Issuu on Google+

THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG PUBLIC OPINION PROGRAMME (POP)

2004 Legislative Council Direct Election: 2nd Survey 【All constituencies in Hong Kong】

SPONSORED BY CIVIC EXCHANGE

SURVEY REPORT

Compiled by Chung Ting-Yiu Robert, Pang Ka-Lai Karie and Lam Mo-Chun Calvin

JULY 2004

Copyright of this report is held jointly by Civic Exchange and the University of Hong Kong


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

SURVEY REPORT

1-11

Preamble

1

Research Design

2

Key Findings

4

In-depth and Comparative Analyses

8

Conclusion

10

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents Appendix 2: Frequency Tables Appendix 3: Questionnaire


Survey Report


THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG PUBLIC OPINION PROGRAMME (POP) CIVIC EXCHANGE JOINTLY CONDUCT

2004 Legislative Council Direct Election:2nd Survey 【All constituencies in Hong Kong】 SURVEY REPORT Research Team Members Project Director Project Manager Research Executive Data Analyst Copy Editor

: : : : :

CHUNG Ting-Yiu Robert PANG Ka-Lai Karie LAM Mo-Chun Calvin CHOW Kwong-Pok Cliff CHUNG Sin-Yan Yennice

JULY 2004 CONTACT INFORMATION Date of survey

: 21-24 June 2004

Survey method Target population

: Telephone survey with interviewers : Cantonese-speaking population of Hong Kong aged 18 or above : Standard POP telephone sampling method was used. Telephone numbers were

Sampling method

Weighting method

Sample size Response rate Std. sampling error

selected randomly from residential telephone directories and mixed with additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected. : The data reported have been adjusted according to the age and gender distributions of the Hong Kong population as reported in the 2001 Population Census. : 1,023 successful cases : 63.9% : Less than 1.6%

< Everything in this publication is the work of individual researchers, and does not represent the stand of the University of Hong Kong. CHUNG Ting-Yiu Robert is responsible for the work of the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong.>


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Survey Report

1.

Preamble

1.1

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) was established in June 1991 to collect and study public opinion on topics that could be of interest to academics, journalists, policy-makers, and the general public. POP was at first under the Social Sciences Research Centre, a unit under the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Hong Kong, and was transferred to the Journalism and Media Studies Centre in the University of Hong Kong in May 2000. In January 2002, it was transferred back to the Faculty of Social Sciences in the University of Hong Kong. Since its establishment, POP has been conducting opinion researches on various social and political issues and providing quality survey services to a wide range of organizations provided that they agreed to publicizing the findings to the general public, as well as allowing the research team to design and conduct the research independently, and to reserve the right to release the findings for public consumption.

1.2

In May 2004, Civic Exchange commissioned the POP Team to conduct a series of opinion surveys on the 2004 Legislative Council direct election. The results of the first survey were released to the public earlier, while this was the second one in the row, with four main areas of investigation as follows: i. ii. iii. iv.

1.3

Hong Kong people’s priorities and main considerations when casting a vote; Hong Kong people’s impression of the 2004 Legislative Council Election; Hong Kong voters’ voting behaviour and propensity to vote; Hong Kong people’s political inclination and participation in political activities.

The questionnaire was designed in consultation with the client, and part of it was extracted from the first survey in order to facilitate direct comparison. The POP Team was fully responsible for designing and conducting this study, without any interference from the client. In order to maintain neutrality, the POP Team did not provide advisory or consultative services of any kind apart form data interpretations and analyses.

A Joint Project of Civic Exchange & HKU POP

1


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Survey Report

2.

Research Method

2.1

This was a random telephone survey conducted by telephone interviewers under close supervision. To minimize sampling bias, telephone numbers were first drawn randomly from the residential telephone directories as "seed numbers", from which another set of numbers was generated using the "plus/minus one/two" method, in order to capture the unlisted numbers. Duplicated numbers were then filtered, and the remaining numbers were mixed in random order to produce the final telephone sample.

2.2

The target population of this survey was Cantonese-speaking population of Hong Kong aged 18 or above. When telephone contact was successfully established with a target household, one person aged 18 or above was selected. If more than one subject had been available, selection was made using the "next birthday rule" which selected the person who had his/her birthday next from all those present.

2.3

Telephone interviews were conducted during the period of 21-24 June 2004. A total of 1,023 Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong citizens aged 18 or above were successfully interviewed. The overall response rate of this survey was 63.9% (Table 1 in Appendix II), and the standard sampling error for percentages based on this sample was less than 1.6 percentage points. In other words, the sampling error for all percentages was less than plus/minus 3 percentage points at 95% confidence level.

2.4

As shown in Table 2, among the 7,236 telephone numbers sampled for the survey, 2,124 were confirmed to be ineligible, among them 314 were fax or data lines, 1,239 were invalid telephone numbers, 43 were call-forwarding numbers, while another 304 were non-residential numbers. Besides, 131 of them were invalidated due to special technological reasons, while 93 cases were voided because target respondents were unavailable at the numbers provided.

2.5

Meanwhile, a total of 2,646 telephone numbers were invalidated before the research team could confirm their eligibility. Among them 223 were busy lines and 1,551 were no-answer calls after making a maximum of 5 timesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; recalls. Thirty-two cases were diverted to answering devices while another 146 were blocked. Moreover, 163 cases were treated as

A Joint Project of Civic Exchange & HKU POP

2


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Survey Report

unsuccessful because of language problems, while 529 interviews were terminated before the screening question. Two more cases were voided for other problems.

