¡@


¨ä¥LijÃD¡G±`¨£°ÝÃD
Other Issues
¡GFAQs
 
¡@ ¡@
¤U¦C±`¨£°Ýµª·|ÀHµÛªÀ·|ÅܤƩM¤j²³»Ý­n¦Ó¤£Â_§ó·s
The content of this FAQ page will be updated from time to time to match societal changes and community needs
¡@ ¡@
±`¨£°ÝÃD Frequently asked Questions
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¦b¤ÀªR¥Á½Õ¼Æ¦r®É¡A­«ÂIÀ³¸Ó©ñ¦b¥¿­±ÁÙ¬O­t­±ªº¤ñ²v¡H 
Q: When interpreting findings, should we focus more on the positive or negative figures?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¡u°ò¥»ªk¥|¤Q¤­±øÃöª`²Õ¡v²ÕÄÒ«á¡A·s¬FÄÒªº¥Á±æµû¤À¯à§_»P¡uÃöª`²Õ¡vªºµû¤À²Ö¿n­pºâ¡H
Q: After the A45 Concern Group turns into a political party, can we accumulate the popularity ratings of the new party with the Concern Group?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¡u¤Q¤j¬Fªv¹ÎÅé¡vªº²Ä¤@¶¥¬q´£¦W½Õ¬d¤¤¡A¥X²{¤F¤@¨Ç¸g¤w¸Ñ´²ªº¬F¹Î¡A·|§_¼vÅT½Õ¬dµ²ªG¡H
Q: Some obsolete or non-existent political groups have their names appeared in our Stage One naming survey, would this affect the final result?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¬°¤°»ò¦b¦P¤@¶µ½Õ¬d¤¤¡A¤£¦PÃD¥Ø¦³¤£¦P¼Ë¥»¼Æ¥Ø¡H
Q: Why does sample size for different questions vary in the same survey?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G­Ó§OÃD¥Øªº¼Ë¥»¼Æ¥Ø·|§_¼vÅT©â¼Ë»~®t¡H
Q: Would different sample size for different questions affect the sampling error? 
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G·s»D¤½³ø¤¤«ü½Õ¬d¼Æ¾Ú¤w¸g¡u¥[Åv½Õ¾ã¡v¬O¬Æ»ò·N«ä¡H
Q: What is the meaning of "weighting" mentioned in the press release?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¥Á·N½Õ¬d¦p¦óÁ×§K³X°Ý¶É¦V¤ä«ù©Î¤Ï¹ï¬Y¬Y¬FÄÒªº¤H¤h¡H
Q: How can opinion polls avoid asking supporters or opponents of certain political groups?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡GÉ]¥Á¤j²³¦p¦ó±oª¾¨C¦¸¥Á·N½Õ¬dªº¼Ë¥»¸ê®Æ¡H
Q: How can people know the contact information of each survey? 
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¦b¶q«×¬FÄÒªº¥Á±æ®É¡A¶q«×°²³]§ë²¼µ²ªG¬O§_¤ñ¤ä«ù«×µû¤À§ó¦n¡H
Q: In measuring the popularity of political parties, would it be better to measure hypothetical choice rather than popularity ratings?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G §Ú­Ì¥i§_®Ú¾Ú¤ä«ù«×µû¤À±ÀÂ_¨ü³XªÌªº§ë²¼¨ú¦V¡H
Q: Can we deduce respondents' choice of voting based on popularity rating questions?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ©â¼Ë½Õ¬d¥i¥H¦p¦óÁ×§K¨t²Î©Ê°¾®t¡H 
Q: How can systematic biases be eliminated in sample surveys?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¬°¤°»ò¤£¥H±M®a·N¨£¨ú¥NÉ]¥Á·N¨£¡H 
Q: Why not interview experts and professionals instead of members of the general public?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G´ä¤j¥Á¬ã­p¹º·|§_µû½×¨ä¥L¾÷ºc©Ò°µªº¥Á·N½Õ¬d¡H
Q: Does HKUPOP provide comments on surveys conducted by other organizations?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¥Á¬ã­p¹º·|§_¦Ûµo¶i¦æ¤@¨Ç¥Ñ¤½²³´£Ä³ªº±MÃD¬ã¨s½Õ¬d¡H
Q: Does POP initiate surveys upon the suggestion of members of the general public?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ­»´ä¨S¦³¬FÄÒªk¡A¥Á¬ã­p¹º¦p¦ó¬É©w¤@­Ó²Õ´¬°¬FÄÒ¡H 
Q: Political parties are not legally defined in Hong Kong, how does HKUPOP define an organization as a political party?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¦pªG¤@­Ó¬Fªv¹ÎÅé©ÎªÌ¬FÄҸѴ²¡AµM«á­«²Õ¦¨¬°¤@­Ó·sªº¬Fªv¹ÎÅé©ÎªÌ¬FÄÒ¡A§Ú­ÌÀ³§_§â¨âªÌµø§@¦P¤@²Õ´¡H
Q: If a political party or group is disbanded to set up a new political party or group, should we treat the two groups as the same?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¬Y¶µ½Õ¬d¼Æ¦r¿ý±o¾ú¥v·s°ª©Î·s§C¡A¦ý»P¤W¦¸½Õ¬dªº¼Æ¦r¦b²Î­p¤W¨S¦³©úÅã®t²§¡AÀ³¸Ó¦p¦ó³ø¾É¡H
Q: Certain survey findings are at record high or low, but they are not significantly different from those recorded last time. How should they be reported?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¥Á¬ã­p¹º·|Äþ³d³ø³¹³ø¾É¤£½T¶Ü¡H
Q: Will HKUPOP reprimand newspapers for inaccurate reporting?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¤@¶µ©w´Á½Õ¬dªº¥¿­±¤ñ²v¤U¶^¡A¬O§_µ¥¦P­t­±¤ñ²v¤W¤É¡H 
Q: When the proportion of positive answers to a tracking question drops, does it mean that the proportion of negative answers will rise?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¦³¨S¦³¡u²z·Q¡vªº¤ä«ù²v¡H
Q: Is there an "ideal" support rate?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¦³¨S¦³¡u¦¨¥\¡vªº¤ä«ù²v¡H
Q: Is there a "successful" support rate?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¡u²z·Q¡v©M¡u¦¨¥\¡v¤ä«ù²vªº­t­±°ò·Ç¬O¤°»ò¡H
Q: What would be the negative counterparts for "ideal" and "successful" support rates?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G°£¤F¡u²z·Q¡v¡B¡u¦¨¥\¡v¡B¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v©M¡u©å¦H¡v¥~¡AÁÙ¦³¤°»ò¥Á±æ°ò·Ç¡H
Q: Are there other benchmarks of popularity other than "ideal" and "successful", "depressing" and "disastrous"?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¬F©²©x­ûªº¥Á±æ¤ä«ù²v¥i¥Î¡u²z·Q¡v¡B¡u¦¨¥\¡v¡B¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v¡B¡u©å¦H¡v©M¡u¤£¹ü¡v§@¬°°ò·Ç¡A¬F©²ªº¾ãÅé¥Á±æ¥i§_¥Î³o®M°ò·Ç´y­z¡H
Q: In describing the support rates of government officials, there are benchmarks like "ideal", "successful", "depressing", "disastrous" and "inconspicuous". Are there similar benchmarks for describing a government's popularity?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¥H¥Á·N¤ä«ù²v­p¡A¦b³Ì·s½Õ¬d¤¤¡A¯S­º©M¦U°Ý³d©x­ûªº¥Á±æ¥i¥H¥Î¤°»ò°ò·Ç¨Ó§Î®e¡H
Q: In HKUPOP's latest survey, judging from government officials' support rates alone, how can we describe the popularity of the CE and the principal officials using various benchmarks?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡Gªñ¤é³ø³¹ªºµû½×ª©¦³¦h½g¤å³¹½×¤Î¥Á·N©M¥Á½Õªº§@¥Î¡A¥Á¬ã­p¹º¦³§_¦^À³¡H
Q: There are a number of column articles recently, on the functions of polls and public opinion. Does HKUPOP have any comment?
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¥Á¬ã­p¹º·|§_¦Ò¼{±N´¼®w²Õ´¤Î½×¬F¹ÎÅé¯Ç¤J½Õ¬d¤§¦C¡H
Q: Would HKUPOP consider including think tanks and political forums into the survey?
¡@ ¡@
±`¨£°ÝÃD»Pµª®× Frequently asked Questions with Answers
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¦b¤ÀªR¥Á½Õ¼Æ¦r®É¡A­«ÂIÀ³¸Ó©ñ¦b¥¿­±ÁÙ¬O­t­±ªº¤ñ²v¡H 
Q: When interpreting findings, should we focus more on the positive or negative figures?

