Feb 24, 2022
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Speakers:
Kim-Wah Chung – Deputy CEO, HKPORI
Kenneth Chan – Member, Election Observation Project
Wai-Sum Kung – Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Caritas Institute of Higher Education
Detailed Findings
Special Announcement
The predecessor of Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (PORI) was The Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP). “PORI” in this release can refer to Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute or its predecessor HKUPOP.
Abstract
After Financial Secretary Paul Chan delivered the Budget Speech yesterday, PORI conducted an instant survey on the same day and already released part of the findings last night. Apart from random landline and mobile numbers, this survey also included samples from our “Hong Kong People Representative Panel” (i.e., a panel comprising randomly recruited samples) within “HKPOP Panel”, interviewed by telephone or invited through email to complete an online survey. Our telephone survey began at around 1:30pm till around 7:30pm, while our online survey started at around 1:30pm till around 8pm. A total of 917 successful cases were collected, including 185 random landline samples, 164 random mobile samples, 129 panel telephone survey samples and 439 panel online survey samples. The raw data have been weighted by population statistics and proportions of different sampling frames to ensure data representativeness.
Our survey shows that, after excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Budget, 42% said they were satisfied with it, 27% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 15 percentage points. The mean score is 3.1, meaning close to “half-half” in general, while the average rating is 51.8 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All popularity figures have significantly improved compared to the historical lows registered last year. As for Financial Secretary Paul Chan, compared to early January, his support rating has improved after he delivered the Budget Speech yesterday. His latest support rating is 47.6 marks, significantly up by 5.3 marks. His approval rate stands at 36% and his disapproval rate is 30%, giving a net approval rate of positive 6 percentage points. The instant survey describes people’s instant reaction toward the Budget. Their reactions later remain to be seen. The instant survey describes people’s instant reaction toward the Budget. Their reactions later remain to be seen.
The effective response rate of the survey excluding panel samples is 47.6%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-6% and that of ratings is +/-2.1 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 23/2/2022 |
| Survey method | : | (1a) Random landline telephone survey
(1b) Random mobile telephone survey (2a) Telephone survey targeting “Hong Kong People Representative Panel” within “HKPOP Panel” (2b) Online survey with email invitation targeting “Hong Kong People Representative Panel” within “HKPOP Panel” |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 917 (including 185 random landline samples, 164 random mobile samples, 129 panel telephone survey samples and 439 panel online survey samples) |
| Effective response rate | : | 47.6% (excluding panel samples) |
| 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 +/-2.1 at 95% conf. level |
| Weighting method | : | The raw data comes from 4 different sampling frames. It is rim-weighted by two sets of weighting factors simultaneously. The first set of weighting factors comprises population figures provided by the Census and Statistics Department, they include (a) the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population from “Mid-year population for 2020”, (b) educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution from “Women and Men in Hong Kong – Key Statistics (2020 Edition)”, and (c) economic activity status distribution from the last source. The second set of weighting factors is adjusted based on the relative target sample size of different sub-sampling frames, namely, random telephone survey using landline numbers set at 5 units, random telephone survey using mobile numbers set at 5 units, telephone survey of randomly pre-selected panel members set at 6 units, and online survey of randomly pre-selected panel members set at 4 units. |
- This figure is the total sample size of the survey. Some questions may only involve a subsample, the size of which can be found in the tables below.