2.6

On the other hand, 1,443 cases failed to complete the interview. Among them 10 were rejected at the household level, another 9 rejected the interview immediately after their eligibility was confirmed, 1,378 were unfinished cases with appointment dates beyond the end of fieldwork period. Besides, 31 cases were incomplete due to unexpected termination of interviews, 15 were classified as miscellaneous due to other non-contact problems, and the remaining 1,023 were successful cases (Table 2 in Appendix II).

A Joint Project of Civic Exchange & HKU POP

3


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

3.

Survey Report

Key Findings (Please refer to Appendix II for cross-reference of the tables cited.)

3.1

Hong Kong People’s Priorities and Main Considerations when Casting a Vote

3.1.1

To begin with, all respondents were asked, for the would-be Legislative Councillors returned in the upcoming election, what problems should they tackle first? Results revealed that “economy” again topped the list with 57% of the respondents mentioning it. “Labor and employment” issues followed, as cited by 30% of the respondents. Meanwhile, “livelihood” problems were considered as their top priority by 23% of the respondents, whilst 18% named “constitutional/democratic development” to be the most pressing issue to be handled by the Legislative Councillors returned in September (Table 3). It is noteworthy that, the same question was asked in the first survey but respondents were allowed to return the most important answer only. Due to the slight modification adopted in this survey where respondents could give as many answers as they liked, direct comparison with the previous results is not recommended.

3.1.2

Since inquiring only one single question may easily come up with polarized answers, the survey continued by asking respondents to evaluate, one by one, the importance of four pre-selected items when they cast their vote. This survey found that 85% claimed they would consider the livelihood policies as proposed by the candidates important. Meanwhile, the corresponding figures for economy, relations with the Central Government and political policies were 79%, 65% and 54% in respective order (Tables 4-7). These four items were all significant, however, relatively speaking, policies related to livelihood and economy came with a higher level of importance in people’s mind when they voted, and such results were in line with their aspired priority list of the would-be Legislative Councillors mentioned above.

3.1.3

Party-list system (or “proportional representation system”) would be used in the geographical constituencies’ direct election of the upcoming Legislative Council Election, so what would be the key determinant factor for the voters’ choice? Would it be the quality of individual candidates, the combination of candidates within a list, or support for a specific political party? As shown from Table 8, 55% of the respondents would mainly consider the quality of individual candidates, whereas 17% would be dominated by their support towards a political party, and 12% would decide on the combination of candidates within a list. Yet, another 16% failed to give a definite answer (Table 8).

A Joint Project of Civic Exchange & HKU POP

4


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Survey Report

3.2

Hong Kong People’s Impression of the 2004 Legislative Council Election

3.2.1

As regards people’s view on whether this year’s Legislative Council Election would be conducted under a fair environment, 65% of the respondents were positive about this, as contrast to 15% who were not. However, as high as 19% of them failed to give a concrete answer to this question (Table 9).

3.2.2

Results also showed that, 70% of the respondents believed this year’s election would be corruption free, while 10% held the opposite view. Those who failed to make a judgment accounted for 20% (Table 10).

3.2.3

As for whether the Central Government would intervene this year’s Legislative Council Election, 44% of the respondents thought “no” whereas 38% said “yes”. Similar to the last two questions, 19% of them were unable to give a definite answer (Table 11).

3.2.4

In consideration of the recent news on some off-shore mobilization for the election, fake voter registration within the territory, together with the SAR Government’s responses to these, 62% of the respondents admitted that their overall confidence in the local election system had remained changed, while 24% with decreased confidence, and 5% increased (Table 12).

3.3

Hong Kong Voters’ Voting Behaviour and Propensity to Vote

3.3.1

Of the 795 registered voters captured in this survey (Table 13), 6% of them (or 4% of total sample) submitted their registration less than a year ago, while 29%(or 22% of total sample) registered less than four years (Table 14).

3.3.2

Findings also showed that 63% (or 49% of total sample) of these voters self-reported that they had voted in the District Council Election last November, whilst 37% had not (or 28% of total sample, Table 15). On the other hand, 72% (or 56% of total sample) of this sub-group claimed they had voted in some Council elections before, 26% (or 20% of total sample) said they had not (Table 16).

3.3.3

As a snapshot taken two and a half months ahead of the Legislative Election, the registered voters’ propensity to vote was found to be 79% (Table 17). Nevertheless, this percentage should never be taken as a projection of the actual turnout rate because many people who claimed they would vote at this stage would eventually not vote.

A Joint Project of Civic Exchange & HKU POP

5


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Survey Report

3.3.4

With respect to the prominent driving force that motivated respondents to vote, 46% of the registered voters who intended to vote (or 28% of total sample) said they were “to fulfill one’s civic responsibility”. Another 15% (or 9% of total sample) were in support of certain candidate(s), while 9% (or 5% of total sample) were driven by the hope to improve the social condition/community/livelihood, and 6% (or 4% of total sample) simply treated voting as their habitual behaviour (Table 18). Meanwhile, as for the reasons why not registered as a voter, 23% of such respondents (or 5% of total sample) said they had no time, 12% (or 3% of total sample) did not register because there was no political party or politician that appealed to them. Besides, 11% (or 2% of total sample) of them thought there was no need to vote at all (Table 19).