µª¡G ¤µ¤Ñªº·s»D¤½³ø´£¨Ñ¤F¤@­Ó«Ü¦nªº¨Ò¤l¡C¦pªG§Ú­Ì¶°¤¤°Q½×¦U¶µ«ü¼Ðªº¥¿­±¼Æ­È¡A«h±¡ªp¦ü¥GÅܤƤ£¤j¡A¦ý¦pªG§Ú­Ì»EµJ¦b­t­±ªº¼Æ¦r¡A«h³¡¤À¼Æ¦r¨ä¹ê¤w¸g¦^¸¨¦Ü±µªñ¾ú¥v·s§C¡C©úÅã¦a¡A³¡¤À·N¨£¤w¸g¥Ñ­t­±Âର¤¤©Ê¡C¥Á¬ã­p¹º¦b´y­z¼Æ¾Ú®É¡A³q±`³£¬O¥ý±q¥D¬y·N¨£µÛ²´¡AµM«á¦A³B²z¤p²³·N¨£¡A¤£½×¬O¥ý¥¿«á­t¡AÁÙ¬O¥ý­t«á¥¿¡C¦pªG¥D¬y·N¨£¤w¸g¹F¨ì¤»¡B¤C¦¨ªº¤ô¥­¡A¨ä¥L·N¨£ªºÅܤƫKÄݦ¸­n¡C (ªìª©¡G2006¦~2¤ë16¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: Today¡¦s release provides a very good example. If we look at the positive figures, things seem to have remained unchanged, but if we look at the negative figures, some of them have actually dropped to almost record low. Obviously, there was a shift of opinion from the negative end to the middle position. In describing the findings, our general practice is to describe the majority view first, be it positive and negative, and then address the other findings. If the majority view comprises 60% to 70% of the population, shifts in the other end would be of minor importance. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 16 February 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¡u°ò¥»ªk¥|¤Q¤­±øÃöª`²Õ¡v²ÕÄÒ«á¡A·s¬FÄÒªº¥Á±æµû¤À¯à§_»P¡uÃöª`²Õ¡vªºµû¤À²Ö¿n­pºâ¡H
Q: After the A45 Concern Group turns into a political party, can we accumulate the popularity ratings of the new party with the Concern Group?