- 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 Budget are summarized below together with the previous findings:
| Date of survey | Sample size[3] | Appraisal of Budget | |||||
| Satisfaction rate[4] | Half-half[4] | Dissatisfaction rate[4] | Net satisfaction rate | Mean value[4] | Rating of Budget | ||
| 23/2/22 | 819 | 42+/-4%[5] | 24+/-3%[5] | 27+/-3%[5] | 15+/-6%[5] | 3.1+/-0.1[5] | 51.8+/-2.1[5] |
| 24/2/21 | 731 | 20%[5] | 18%[5] | 56%[5] | -36%[5] | 2.2[5] | 36.4[5] |
| 26/2/20 | 991 | 46%[5] | 23% | 27%[5] | 19%[5] | 3.2[5] | 54.1[5] |
| 27/2/19 | 561 | 23% | 26% | 39% | -16% | 2.7 | 47.1 |
| 28/2/18 | 551 | 26%[5] | 28% | 41%[5] | -14%[5] | 2.7[5] | 48.2[5] |
| 22/2/17 | 502 | 33% | 30% | 18% | 15% | 3.2 | 55.7 |
| 24/2/16 | 500 | 36%[5] | 31% | 20% | 17%[5] | 3.2 | 57.2[5] |
| 25/2/15 | 529 | 45%[5] | 28% | 18%[5] | 28%[5] | 3.3[5] | 60.2[5] |
| 26/2/14 | 695 | 24%[5] | 26%[5] | 45%[5] | -20%[5] | 2.7[5] | 49.8[5] |
| 27/2/13 | 813 | 30%[5] | 37%[5] | 31%[5] | -1%[5] | 2.9[5] | 53.6[5] |
| 1/2/12 | 826 | 38%[5] | 33% | 26%[5] | 12%[5] | 3.1[5] | 57.0[5] |
| 23/2/11 | 911 | 27%[5] | 34% | 35%[5] | -8%[5] | 2.8[5] | 51.5[5] |
| 24/2/10 | 724 | 47%[5] | 35%[5] | 14%[5] | 32%[5] | 3.4[5] | 60.8[5] |
| 25/2/09 | 669 | 30%[5] | 43%[5] | 22%[5] | 8%[5] | 3.1[5] | 54.8[5] |
| 27/2/08 | 811 | 68%[5] | 21%[5] | 5%[5] | 63%[5] | 3.8[5] | 70.6 |
| 28/2/07 | 673 | 62%[5] | 25% | 9%[5] | 53%[5] | 3.6[5] | — |
| 22/2/06 | 577 | 50% | 26% | 19%[5] | 31% | 3.3 | — |
| 16/3/05 | 544 | 47%[5] | 29% | 11% | 36%[5] | 3.4 | — |
| 10/3/04 | 395 | 37%[5] | 33%[5] | 12%[5] | 25%[5] | 3.3[5] | — |
| 5/3/03 | 495 | 20%[5] | 23% | 50%[5] | -30%[5] | 2.5[5] | — |
| 6/3/02 | 539 | 47%[5] | 23% | 17% | 30%[5] | 3.3[5] | — |
| 7-8/3/01 | 263 | 57%[5] | 25%[5] | 13%[5] | 44%[5] | 3.5[5] | — |
| 8/3/00 | 643 | 70%[5] | 12%[5] | 4%[5] | 66%[5] | 3.9[5] | — |
| 3/3/99 | 598 | 46%[5] | 27%[5] | 10%[5] | 36%[5] | 3.4[5] | — |
| 18/2/98 | 638 | 55% | 20% | 7% | 47% | 3.6 | — |
- Respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Budget have been excluded. Before March 2020, PORI reported weighted sub-sample size in all our tracking survey reports. Starting from March 2020, we report raw sub-sample size instead.
- 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.
- 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 Budget, 42% said they were satisfied with it, 27% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 15 percentage points. The mean score is 3.1, meaning close to “half-half” in general, while the average rating is 51.8 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All popularity figures have significantly improved compared to the historical lows registered last year.