3.4

Hong Kong People’s Political Inclination and Participation in Political Activities

3.4.1

Results of this survey revealed that, those who preferred to label themselves as the “moderate” accounted for 28% of the overall sample, whilst 27% inclined to support the pro-democratic camp (a drop of 5 percentage points from the last survey), and 4% went to the pro-China camp. Above all, 34% said they had no political inclination at all, which was a jump of 8 increase from the May figure (Table 20).

3.4.2

Looking back, 15% and 4% of the respondents claimed they had participated in July 1 and Jan 1 rallies respectively (Tables 21 & 22). What about the July 1 rally this year? 14% gave an affirmative answer (Table 23).

Summary Table (I):Comparisons between the 1st and 2nd surveys 18-20/5/2004

21-24/6/2004

Latest change

1,039

1,023

--

808

795

--

62.3%

63.9%

--

+/- 3%

+/- 3%

--

Registered voters’ propensity to vote

78%

79%

+1%

Political inclination:Moderate Political inclination:Pro-democracy Political inclination:Pro-China No political inclination

30%

28%

-2%

32%

27%

-5%

5%

4%

-1%

26%

34%

+8%

Date of survey Overall sample size Number of registered voters Overall response rate Sampling error of % (at 95% conf. 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.

A Joint Project of Civic Exchange & HKU POP

6


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Survey Report

4.

In-depth and Comparative Analyses

4.1

“New” Vs “Old” Registered Voters

4.1.1

As with the first survey, cross-tabulation analyses were conducted in order to study the differences between the “new” voters and “old” voters, in terms of their main consideration factors, impression of the election, and their voting behaviour. “New voters” is operationally defined as those who submitted their voter registration after the last LegCo Election took place four years ago (base=222), while “old voters” is defined as those who had registered before that, and those who had forgotten the date of registration (base=548). This section has only included the most significant findings.

4.1.2

Our cross-tabulation analyses showed that, when they cast their votes, “new voters” (64%) appeared to attach more importance to candidates’ political policies than the “old” voters (56%). On the other hand, the “old” voters seemed to attribute more weight to candidates’ relations with the Central Government than the “new” voters. Proportions within these two groups who thought this aspect was important to their voting decision were found to be 69% and 63% respectively, i.e. a significant difference of 6 percentage points.

4.1.3

When asked to consider among the individual candidates, the candidate combination within a list and support for specific political parties, the “old” voters (60%) were pulled by the quality of individual candidates to a much higher degree than the “new” voters (48%).

4.1.4

On the other hand, 84% of the “new” voters believed this year’s election would be corruption free, which was 16 percentage points higher than that of the “old” voters (68%). Meanwhile, relatively more “old” voters (21%) failed to make a judgment about this than the “new” comers (10%).

4.1.5

In terms of their demographic profile, analyses showed that the “new” voters were generally younger than the “old” voters (within age bracket 18-29: 40% vs 11%), received relatively more education (with tertiary education or above: 42% vs 27%), and also with many more students (15% vs 1%).

A Joint Project of Civic Exchange & HKU POP

7


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Survey Report

4.2

Comparison between 1998 and 2004 Direct Elections (Please refer to Summary Table below for cross-reference of the figures cited.)

4.2.1

When compared with the data collected in early March 1998 and this survey, i.e. roughly 2.5 months ahead of the elections, the percentage of those who thought the election would be conducted under a fair environment surged from 34% in 1998 to 65% this year, representing a remarkable increase of 31 percentage points. Meanwhile, those who thought it would not be a fair play significantly dropped from 1998’s 30% to 15% this time. This and the subsequent questions were not available for the year 2000 with comparable timing.

4.2.2

As regards respondents’ assessment of whether the election would be corruption free, the positive figure also grew from 61% to 70% this year, i.e. a 9-percentage-point increase in 6 years’ time. Simultaneously, the negative figure had decreased from 14% to 10%.

4.2.3

Finally, our comparative analyses indicated that the proportion of respondents who predicted the Central Government would intervene the Legislative Council Election had remained relatively stable over the past 6 years. Such figure was 41% as registered in 1998 and dropped to 38% this year.

Summary Table (II) – Time Series Analyses between 1998 and 2004 data 2/3/1998

21-24/6/2004

Latest change

527

1,023

--

46.1%

63.9%

--

+/- 4%

+/- 3%

--

This year’s LegCo Election^: A fair play

34%

65%

+31%

This year’s LegCo Election^: Not a fair play

30%

15%

-15%

A corruption-free election

61%

70%

+9%

Not a corruption-free election

14%

10%

-4%

Some interference from the Central Government

41%

38%

-3%

No interference from the Central Government

44%

44%

--

Date of survey Overall sample size Overall response rate Sampling error of % (at 95% conf. 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. ^The question wording in 1998 was “Is the electoral system of the 1998 Legislative Council Election fair or not?”, which was slightly different from this year’s.

A Joint Project of Civic Exchange & HKU POP

8


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Survey Report

5.

Conclusion

5.1

Findings of this survey revealed that, “economy” issues topped the priority list of most respondents (57%) when asked what the would-be Legislative Councillors returned in the upcoming election should tackle first. As for the respondent’s key consideration factor when casting their vote, 85% considered the livelihood policies as proposed by the candidates important, 79% thought the same for the economy-related policies, whilst the corresponding figures obtained by candidates’ relations with the Central Government and their political demands were 65% and 54% respectively.

5.2

In consideration of the quality of individual candidates, combination within a list, and support for a political party, 55% of the respondents would give more weight to the individual candidates, whereas 17% would go for the political party they supported, and 12% said they would decide upon the combination of candidates within a list.