µª¡G§Ú­Ì¤£·|³o¼Ë°µ¡C§{¶¡³ø¾É¡u°ò¥»ªk¥|¤Q¤­±øÃöª`²Õ¡v§Y±NÅܨ­¦¨¬°¡u¤½¥ÁÄÒ¡v¡AÄݹꪺ¸Ü¡A°£«D¡uÃöª`²Õ¡vÄ~Äò¥H¬YºØ¤è¦¡¦s¦b¡A§_«h¡A§Ú­Ì·|§â¡uÃöª`²Õ¡v¦b¡u¤Q¤j¬Fªv¹ÎÅéµû¤À½Õ¬d¡v¤¤­ç°£¡A¦Ó¡u¤½¥ÁÄÒ¡v±N·|¥H¥þ·s¬F¹Î¦W¸q¯Ç¤J½Õ¬d¤¤¡C (ªìª©¡G2006¦~2¤ë21¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: We won¡¦t do that. If the news report about A45 Concern Group turning into Civic Party is true, unless the Concern Group still continues to exist in a certain mode, we will take away the Concern Group from our ratings of the top 10 political groups series, and Civic Party will be included in our survey as a brand new political group. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 21 February 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¡u¤Q¤j¬Fªv¹ÎÅé¡vªº²Ä¤@¶¥¬q´£¦W½Õ¬d¤¤¡A¥X²{¤F¤@¨Ç¸g¤w¸Ñ´²ªº¬F¹Î¡A·|§_¼vÅT½Õ¬dµ²ªG¡H
Q: Some obsolete or non-existent political groups have their names appeared in our Stage One naming survey, would this affect the final result?

µª¡G¤£·|¡A¦]¬°§Ú­Ì·|¦b²Ä¤G¶¥¬qµû¤À½Õ¬d«e­ç°£¦³Ãö¹ÎÅé¡C¥Ñ©ó­»´ä¨S¦³¬FÄÒªk¡A¬Fªv¹ÎÅ骺©w¸q¬Û·í§t½k¡A¦]¦¹§Ú­Ì¦b´£¦W¶¥¬qºÉ¶q¼eÃP¡A¤§«á¤~®Ö¹ê¤J¿ï¹ÎÅé¬O§_ÄÝ©óªÀ·|¤H¤h¤½»{ªº¬Fªv¹ÎÅé¡C (ªìª©¡G2006¦~2¤ë21¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: No, because we have already taken away those political groups before the second stage rating survey. Since political groups are not yet legal entities in Hong Kong, such definitions are rather vague, we will try to be as lenient as possible in the naming stage, and then those groups which fall outside the popular definition will be eliminated in the next stage. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 21 February 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¬°¤°»ò¦b¦P¤@¶µ½Õ¬d¤¤¡A¤£¦PÃD¥Ø¦³¤£¦P¼Ë¥»¼Æ¥Ø¡H
Q: Why does sample size for different questions vary in the same survey?

