rating of
Policy Address
16/10/19 679 17+/-3%[6] 8+/-2%[6] 65+/-4%[6] -47+/-6%[6] 2.0+/-0.1[6] 29.7+/-2.3[6]
10/10/18 534 33%[6] 24% 34%[6] -1%[6] 2.9[6] 48.5[6]
11/10/17 526 48%[6] 28%[6] 14%[6] 34%[6] 3.5[6] 62.4[6]
18/1/17 512 34%[6] 22% 29%[6] 5%[6] 3.0[6] 52.3[6]
13/1/16 522 19%[6] 23% 39% -20%[6] 2.5[6] 41.1[6]
14/1/15 503 30%[6] 24%[6] 35% -5%[6] 2.8 49.5[6]
15/1/14 611 36% 30%[6] 31%[6] 5% 3.0 54.1[6]
16/1/13 759 36%[6] 35% 24%[6] 11%[6] 3.1 56.4[6]
12/10/11 816 47%[6] 32% 18% 28%[6] 3.3 59.1
13/10/10 747 41%[6] 33%[6] 19%[6] 22%[6] 3.2 58.9[6]
14/10/09 462 30% 37% 28% 2% 3.0 53.5
15/10/08 515 31%[6] 35%[6] 26%[6] 4%[6] 3.0 53.8[6]
10/10/07 602 52%[6] 29%[6] 10%[6] 42%[6] 3.5 65.2[6]
11/10/06 445 30%[6] 37% 22%[6] 8%[6] 3.0 55.8[6]
12/10/05 377 48%[6] 33% 9%[6] 39%[6] 3.5 66.4[6]
12/1/05 391 38%[6] 30% 20%[6] 18%[6] 3.2 56.3[6]
7/1/04 381 25% 26% 33%[6] -8% 2.8 49.3
8/1/03[5] 377 22%[6] 29% 27% -5% 2.8 51.6[6]
10/10/01 433 29% 33% 28% 1% 3.0 56.7
11/10/00 262 25%[6] 28% 31% -6%[6] 2.9 55.2
6/10/99 236 31%[6] 30% 25%[6] 6%[6] 3.0 57.3
7/10/98 508 22%[6] 35%[6] 35%[6] -14%[6] 2.8
8/10/97 534 45% 30%[6] 14%[6] 31% 3.4

[3]     Respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address have been excluded.

[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 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis.

[6]     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.

After excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 17% said they were satisfied with it, 65% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 47 percentage points. The mean score is 2.0, meaning close to “quite dissatisfied” in general, while the average rating is 29.7 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All figures are at their worst since records began in 1997.

Figures on various Chief Executives’ popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech since 1997 are summarized as follows:

Popularity of Tung Chee-hwa
Date of PA Speech 8/10/97 7/10/98 6/10/99 11/10/00 10/10/01 8/1/03 7/1/04 12/1/05
CE’s rating
before the PA
65.8 55.8 54.0 48.2 48.4 46.6 42.9 47.2
CE’s rating at
PA instant poll
66.1 56.1 54.3 50.7 50.6 47.3 44.6 48.4
Change in
CE’s rating
+0.3 +0.3 +0.3 +2.5[8] +2.2[8] +0.7 +1.7[8] +1.2
Popularity of Donald Tsang
Date of Policy Address Speech 12/10/05 11/10/06 10/10/07 15/10/08 14/10/09 13/10/10 12/10/11
CE’s rating before the PA 68.0 62.9 65.8 52.7 55.2 55.4 48.4
CE’s rating at PA instant poll 67.4 59.8 64.4 53.9 54.2 56.2 50.6
Change in CE’s rating -0.6 -3.1[8] -1.4[8] +1.2 -1.0 +0.8 +2.2[8]
CE’s net approval rate
before the PA
68% 48% 48% 5% 7% -1% -45%
CE’s net approval rate
at PA instant poll
65% 36% 48% 10% 8% 0% -41%
Change in CE’s
net approval rate[7]
-3% -12% [8] +5% +1% +1% +4%
Popularity of CY Leung
Date of Policy Address Speech 16/1/13 15/1/14 14/1/15 13/1/16 18/1/17
CE’s rating before the PA 48.9 45.6 40.6 37.5 41.3
CE’s rating at PA instant poll 52.2 48.9 44.8 37.0 41.7
Change in CE’s rating +3.3[8] +3.3[8] +4.2[8] -0.5 +0.4
CE’s net approval rate
before the PA
-20% -31% -39% -44% -44%
CE’s net approval rate
at PA instant poll
-11% -24% -35% -54% -57%
Change in CE’s net approval rate[7] +9%[8] +7%[8] +4% -10%[8] -13%[8]
Popularity of Carrie Lam
Date of Policy Address Speech 11/10/17 10/10/18 16/10/19
CE’s rating before the PA 59.6 52.3 22.3+/-1.9
CE’s rating at PA instant poll 61.1 47.6 22.7+/-2.4
Change in CE’s rating +1.5 -4.7[8] +0.3
CE’s net approval rate
before the PA
10% 4% -65+/-5%
CE’s net approval rate
at PA instant poll
23% -10% -64+/-5%
Change in CE’s net approval rate[7] +13%[8] -14%[8] +1%

[7]     Instant polls on Policy Address included CE’s approval rate since 2004, so it is not listed under Tung’s series.