5.3

With respect to people’s impression towards the upcoming Legislative Council Election, results showed that 65% of the respondents believed the election would be fair, 70% thought it would be corruption free, and 44% predicted there would be no interference from the Central Government. Besides, 62% of them said their overall confidence in the local election system had not changed regardless of the negative news reported recently.

5.4

As a snapshot taken 2.5 months ahead of the Election, the self-reported propensity to vote among the registered voters captured in this survey was 79%. Most of them were driven by the obligation to fulfill one’s civic responsibility (46% of the sub-sample). As for their voting history, 63% of these voters claimed they had voted in the DC Election last November.

5.5

Regarding their political inclination, 27% of the respondents affiliated themselves with the pro-democratic camp; those who opted for pro-China camp accounted for 4%, and 28% preferred the moderate camp.

A Joint Project of Civic Exchange & HKU POP

9


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

5.6

Survey Report

Cross-tabulation analyses showed that generally more “new” voters (those registered less than 4 years) than “old” voters (those registered at least 4 years ago and had forgotten the registration date) regarded the candidates’ political policies important to their voting decision, (64% and 56% respectively). However, more “old” voters than “new” voters thought the candidates’ handling of relations with the Central Government important (69% and 63% respectively). Also, most “old” voters (60%) would assign more weight to the quality of individual candidates as compared to 48% of the “new” voters. On the other hand, in terms of their impression of the upcoming election, a higher proportion of the “new” voters (84%) believed it would be free of corruption (68% among the “old” voters).

5.7

Finally, as indicated by the comparative analyses, the proportion of respondents who thought the election would be fairly conducted surged from 34% in 1998 to 65% this year. Simultaneously, a 9-percentage-point increase was observed for those who believed the election would be corruption free, i.e. from 61% to 70%. As for whether the Central Government would intervene the Legislative Council Election, the figures had remained relatively stable over the past 6 years, with the negative assessment stayed at the level of around 40%.

A Joint Project of Civic Exchange & HKU POP

10


Appendix 1 Demographic Profile of Respondents


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Demographic Profile of Respondents Table 1

Gender

Male Female

Table 2

Raw sample Frequency Percentage 506 49.5 517 50.5 1,023 Total 100.0

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage 494 48.3 529 51.7 1,023 100.0

Raw sample Frequency Percentage 69 7.4 147 15.9 200 21.6 239 25.8 141 15.2 131 14.1 927 Total 100.0

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage 49 5.2 157 16.9 220 23.8 210 22.6 118 12.7 174 18.8 927 100.0

Age

18-20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or above

Missing case(s)

Table 3

96

96

Education Attainment

Raw sample Frequency Percentage 170 16.8 Primary or below 568 56.3 Secondary 271 26.9 Tertiary or above 1,009 Total 100.0 Missing case(s)

14

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage 187 18.5 539 53.6 280 27.8 1,006 100.0 17

App I - 1


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Table 4

The type of ownership of your house is:

Self-purchased Rent

Raw sample Frequency Percentage 580 58.7 408 41.3 Total 988 100.0

Missing case(s)

Table 5

Demographic Profile of Respondents

35

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage 579 58.4 412 41.6 990 100.0 33

House type

Public housing estate Housing Authority subsidized sale flats Housing Society subsidized sale flats Private housing Village: villas / bungalows / modern village houses Village: simple stone structures / traditional village houses Private temporary housing Staff quarters Others Total Missing case(s)

Raw sample Frequency Percentage 338 33.9

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage 340 34.0

124

12.4

119

11.9

20

2.0

20

2.0

472

47.3

473

47.3

16

1.6

16

1.6

14

1.4

17

1.7

4

0.4

4

0.4

9 1 998

0.9 0.1 100.0

10 1 998

1.0 0.1 100.0

25

25

App I - 2


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Table 6

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Occupation Raw sample Frequency Percentage

Executives and professionals

226

22.7

225

22.6

Total

241 124 78 134 191 996

24.2 12.7 7.8 13.5 19.2 100.0

237 117 65 133 217 994

23.9 11.8 6.5 13.4 21.8 100.0

Missing case(s)

27

Clerical and service Production workers Students Housewives Others

Table 7

29

Which class do you consider your family belongs to? (Interviewer to read out the first 5 options)

Upper class Upper-middle class Middle class Lower-middle class Lower class or grassroots Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know / Forgotten Total Missing case(s) Table 8

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage

Raw sample Frequency Percentage 2 0.2 70 7.0 322 32.0 279 27.8 288 28.7 44 4.4 1,005 100.0 18

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage 2 0.2 71 7.0 321 31.9 273 27.1 290 28.8 50 5.0 1,006 100.0 17

Is your family in negative equity?