µª¡G³o¬O¤@­Ó¦b½Õ¬d¤¤¸g±`¥X²{ªº±¡ªp¡C­ì¦]¦³¤T¡G¡]¤@¡^½Õ¬d¤¤³¡¤ÀÃD¥Ø¦bÅÞ¿è¤W¥u¯A¤Î­Y¤z¦¸¼Ë¥»¡C¨Ò¦p¡G¦^µª¡uÃÙ¦¨¡v©Î¡u¤Ï¹ï¡v¬Y¶µ«ØÄ³ªÌ³Q°l°Ý¡u¬°¤°»òÃÙ¦¨¡v©Î¡u¬°¤°»ò¤Ï¹ï¡v¡A¤GªÌ¤£¯à¦@¦s¡C¡]¤G¡^³¡¤ÀÃD¥Øªº²Õ¦X¦b³]­p¤W¥u¯A¤Î­Y¤zÀH¾÷¼Ë¥»¡A¥H´î»´­Ó§O³X°Ý¹ï¶Hªº­t¾á¡C¨Ò¦p¡G°Ý¨÷¥þ¤å¥]¬A¥Ò¡B¤A¡B¤þ¤T­Ó¤¾ªø³¡¤À¡A½Õ¬d¦]¦Ó¦b³]­p¤W¥u®e³\¨C¦¸³X°Ý¤¤¥]§t¥Ò¤A¡B¤A¤þ©Î¥Ò¤þ¤TºØ´£°Ý¤è¦¡¡A¤S©ÎªÌ¦]¬°¥Ò³¡ÄÝ©ó®Ö¤ß°ÝÃD¦Ó¥u®e³\¥Ò¤A©M¥Ò¤þ¨âºØ²Õ¦X¥X²{¡A¦U³¡¤Àªº¼Ë¥»¼Æ¥Ø«K·|¦³©ÒÅܤơC¡]¤T¡^³¡¤À³Q³XªÌ©Úµ´¦^µª³¡¤ÀÃD¥Ø¡AÃD¥Øªº¦³®Ä°ò¼Æ¦]¦Ó­°§C¡C (ªìª©¡G2006¦~3¤ë21¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: This is quite common, ands there are three reasons. (1) Some questions in a survey logically only apply to certain respondents. For example, respondents supporting or opposing certain propositions are further prompted with questions ¡§why support¡¨ or ¡§why oppose¡¨. They cannot be asked at the same time. (2) Some questions are deliberately skipped by design, in order to reduce the load on individual respondents. For example, a questionnaire may comprise sections A, B and C, all with many questions. By design, each interview questionnaire may only comprise AB, BC and AC, or perhaps only AB and AC because A comprises core questions. The sub-sample size for different parts of the survey would then vary. (3) A number of respondents refused to answer a certain question, and the effective sample size is reduced. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 21 March 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G­Ó§OÃD¥Øªº¼Ë¥»¼Æ¥Ø·|§_¼vÅT©â¼Ë»~®t¡H
Q: Would different sample size for different questions affect the sampling error? 

µª¡Gµ´¹ï·|¡C¦]¦¹¡A¦b¾\Ū½Õ¬d³ø§i®ÉÀ³¸Óª`·N­Ó§OÃD¥Øªº¼Ë¥»¼Æ¥Ø¬O§_»PÁ`¼Ë¥»¦³²§¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~3¤ë21¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: Absolutely. Readers should therefore pay attention to the sub-sample size of different questions, if they differ from the overall sample. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 21 March 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G·s»D¤½³ø¤¤«ü½Õ¬d¼Æ¾Ú¤w¸g¡u¥[Åv½Õ¾ã¡v¬O¬Æ»ò·N«ä¡H
Q: What is the meaning of "weighting" mentioned in the press release?