Figures on various Financial Secretaries’ popularity before and after their Budget Speeches since 2001 are summarized as follows: [6]
| Popularity
of Donald Tsang |
Popularity of Antony Leung |
Popularity of Henry Tang | Popularity of John Tsang | |||||
| Date of Budget Speech | 7/3/01 | 6/3/02 | 5/3/03 | 10/3/04 | 16/3/05 | 22/2/06 | 28/2/07 | 27/2/08 |
| Rating before the Budget | 71.9 | 57.2 | 48.1 | 57.4 | 59.7 | 63.0 | 60.8 | 56.0 |
| Rating at instant survey | 69.7 | 63.4 | 49.8 | 59.9 | 63.3 | 63.0 | 64.1 | 67.9 |
| Change in rating | -2.2[7] | +6.2[7] | +1.7[7] | +2.5[7] | +3.6[7] | — | +3.3[7] | +11.9[7] |
| Net approval rate before the Budget | — | — | — | — | 53% | 57% | 50% | 24% |
| Net approval rate at instant survey | — | — | — | — | 59% | 56% | 56% | 54% |
| Change in net approval rate | — | — | — | — | +6%[7] | -1% | +6%[7] | +30%[7] |
| Popularity of John Tsang | ||||||||
| Date of Budget Speech | 25/2/09 | 24/2/10 | 23/2/11 | 1/2/12 | 27/2/13 | 26/2/14 | 25/2/15 | 24/2/16 |
| Rating before the Budget | 56.7 | 58.3 | 55.4 | 50.6 | 57.8 | 56.7 | 58.6 | 62.3 |
| Rating at instant survey | 54.9 | 61.3 | 52.4 | 54.1 | 56.6 | 54.0 | 61.0 | 62.2 |
| Change in rating | -1.8[7] | +3.0[7] | -3.0[7] | +3.5[7] | -1.2 | -2.7[7] | +2.4[7] | -0.1 |
| Net approval rate before the Budget | 32% | 46% | 33% | 13% | 45% | 33% | 42% | 51% |
| Net approval rate at instant survey | 28% | 46% | 13% | 3% | 35% | 27% | 44% | 48% |
| Change in net approval rate | -4% | — | -20%[7] | -10%[7] | -10%[7] | -6% | +2% | -3% |
| Popularity of Paul Chan | ||||||||
| Date of Budget Speech | 22/2/17 | 28/2/18 | 27/2/19 | 26/2/20 | 24/2/21 | 23/2/22 | ||
| Rating before the Budget | 34.0 | 44.3 | 37.6 | 26.6 | 35.2 | 42.3+/-2.5 | ||
| Rating at instant survey | 47.4 | 44.5 | 40.5 | 43.5 | 36.2 | 47.6+/-2.0 | ||
| Change in rating | +13.4[7] | +0.2 | +2.9 | +16.8[7] | +1.0 | +5.3[7] | ||
| Net approval rate before the Budget | -29% | -12% | -26% | -36% | -21% | 3+/-7% | ||
| Net approval rate at instant survey | 4% | -12% | -31% | -14% | -24% | 6+/-5% | ||
| Change in net approval rate | +33%[7] | — | -4% | +22%[7] | -3% | +3% | ||
- Rating of the Financial Secretary was introduced in our Budget instant survey in 2001, while approval rate was introduced in 2005. This table therefore starts from 2001.
- 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 survey shows that compared to early January, Financial Secretary Paul Chan’s support rating has improved after he delivered the Budget Speech yesterday. His latest support rating is 47.6 marks, significantly up by 5.3 marks. His approval rate stands at 36% and his disapproval rate is 30%, giving a net approval rate of positive 6 percentage points.
Data Analysis
Our latest Budget instant survey shows that, after excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Budget, 42% said they were satisfied with it, 27% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of positive 15 percentage points. The mean score is 3.1, meaning close to “half-half” in general, while the average rating is 51.8 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All popularity figures have significantly improved compared to the historical lows registered last year.
As for Financial Secretary Paul Chan, compared to early January, his support rating has improved after he delivered the Budget Speech yesterday. His latest support rating is 47.6 marks, significantly up by 5.3 marks. His approval rate stands at 36% and his disapproval rate is 30%, giving a net approval rate of positive 6 percentage points.
The instant survey describes people’s instant reaction toward the Budget. Their reactions later remain to be seen.