Raw sample Frequency Percentage Yes 107 10.7 No 875 87.2 Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know / Forgotten 22 2.2 Total 1,004 100.0 Missing case(s)

19

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage 102 10.2 874 87.2 26 2.6 1,002 100.0 21

App I - 3


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Table 9

Place of birth

Hong Kong Mainland China Taiwan Macau Southeast Asia(e.g. Malaysia、Indonesia、 Vietnam) Canada Australia Others Don’t know Total Missing case(s) Table 10

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Raw sample Frequency Percentage 691 68.3 294 29.1 1 0.1 10 1.0 12 1 1 1 1 1,012 11

1.2

11

1.1

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 100.0

1 1 1 2 1,011 12

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 100.0

【Only for those born in mainland China】How long have you been living in Hong Kong?【Input exact number】

Raw sample Frequency Percentage Less than 7 years 16 5.7 More than 7 years 224 79.7 Forgotten 41 14.6 Total 281 100.0 13 Missing case(s) Table 11

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage 675 66.8 309 30.6 1 0.1 9 0.9

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage 18 6.0 235 79.0 45 15.0 297 100.0 12

District of Residence

Raw sample Frequency Percentage Hong Kong Islands 175 17.7 Kowloon West 131 13.3 Kowloon East 152 15.4 New Territories West 254 25.8 New Territories East 274 27.8 Total 986 100.0 37 Missing case(s)

App I - 4

Weighted sample Frequency Percentage 176 17.9 135 13.7 154 15.6 254 25.7 267 27.1 985 100.0 38


Appendix 2 Frequency Tables


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Frequency Tables

Part 1 Calculation of Response Rate and Detailed Breakdown of Contact Information of the Survey Table 1

Calculation of response rate

Response rate =

Successful cases Successful cases + Incomplete cases + Refusal cases = =

1,023 1,023 + 560 + 19 63.9%

Table 2 Detailed breakdown of contact information of the survey Frequency

Respondents’ ineligibility confirmed

Percentage

2,124

Fax/ data line Invalid number Call-forwarding/ mobile/ pager number Non-residential number Special technological difficulties No eligible respondents

314 1,239 43 304 131 93

Respondents’ eligibility not confirmed Line busy No answer Answering device Call-blocking Language problem Interview terminated before the screening question Others

4.3 17.1 0.6 4.2 1.8 1.3 2,646

223 1,551 32 146 163 529 2

Respondents’ eligibility confirmed, but failed to complete the interview Household-level refusal Known respondent refusal Appointment date beyond the end of the fieldwork Partial interview Miscellaneous

29.3

36.5

3.1 21.4 0.4 2.0 2.3 7.3 0.0 1,443

10 9 1,378 31 15

19.9

0.1 0.1 19.0 0.5 0.2

Successful cases

1,023

14.1

Total

7,236

100.0

App II - 1


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Frequency Tables

Part 2 General Questions

Table 3

Which problem do you think the would-be Legislative Councillors elected in the coming September need to tackle first? (Interviewers not to read out the answers; MULTIPLE answers are allowed.) Frequency

Economy (including inflation, stock market supervision, economic recession, etc.) Labour / Employment / Unemployment problems People's livelihood Constitutional / Democratic development Argument / Polarization of society Health / Sanitation Welfare Safeguard of freedom Education Security Housing / Accommodation Environment Relations with the Central People’s Government Basic Law Article 23 legislation Traffic Others Don’t know / Hard to say Total Missing case(s)

App II -2

Percentage of Percentage of total responses total sample (Base=1,680) (Base=1,012)

582

34.6

57.4

304

18.1

30.0

233 178 48 32 31 27 24 19 18 15

13.8 10.6 2.9 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.9

23.0 17.5 4.8 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.5

13

0.8

1.3

9 6 30

0.6 0.4 1.8

0.9 0.6 3.0

111 1,680

6.6 100.0

11.0

11


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Table 4

Frequency Tables

If you were going to vote for the Legislative Councillors tomorrow, how important would you consider the economy-related policies as proposed by the candidate? (Interviewer to inquire the degree of importance) Frequency

Very important Quite important Half-half Not quite important Not important at all

429 ) 367 ) 797 85 32 ) 14 ) 46

42.4 ) 36.3 ) 78.7 8.4 3.1 ) 1.4 ) 4.5

85

8.4

Total

1,012

100.0

Missing case(s)

11

Don’t know / Hard to say

Table 5

Percentage

If you were going to vote for the Legislative Councillors tomorrow, how important would you consider the political policies as proposed by the candidate, such as constitutional affairs, democratic development, etc? (Interviewer to inquire the degree of importance) Frequency

Percentage

Very important Quite important Half-half Not quite important Not important at all

224 ) 325 ) 549 180 121 ) 39 ) 160

22.1 ) 32.1 ) 54.2 17.8 12.0 ) 3.9 ) 15.8

Don’t know / Hard to say

122

12.1

Total

1,012

100.0

Missing case(s)

11

App II -3


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Table 6

Frequency Tables

Then, how important would you consider the livelihood policies as proposed by the candidate, such as problems on housing, education, medical, environment, and public order, etc? (Interviewer to inquire the degree of importance) Frequency

Very important Quite important Half-half Not quite important Not important at all

496 ) 358 ) 854 55 25 ) 11 ) 36

49.1 ) 35.5 ) 84.6 5.5 2.5 ) 1.1 ) 3.6

64

6.4

Total

1,010

100.0

Missing case(s)

13

Don’t know / Hard to say

Table 7

Percentage

Then, what about the candidate’s handling of relations with the Central People’s Government? (Interviewer to inquire the degree of importance) Frequency

Percentage

Very important Quite important Half-half Not quite important Not important at all

326 ) 337 ) 662 139 59 ) 28 ) 87

32.0 ) 33.2 ) 65.2 13.7 5.8 ) 2.8 ) 8.6

Don’t know / Hard to say

127

12.5

Total

1,016

100.0

Missing case(s)

7

App II -4


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Table 8

Frequency Tables

If you vote, would your main consideration be the quality of individual candidates, the combination of candidates within a list, or your support for a specific political party? Frequency

Percentage

Individual candidates Support for a political party Combination within a list

553 175 124

54.5 17.3 12.2

Don’t know / Hard to say

162

16.0

Total

1,014

100.0

Missing case(s)