µª¡G¥Ñ©óºØºØ­ì¦]¡A©â¼Ë½Õ¬d±o¥Xªº¼Ë¥»¥i¯à»P½Õ¬d¹ï¶H¥X²{°¾®t¡C¨Ò¦p¡A¦pªG¤@¶µ½Õ¬d¦¨¥\³X°Ý¤F1,029¦WÉ]¥Á¡A·í¤¤43.2¢HÄÝ©ó¨k©Ê¡A¦ý¬F©²ªº²Î­p¸ê®Æ«oÅã¥Ü­»´ä¦¨¦~¤H¤f¤¤¨k©ÊÀ³¦û47.0¢H¡C¬°¤F¼W¥[¼Ë¥»ªº¥Nªí©Ê¡A½Õ¬d¾÷ºc«K§â¼Ë¥»¤¤¨C­Ó¨k©Ê­Ó®×ªº¤ñ­«¡A«ö¤ñ¨Ò½Õ°ª¬ù0.088­¿¡A¤k©Ê­Ó®×ªº¤ñ­««h«ö¦P¼Ë¤ñ¨Ò½Õ§C¡A¥H°t¦X½Õ¬d¥ÀÅ骺¨k¤k¤ñ¨Ò¡A³o«K¬O¡u¥[Åv½Õ¾ã¡v¡C¥Á¬ã­p¹ºªººD¨Ò¡A¬O§â­ì©l½Õ¬d¼Æ¾Ú«ö·Ó³Ì·s¤H¤f²Î­p¼Æ¦r¡A®Ú¾Ú¦~Ä֤ΩʧOªº¤À§G±¡ªp¥[Åv½Õ¾ã¡A¨Ã§â©Ò¦³­ì©l¤Î¥[Åv«áªº¼Ë¥»¸ê®Æ»P½Õ¬d¼Æ¦r¦P®É¤½§G¡C (ªìª©¡G2006¦~3¤ë23¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: Due to various reasons, the characteristics of a survey sample may differ from those of the target population. For example, a survey may have captured 1,029 Hong Kong residents, 43.2% of which are males. However, government statistics may show that 47.0% of Hong Kong adults are males. In order to increase the representativeness of the sample, the research organization may choose to scale up the importance of each male subject by 0.088 time, and compress the importance of each female subject by the same proportion, in order to match the sex ratio of the target population. This is called "statistical weighting". HKUPOP's general practice is to weight all raw data according to the latest figures obtained from the government regarding gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population, and to report both the raw and weighted demographic profiles of the respondents in all releases. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 23 March 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¥Á·N½Õ¬d¦p¦óÁ×§K³X°Ý¶É¦V¤ä«ù©Î¤Ï¹ï¬Y¬Y¬FÄÒªº¤H¤h¡H
Q: How can opinion polls avoid asking supporters or opponents of certain political groups?

µª¡G¥Á·N½Õ¬d¤ð¶·Á×§K³X°Ý¶É¦V¤ä«ù©Î¤Ï¹ï¬Y¬Y¬FÄÒªº¤H¤h¡C­«­nªº¬O½Õ¬d¼Ë¥»¤¤«ù¤£¦P·N¨£ªº³Q³XªÌ¡A¤ñ¨Ò­n»P©Ò¦³¥Ø¼Ð¹ï¶H¬Û¦P¡C¦]¦¹«K­n¨Ï¥Î¬ì¾ÇÀH¾÷©â¼Ë¤èªk¡C¥Á¬ã­p¹º¤@¯ë³£¬O±q¦í¦v¹q¸Ü襤ÀH¾÷©â¼Ë¡AµM«á¦A±q¦í¤á¦¨­û¤¤©â¨ú¨ä¤¤¤@¤H¶i¦æ³X°Ý¡C³o­Ó¤èªk¬O·í¤µªÀ·|½Õ¬d±`¥Îªº¤èªk¡A¤ñµóÀY³X°ÝÀu³Ó«Ü¦h¡C (ªìª©¡G2006¦~3¤ë23¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: Opinion polls do not need to avoid asking supporters or opponents of political groups. The important point is to make sure that the proportions of respondents in favour of certain opinions are the same as those in the target population. We therefore need to use scientific random sampling method. POP normally randomly samples telephone numbers from telephone directories, and then samples one respondent from the target household for interview. This method is often used in contemporary social surveys, and is much better than street interviews. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 23 March 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡GÉ]¥Á¤j²³¦p¦ó±oª¾¨C¦¸¥Á·N½Õ¬dªº¼Ë¥»¸ê®Æ¡H
Q: How can people know the contact information of each survey? 

µª¡G¥Á¬ã­p¹º¦b¨C¦¸ªº¥Á½Õµo©ñ¤¤¡A³£¸Ô²Ó¥æ«Ý¸Ó½Õ¬dªº³X°Ý¹ï¶H©M½Õ¬d¤èªk¡A¥]¬A©â¼Ë¤èªk¡B³Q³XªÌ­I´º¸ê®Æ¡B°Ý¨÷¥þ¤å©M¨ä¥L¼Ë¥»¸ê®Æ¡C®Ú¾Ú°ê»Ú¼Ð·Ç¡A¥æ«Ý¦³Ãö¸ê®Æ¬Oµo©ñ©M³ø¾É¥Á½Õ¾÷ºcªº°ò¥»³d¥ô¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~5¤ë9¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: POP's practice is to give detailed contact information of every survey whenever the survey is released, including the definition of target population and its research design, which includes the sampling method, the demographic background of the respondents, the questionnaire in full, and other contact information. According to international standards, providing such information is the responsibility of any organization when releasing or reporting the survey results. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 9 May 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¦b¶q«×¬FÄÒªº¥Á±æ®É¡A¶q«×°²³]§ë²¼µ²ªG¬O§_¤ñ¤ä«ù«×µû¤À§ó¦n¡H
Q: In measuring the popularity of political parties, would it be better to measure hypothetical choice rather than popularity ratings?