[8]     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.

Recent figures on Carrie Lam’s popularity before and after the Policy Address speech are as follows:

Date of survey 1-6/8/19 15-20/8/19 2-4/9/19 16-19/9/19 30/9-3/10/19 16/10/19 Latest change
Sample size 1,015 1,023 1,046 1,061 1,004 745
Response rate 62.8% 68.5% 69.5% 69.5% 64.5% 80.0%
Latest findings Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding Finding & error
Rating of CE Carrie Lam 27.9 24.6[9] 25.4 24.9 22.3 22.7+/-2.4 +0.3
Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam 20% 17% 19% 18% 15% 15+/-2%
Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam 72% 76%[9] 75% 74% 80%[9] 79+/-3% -1%
Net approval rate -51% -59%[9] -55% -57% -65%[9] -64+/-5% +1%

[9]     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.

Instant poll shows that CE Carrie Lam’s popularity has not changed much since early October after she delivered her Policy Address yesterday. Her latest support rating is 22.7 marks, approval rate 15% and disapproval 79%, giving a net approval rate of negative 64 percentage points.

The survey also gauged the change of people’s confidence in the future of Hong Kong after CE Carrie Lam delivered her Policy Address. Results are as follows:

Date of
survey
Sample
size[10]
Confidence in the future of Hong Kong
Increased Unchanged Decreased Don’t know / hard to say Net effect on confidence
16/10/19 679 12+/-2%[11] 22+/-3% 61+/-4%[11] 6+/-2% -49+/-5%[11]
10/10/18 534 23%[11] 25%[11] [12] 45%[11] 7%[11] -22%[11]
11/10/17 526 40%[11] 39% 19%[11] 3%[11] 21%[11]
18/1/17 511 24%[11] 36%[11] 32%[11] 7%[11] -8%[11]
13/1/16 521 16%[11] 31% 44%[11] 10%[11] -27%[11]
14/1/15 501 22% 35% 38%[11] 5% -16%
15/1/14 846 24%[11] 38% 32%[11] 5%[11] -9%[11]
16/1/13 913 31% 38%[11] 23% 7%[11] 8%
12/10/11 957 29% 45% 21% 5% 8%[11]
13/10/10 914 31%[11] 45% 18%[11] 6% 14%[11]
14/10/09 749 27%[11] 47%[11] 22%[11] 5% 5%[11]
15/10/08 761 23%[11] 38%[11] 32%[11] 7% -9%[11]
10/10/07 388 53%[11] 31%/-5%[11] 7%[11] 9% 46%[11]
11/10/06 431 25%[11] 51%[11] 16%[11] 8% 9%[11]
12/10/05 476 54%[11] 33%[11] 5%[11] 8%[11] 49%[11]
12/1/05 658 34% 41% 12%[11] 14% 22%[11]
7/1/04 602 32%[11] 40% 16%[11] 12% 16%[11]
8/1/03[13] 513 25% 40%[11] 22% 14%[11] 3%
10/10/01 591 22% 50%[11] 21%[11] 7%[11] 1%[11]
11/10/00 292 22%[11] 40% 15% 22%[11] 7%[11]
6/10/99 233 40%[11] 36%[11] 16%[11] 8% 24%[11]
7/10/98 505 21% 52% 22% 5% -1%

[10]  Respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address have been excluded.

[11]  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.

[12]  The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level because of a change in the weighting method. If the previous weighting method was used, the changes would not have gone beyond the sampling errors.

[13]  The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis.

Results show that after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 12% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 22% said there was no change, while 61% said their confidence had decreased, giving a net effect of negative 49 percentage points on people’s confidence. The figure is at its worst since record began in 1998.

Data Analysis

Our latest Policy Address instant poll shows that after excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 17% said they were satisfied with it, 65% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 47 percentage points, while the average rating is 29.7 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All figures are at their worst since records began in 1997.

As for CE Carrie Lam, as compared to early October, her popularities have not changed much after she delivered her Policy Address yesterday. Her latest support rating now stands at 22.7 marks, approval rate 15% and disapproval 79%, giving a net approval rate of negative 64 percentage points.

Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 12% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 22% said there was no change, while 61% said their confidence had decreased, giving a net effect of negative 49 percentage points on people’s confidence. The net figure is also at its worst since record began in 1998.

The instant poll describes people’s instant reaction toward the Policy Address. Their reactions later remain to be seen.

Additional information: “Outline of our operation for the Policy Address instant survey of 2019”

  • After the HKSAR government announced the date of Policy Address, we started our planning for the instant survey.
  • About one week ago, we began our manpower deployment and internal preparation.
  • On the day CE announced the Address, we monitored the media and the Internet closely, and drafted the questionnaire.
  • Our survey began at around 1pm on that day, involving around sixty interviewers and other staff. Our original target was to conduct at least 500 successful cases. We stopped the poll at around 8pm, after collecting 745 samples.
  • Data verification and quantitative analyses followed immediately. The preliminary results were released at around 9pm, at the same time we started to draft the press release.
  • On the following day, the survey findings were verified again, while our website was re-designed. Our press release was finalized, and we held a press conference to announce the detailed findings to the public.

Click to access the login or register cheese