9

Table 9

Do you think this year’s Legislative Council Election will be a fair play or not? Frequency

Percentage

668 155

65.4 15.2 19.4

Total

198 1,021

Missing case(s)

2

Yes No Don’t know / Hard to say

Table 10

100.0

Do you think this year’s Legislative Council Election will be corruption free? Frequency

Percentage

714 104

70.2 10.2

Total

200 1,018

19.6 100.0

Missing case(s)

5

Yes No Don’t know / Hard to say

App II -5


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Table 11

Frequency Tables

Do you think the Beijing Central Government will intervene this year’s Legislative Council Election? Frequency

Percentage

382 443

37.6 43.7

Total

190 1,015

18.7 100.0

Missing case(s)

8

Yes No Don’t know / Hard to say

Table 12

In consideration of the recent news on some off-shore mobilization for the election, fake voter registration within the territory, together with the SAR Government’s responses to these, has your overall confidence in the local election system increased, decreased, or not changed? Frequency

Percentage

630 242 54

61.9 23.7 5.3

Total

92 1,017

9.0 100.0

Missing case(s)

6

Not changed Decreased Increased Don’t know / Hard to say

Part III Political Inclination Table 13

Are you a registered voter? Frequency

Percentage

795

78.0

225

22.0

Total

1,020

100.0

Missing case(s)

3

Yes (including those who have just registered) No

App II -6


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Table 14

Frequency Tables

【Only for registered voters】When did you register as a voter?【Deduced from the year, input exact number】 Frequency

This year,2004,which means no more than 1 year

Percentage of total sample (Base=1,023)

44

5.7

4.3

55

7.2

5.4

27 97 212

3.5 12.5 27.4

2.6 9.4 20.7

43.7 100.0

32.9

Total

337 771

Missing case(s)

24

Last year,2003,which means no more than 2 years 2 years or above 3 years or above 4 years or above,and so on Forgotten

Table 15

Percentage of total respondents (Base=771)

【Only for registered voters】Did you vote in the District Council Election last November? Frequency

Yes No: because the councillors were automatically elected No: can vote but has not voted No: not yet registered at that

496

Forgotten

5 791 4

Total Missing case(s)

52 ) 174 ) 63 ) 289

App II -7

Percentage of total respondents (Base=791)

62.7 6.5 ) 22.0 ) 8.0 ) 36.5 0.7 100.0

Percentage of total sample (Base=1,023)

48.5 5.1 ) 17.0 ) 6.2 ) 28.3 0.5


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Table 16

Frequency Tables

【Only for registered voters】Have you ever voted in the past Council elections in all tiers? Frequency

Yes No: not yet registered No: already registered

570 102 ) 105 ) 207

Forgotten

17 794 1

Total Missing case(s)

Table 17

Percentage of total respondents (Base=794)

Percentage of total sample (Base=1,023)

71.8 12.9 ) 13.2 ) 26.1

55.7 10.0 ) 10.2 ) 20.2

2.1 100.0

1.7

【Only for registered voters】Will you vote in the coming Legislative Council Election in September? Percentage of total respondents (Base=794)

Percentage of total sample (Base=1,023)

449 ) 180 ) 630

56.6 ) 22.7 ) 79.3

43.9 ) 17.6 ) 61.5

15 ) 27 ) 42

1.9 ) 3.4 ) 5.3

1.4 ) 2.7 ) 4.1

Frequency

Definitely will Most likely will Most likely won’t Definitely won’t Not yet decide / Don’t know / Hard to say Total Missing case(s)

122

15.4

794

100.0

1

App II -8

11.9


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Table 18

Frequency Tables

【Only for registered voters who intended to vote】What is the main reason for you to vote? Please let us know the most important one. (Interviewers not to read out the answers; only one answer is allowed.) Frequency

To fulfill my civic responsibility

Percentage of total respondents (Base=625)

Percentage of total sample (Base=1,023)

288

46.1

28.2

95

15.3

9.3

55

8.8

5.4

38 23

6.2 3.7

3.8 2.3

22

3.5

2.2

19

3.1

1.9

To support certain political party(ies)/camp(s)

17

2.7

1.7

To express their own views

11

1.8

1.1

To follow the trend/crowd To respond to the call of government

6

0.9

0.6

4

0.7

0.4

3

0.5

0.3

3

0.4

0.3

25

4.0

2.4

2.4 100.0

1.4

Total

15 625

Missing case(s)

5

To support certain candidate(s) To improve the social condition/community/livelihood A habit To demonstrate the people power To express dissatisfaction with the HKSAR Government To accelerate democratic development/ In support of direct election

To express dissatisfaction with the Central People’s Government the To respond to the call of relatives/neighbours/friends Others (please specify) Don’t know / Hard to say

App II -9


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Table 19

Frequency Tables

【 Only for non-registered voters】 Why didn’t you register as a voter? (Interviewers not to read out the answers; only one answer is allowed.) Percentage of total respondents (Base=221)

Frequency

Percentage of total sample (Base=1,023)

No time No political party/politician in favour of No need/Would not vote

52

23.4

5.1

27

12.3

2.7

23

10.6

2.3

Ignorant about / Not recognized the election system

17

7.8

1.7

16

7.2

1.6

15

6.8

1.5

13

5.8

1.3

14

6.3

1.4

Don’t know / Hard to say Forgotten

24 4

11.1 1.7

2.4 0.4

Disqualified

16

7.1

1.5

Total

221

100.0

Missing case(s)