µª¡G Á{ªñ¿ïÁ|¡A·í³Q³XªÌ¥i¥HªÖ©w¬Æ»ò¤H¤h¥Nªí¬Æ»ò¬FÄÒ°Ñ¿ï®É¡A°²³]©Êªº°ÝÃD¦p¡u°²¦p©ú¤Ñ§ë²¼¡A§A·|¿ï¾Ü¤ä«ù­þ­Ó¬FÄÒ¡v«K¯à´£¨Ñ«Ü¦³¥Îªº«ü¼Ð¡C¤£¹L¡A¦pªG¬Y¨Ç¬FÄÒ¹ª§j°t²¼©Îµ¦²¤©Ê§ë²¼¡A±¡úG«K·|Åܱo¬Û·í½ÆÂø¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~5¤ë11¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: Hypothetical questions like "which party you would choose if there is an election tomorrow" give very useful indicators near elections, when respondents are quite sure which party is competing against which, and who is representing which party in the election. Needless to say, when parties advocate strategic voting, or split voting among supporters, the situation would be much more complicated. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 11 May 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G §Ú­Ì¥i§_®Ú¾Ú¤ä«ù«×µû¤À±ÀÂ_¨ü³XªÌªº§ë²¼¨ú¦V¡H
Q: Can we deduce respondents' choice of voting based on popularity rating questions?

µª¡G ¥i¥H¡A§Ú­Ì¥ç¦³¨Ï¥Î¡C¹D²z«Ü²³æ¡G·í¬Y³Q³XªÌµ¹¬Y¬FÄÒ¥´¤W³Ì°ª¤À¼Æ¡A§Ú­Ì´N¥i¥H°²³]¦pªG§Y®É¶i¦æ¿ïÁ|ªº¸Ü¡A¸Ó³Q³XªÌ´N·|§ë²¼µ¹¸Ó¬FÄÒ¡C¡u³Ì°ª¤À¼Æ¡v¬O¬Û¹ïªº¡A¥i¥H¥Nªí³Ì³ßÅw©Î³Ì¤£°Q¹½ªº¿ï¾Ü¡C¦¹¥~¡A°w¹ï­Ó§O¬FÄÒµû¤À·|¤ñ³æ¶µ¿ï¾Ü§ó¥[¦³¥Î¡A¾¨ºÞ¤ñ¸û©ù¶Q¡A¦ý©Ò±o¨ìªºµ²ªG«o¥i¥H¥Î¤£¦Pªº²Õ¦X¤èªk¤ÀªR¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~5¤ë11¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: Yes, we can and we have. The conceptual framework is simple: If a respondent gives the highest marks to Party A among a group of parties, we can assume that he/she would vote for Party A if there was an election right now. "Highest" is defined on relative term, which may mean one's most favourite or least disliked choice. Moreover, rating parties individually is more useful but costly than using one question to map single choice, because the results could be analyzed with a large number of combinations. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 11 May 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ©â¼Ë½Õ¬d¥i¥H¦p¦óÁ×§K¨t²Î©Ê°¾®t¡H 
Q: How can systematic biases be eliminated in sample surveys?

µª¡G §Ú­Ì¥i¯à¥Ã»·µLªkÁ×§K°¾®t¡A¦ý§Ú­Ì¥i¥HºÉ¶q§â¥¦´î¨ì³Ì§C¡C¥Á¬ã­p¹ºªº¹q¸Ü½Õ¬d¡A·|¥ý±q¦í¤á¹q¸Ü¸¹½X襤©â¨ú¹q¸Ü¸¹½X¡AµM«á¦A±q¥Ø¼Ð¦í¤á¤¤¥H¥X¥Í¤é´Á©â¨ú¤@¤H±µ¨ü³X°Ý¡C²z½×¤W¡A³o­Ó©â¼Ë¬[¤w¸g¨ç»\¤F©Ò¦³­»´ä©~¥Á¡C¤£¹L¡A´ú¸Õ¼Ë¥»¥Nªí©Êªº³Ì¦n¤èªk¡A´N¬O¤ñ¸û¼Ë¥»©M¥ÀÅ骺¤H¤f¯S©Ê¡A³q±`¥]¬A©Ê§O¡B¦~ÄÖ¡B±Ð¨|µ{«×¡B©Ð«ÎÃþ«¬¡B¾·~¡B¦a°ì¤À§Gµ¥µ¥¡C¥Á¬ã­p¹º¦b©Ò¦³½Õ¬d³ø§i©Mµo©ñ¤¤¡A³£·|¥æ¥N¦³Ãö¸ê®Æ¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~5¤ë16¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: We may never be able to eliminate all biases, but we can minimize them. For HKUPOP telephone surveys, we randomly sample telephone numbers from household telephone directories, and then select one respondent from a target household using the "next birthday rule". Theoretically, our sampling frame covers everyone in Hong Kong. The best way to examine the representativeness of a sample is to compare its demographic profile with that of the target population, usually in terms of gender, age, education attainment, housing type, occupation, geographical distribution and so on. Such profiles are always given in HKUPOP survey reports and releases. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 16 May 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¬°¤°»ò¤£¥H±M®a·N¨£¨ú¥NÉ]¥Á·N¨£¡H 
Q: Why not interview experts and professionals instead of members of the general public?

µª¡G §Ú­Ì¦³®É¤]·|½Õ¬d±M®aªº·N¨£¡C¤£¹L¡A±M®a©MÉ]¥Áªº·N¨£©l²×Äݩ󤣦P¼h¦¸¡A¤£¯à¤¬¬Û´À¥N¡C¦b¥Á¥DªÀ·|¤¤¡A­«­n¨Æ±¡©¹©¹³Ì²×¬O¥Ñ¤H¥Á§ë²¼¨M©w¡C¦]¦¹¡AµL½×±M®a·N¨£¦p¦ó¡AÁ`­n¤£®É±´°QÉ]¥Áªº·N¨£©M»Ý­n¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~5¤ë16¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: We sometimes do. However, expert and public opinions belong to different levels and they cannot replace each other. In democratic societies where important issues are ultimately decided by the popular vote, it is important to study from time to time what the public wants, in spite of what the experts say. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 16 May 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G´ä¤j¥Á¬ã­p¹º·|§_µû½×¨ä¥L¾÷ºc©Ò°µªº¥Á·N½Õ¬d¡H
Q: Does HKUPOP provide comments on surveys conducted by other organizations?

µª¡G °£«D±¡ªp¯S®í¡A§_«hºÉ¶q¤£·|¡A¥H§K¦³§Q¯q½Ä¬ð¡C¤£¹L¡A¥Á¬ã­p¹ºµ´¹ï¤£·|°jÁפ½¥Á±Ð¨|ªº³d¥ô¡C¦pªG¥Á¬ã­p¹º¦³¥R¸Îªº®É¶¡©MªÅ¶¡¥h¸ÑÄÀ¬ã¨s¤èªk©M¦U¶µ°ÝÃD¡A§Ú­Ì·|¼Ö©ó®Ä³Ò¡F¦pªG¥u¬O¦b¤½²³­±«e²³æµû½×¬Y¨Ç½Õ¬dµ²ªG¡A§Ú­Ì»{¬°À³¸Ó¥æ¥Ñ¨S¦³§Q¯q½Ä¬ðªº¿W¥ß¾ÇªÌ±M®a¶i¦æ¡C§@¬°ªø»·¥Ø¼Ð¡A¥Á¬ã­p¹º¤@ª½«ØÄ³©Ò¦³¾÷ºc¦b¶i¦æ¤Îµo©ñ¥Á·N½Õ¬d®É¡AÀ³¸Ó¿í¦u°ê»Ú©Êªº±M·~¦u«h¡A¥H¤Î¦b¤½§G½Õ¬dµ²ªG®É¡A¤@¨Ö¤½§G¾ã¥÷½Õ¬d³ø§i¡C¬F©²³¡ªù¦b¤Þ­z¨ä¤º³¡½Õ¬dµ²ªG®É¡A¤]­n¦P®É¤½§G½Õ¬d³ø§i¡A¥H¥Ü¤½¤¹¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~5¤ë23¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: We try not to, in order to avoid any conflict of interest, unless there is a desperate necessity for us to do so. However, we do not avoid taking the responsibility of educating the general public whenever needed. This occurs when we can discuss research methodology in detail, rather than giving short comments to individual studies. We hope this task could be taken up by independent academics or professionals who do not have any conflict of interest. As a long term solution, we have been advocating for a long time for the adoption of international standards in the conduct and release of public opinion surveys, and the release of the full research report whenever a survey is published and whenever the government cited a study it conducted or commissioned. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 23 May 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¥Á¬ã­p¹º·|§_¦Ûµo¶i¦æ¤@¨Ç¥Ñ¤½²³´£Ä³ªº±MÃD¬ã¨s½Õ¬d¡H
Q: Does POP initiate surveys upon the suggestion of members of the general public?