4

Ignorant about the registration procedure Elections are useless Elected councillors unable to help HK/myself Others (please specify)

Table 20

Based on your own political inclination, which camp do you tend to support? (Interviewers read out the answers; only one answer is allowed.) Frequency

Percentage

286 268 44 5

28.4 26.7 4.4 0.5

344

34.2 5.9

Total

59 1,007

Missing case(s)

16

Moderate camp Pro-democracy camp Pro-China camp Others No political inclination / Not belong to any camp Don’t know / Hard to say

App II -10

100.0


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey【All GCs】

Table 21

Frequency Tables

Did you participate in the July 1 rally last year? Frequency

Percentage

156 859

15.3 84.4

Total

3 1,018

0.3 100.0

Missing case(s)

5

Yes No Don’t know / Forgotten

Table 22

Did you participate in the January 1 rally? Frequency

Percentage

38 977

3.7 96.0 0.3

Total

3 1018

Missing case(s)

5

Yes No Don’t know / Forgotten

Table 23

100.0

Will you participate in the July 1 rally this year? Frequency

Percentage

Definitely yes Most likely yes

62 ) 80 ) 142

6.1 ) 7.8 ) 13.9

Most likely no Definitely no

161 ) 520 ) 681

15.9 ) 51.1 ) 67.0

Not yet decide / Don’t know / Hard

194

19.1

Total

1,017

100.0

Missing case(s)

6

App II -11


Appendix 3 Questionnaire


THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG 香港大學 PUBLIC OPINION PROGRAMME 民意研究計劃 Tel 電話:(852) 2859 2988 Fax 傳真:(852) 2517 6951 Website 網址:http: / / hkupop.hku.hk Address: Room 804, Meng Wah Complex, the University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong 地址:香港 薄扶林道 香港大學 明華綜合大樓 804 室

THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG PUBLIC OPINION PROGRAMME & CIVIC EXCHANGE JOINTLY CONDUCT

2004 Legislative Council Direct Election:2nd Survey 【All constituencies in Hong Kong】

Questionnaire(Finalized)

11 June 2004

The Public Opinion Programme (POP) was established in June 1991 at the Social Sciences Research Centre under the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Hong Kong. It was transferred to the Journalism and Media Studies Centre of the University of Hong Kong in May 2000, and then back to the Faculty of Social Sciences in January 2002. 香港大學民意研究計劃在一九九一年六月成立,初時隸屬香港大學社會科學學院的社會科學研究中心, 二零零零年五月轉往香港大學新聞及傳媒研究中心,二零零二年一月再轉回香港大學社會科學學院管轄。


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Section I

Questionnaire

Self Introduction

Good evening, I am an interviewer from the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong. We would like to ask for your opinion regarding the Legislative Council Election which would only take you a couple of minutes. Please be rested assured that the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential.

[S1] Which district are you living in? Wanchai Eastern Central / Western Southern Sai Kung Shatin North Tai Po Kwun Tong Kowloon City Wong Tai Sin Mongkok Sham Shui Po Yau Tsim Islands Tsuen Wan Kwai Tsing Tuen Mun Yuen Long Refuse to answer [S2] How many members are there in your household?【Input exact number】 _____ Refuse to answer

App III -1


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Section II

Questionnaire

Selection of Respondent

[S3] How many members are there in your household aged 18 or above at this moment? (Interviewers can directly ask if there is only one qualified respondent at home. If so, interviewer can interview him / her at once.) Since we need to conduct random sampling, if there is more than one available, I would like to speak to the one who will have his / her birthday next. (Interviewer can illustrate with examples: “that means is there anyone who will have his / her birthday in June or the coming three months?”)【If there is no household member aged 18 or above, interview can be terminated.】 Yes No

Interview completed. Thank you for your cooperation. Goodbye. (Skip to end.)

Section III General Questions [Q1] Which problem do you think the would-be Legislative Councillors elected in the coming September need to tackle first? (Interviewers not to read out the answers and to probe by “anything else?”; multiple answers are allowed.) Economy (including inflation, stock market supervision, economic recession, etc.) Labour / Employment / Unemployment problems Housing / Accommodation Health / Sanitation People’s livelihood Welfare Environment Security Traffic Constitutional / Democratic development Basic Law Article 23 legislation Relations with the Central People’s Government Argument/ Polarization of society Safeguard of freedom Others (please specify) Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer App III -2


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Questionnaire

** Sequence of [Q2-5] to be randomly rotated by computer [Q2] If you were going to vote for the Legislative Councillors tomorrow, how important would you consider the economy-related policies as proposed by the candidate? (Interviewer to inquire the degree of importance) Very important Quite important Half-half Not quite important Not important at all Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

[Q3] If you were going to vote for the Legislative Councillors tomorrow, how important would you consider the political policies as proposed by the candidate, such as constitutional affairs, democratic development, etc? (Interviewer to inquire the degree of importance) Very important Quite important Half-half Not quite important Not important at all Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

[Q4] Then, how important would you consider the livelihood policies as proposed by the candidate, such as problems on housing, education, medical, environment, and public order, etc? (Interviewer to inquire the degree of importance) Very important Quite important Half-half Not quite important Not important at all Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer App III -3


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Questionnaire

[Q5] Then, what about the candidate’s handling of relations with the Central People’s Government? (Interviewer to inquire the degree of importance) Very important Quite important Half-half Not quite important Not important at all Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

[Q6] If you vote, would your main consideration be the quality of individual candidates, the combination of candidates within a list, or your support for a specific political party? Individual candidates Combination within a list Support for a political party Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

[Q7] Do you think this year’s Legislative Council Election will be a fair play or not? Yes No Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

[Q8] Do you think this year’s Legislative Council Election will be corruption free? Yes No Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

App III -4


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Questionnaire

[Q9] Do you think the Beijing Central Government will intervene this year’s Legislative Council Election? Yes No Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer [Q10] In consideration of the recent news on some off-shore mobilization for the election, fake voter registration within the territory, together with the SAR Government’s responses to these, has your overall confidence in the local election system increased, decreased, or not changed? Increased Decreased Not changed Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

Section IV

Political Inclination

[Q11] Are you a registered voter? Yes (including those who have just registered) No (skip to Q17) Refuse to answer (skip to Q18)

[Q12] 【Only for registered voters】When did you register as a voter?【Deduced from the year, input exact number】 0=this year,2004,which means no more than 1 year 1=last year,2003,which means no more than 2 years 2=2 years or above 3=3 years or above,and so on _____ Forgotten Refuse to answer App III -5


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Questionnaire

[Q13] 【Only for registered voters】Did you vote in the District Council Election last November? Yes No: because the councillors were automatically elected No: can vote but has not voted No: not yet registered at that time Forgotten Refuse to answer

[Q14] 【Only for registered voters】Have you ever voted in the past Council elections in all tiers? Yes No: not yet registered No: already registered Forgotten Refuse to answer

[Q15] 【Only for registered voters】Will you vote in the coming Legislative Council Election in September? (Interviewers to inquire propensity) Definitely will Most likely will Most likely won’t (skip to Q18) Definitely won’t (skip to Q18) Not yet decide / Don’t know / Hard to say(skip to Q18) Refuse to answer(skip to Q18)

[Q16]【Only for registered voters who intended to vote】What is the main reason for you to vote? Please let us know the most important one. (Interviewers not to read out the answers; only one answer is allowed.) To demonstrate the people power To express dissatisfaction with the HKSAR Government To express dissatisfaction with the Central People’s Government To fulfill my civic responsibility To improve the social condition/community/livelihood To accelerate democratic development/ In support of direct election App III -6


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Questionnaire

To support certain candidate(s) To support certain political party(ies)/camp(s) To respond to the call of relatives/neighbours/friends To respond to the call of government To respond to the call of certain organization(s) A habit To follow the trend/crowd Others (please specify) Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

[Q17] 【Only for non-registered voters】Why didn’t you register as a voter? (Interviewers not to read out the answers; only one answer is allowed.) No time No need/Would not vote Ignorant about the registration procedure Elections are useless Ignorant about / Not recognized the election system No political party/politician in favour Elected councillors unable to help HK/myself Others (please specify) Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

[Q18] Based on your own political inclination, which camp do you tend to support? (Interviewers read out the answers; only one answer is allowed.) Pro-democracy camp Pro-China camp Moderate camp Others (please specify) No political inclination / Not belong to any camp Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

App III -7


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Questionnaire

[Q19] Did you participate in the July 1rally last year? Yes No Don’t know / Forgotten Refuse to answer

[Q20] Did you participate in the January 1rally? Yes No Don’t know / Forgotten Refuse to answer

[Q21] Will you participate in the July 1rally this year? (Interviewer to inquire propensity) Definitely yes Most likely yes Most likely no Definitely no Not yet decide / Don’t know / Hard to say Refuse to answer

Section V Personal Particulars I'd like to know some of your personal particulars in order to facilitate our analysis. [DM1] Gender Male Female [DM2] Age【Input exact number】 _____ Refuse to answer

App III -8


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Questionnaire

[DM3] Education Attainment Primary or below Secondary Matriculated Tertiary, non-degree course Tertiary, degree course Postgraduate or above Refuse to answer

[D4] The type of ownership of your house is: Self-purchased, or Rent? Refused to answer

[D5] House type Public housing estate Housing Authority subsidized sale flats Housing Society subsidized sale flats Private housing Village: villas / bungalows / modern village houses Village: simple stone structures / traditional village houses Public temporary housing Private temporary housing Staff quarters Others Refuse to answer

[DM6] Occupation Managers and administrators Professionals Associate professionals Clerks Service workers and shop sales workers Skilled agricultural and fishery workers Craft and related workers App III -9


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Questionnaire

Plant and machine operators and assemblers Non-skilled workers Students Housewives Unclassified Others (unemployed, retired, etc.) Refuse to answer

[DM7] Which class do you consider your family belongs to? (Interviewer to read out the first 5 options) Upper class Upper-middle class Middle class Lower-middle class Lower class or grassroots Don't know / hard to say Refused to answer

[DM8] Is your family in negative equity? Yes No Don't know / hard to say Refused to answer

[DM9]

Place of birth

Hong Kong (skip to end) Mainland China Taiwan (skip to end) Macau(skip to end) Southeast Asia(e.g. Malaysia、Indonesia、Vietnam)(skip to end) Canada (skip to end) America (skip to end) Australia(skip to end) England(skip to end) Others (skip to end) App III -10


2004 LegCo Direct Election: 2nd Survey [All GCs]

Questionnaire

Don’t know (skip to end) Refuse to answer (skip to end)

[DM10] 【Only for those born in mainland China】How long have you been living in Hong Kong? 【Input exact number】 _____ Refuse to answer

App III -11


THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG PUBLIC OPINION