µª¡G ³q±`¤£·|¡A¤é«á¥i§@À˰Q¡C¤£¹L¡A§Ú­Ì·|±µ¨ü©e¦«½Õ¬d¡A±ø¥ó¬O©e¦«¤H¤h©M¾÷ºc¤£¯à¤z¹w§Ú­Ìªº¿W¥ß©Ê©M¿W¦û½Õ¬d¼Æ¾Úªºª©Åv¡C´«¨¥¤§¡A©Ò¦³½Õ¬dªº¾Þ§@¡B¼Æ¾Ú¦¬¶°©M¤ÀªR¤u§@³£¬O¥Ñ¥Á¬ã­p¹º¿W¥ß¶i¦æ¡A¤£¨ü¥~¬É¼vÅT¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~5¤ë23¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: It is not our general practice, but we will look into this possibility in future. However, we do accept commissioned survey, but even then, we require research autonomy and shared copyrights, meaning that all fieldwork operations and data analyses would be conducted independently by the POP Team without interference from any outside party. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 23 May 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ­»´ä¨S¦³¬FÄÒªk¡A¥Á¬ã­p¹º¦p¦ó¬É©w¤@­Ó²Õ´¬°¬FÄÒ¡H 
Q: Political parties are not legally defined in Hong Kong, how does HKUPOP define an organization as a political party?

µª¡G ¦³¤@©w§xÃø¡A¦ý¥i¥H¥Î¤TºØ¤èªk¸Ñ¨M¡C²Ä¤@¡A¥Ñ¹ÎÅé¦Û¤v¬É©w¡F²Ä¤G¡A¥ÑÉ]¥Á¬É©w¡F²Ä¤T¡A±Ä¨ú³Ì¼s¸qªº¤èªk¬É©w¬Fªv¹ÎÅé¡A°jÁ׬FÄÒ©M¬F¹Îªº¤À§O¡C¥Á¬ã­p¹º¶i¦æªº¤Q¤j¬F¹Îµû¤À½Õ¬d¡A«K¬Oµ²¦X¤F²Ä¤G©M²Ä¤TºØ¤èªk¡A¥ý¥ÑÉ]¥Á¦Û¥Ñ´£¦W¡AµM«á¿z¿ï¥XÉ]¥Á³Ì¼ô±xªº¬Fªv¹ÎÅé¡A¦A¥H¤ä«ùµû¤À±Æ¦W¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~6¤ë6¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: It is somewhat difficult, but we could still solve the problem in three ways. First, let them be defined by the organizations themselves; second, let them be defined by the people; third, study political groups from the widest perspective in order to avoid the distinction between political parties and political groups. In our survey of top 10 political groups, we combined the second and third methods, and let people first nominate the political groups they know, and then rank the most well-known groups according to their supporting rates. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 6 June 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¦pªG¤@­Ó¬Fªv¹ÎÅé©ÎªÌ¬FÄҸѴ²¡AµM«á­«²Õ¦¨¬°¤@­Ó·sªº¬Fªv¹ÎÅé©ÎªÌ¬FÄÒ¡A§Ú­ÌÀ³§_§â¨âªÌµø§@¦P¤@²Õ´¡H
Q: If a political party or group is disbanded to set up a new political party or group, should we treat the two groups as the same?

µª¡G ¤£À³¸Ó¡C¦³Ãö¬F¹Î©ÎªÌ¬FÄÒ¤§©Ò¥H­«²Õ¡A©ÎªÌ­«·s©R¦W¡A´N¬O§Æ±æ¦³­Ó·sªº¶}©l¡C·s¦¨¥ßªº¬F¹Î©Î¬FÄÒ°£¤F¦b¦WºÙ¤W¤£¦P¥~¡A¦b²Õ´¬[ºc¡B·|Äy¦w±Æ¡Bµo®i¤è¦Vµ¥¤]·|¤£¦P¡Cªp¥B¡A¦³¬F¹Î©Î¬FÄҥ礣¤@©w·|¸Ñ´²¡C±q¥Á±æ¤ÀªRªº¨¤«×¬Ý¡A·s²մ¥i¥H¤¬¬Û¤ñ¸û¡A¦ý¤£¯àµø§@¦P¤@²Õ´¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~6¤ë6¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: No. Whenever a political party or group is re-organized or re-named, it signifies a new start. Apart from the difference in names, the old and new political party or group would also differ in terms of organization structure, membership arrangement and development objectives. Moreover, the old party or group may not be disbanded after all. From the perspective of opinion studies, the new and old organizations can be compared, but cannot be treated as the same entity. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 6 June 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¬Y¶µ½Õ¬d¼Æ¦r¿ý±o¾ú¥v·s°ª©Î·s§C¡A¦ý»P¤W¦¸½Õ¬dªº¼Æ¦r¦b²Î­p¤W¨S¦³©úÅã®t²§¡AÀ³¸Ó¦p¦ó³ø¾É¡H
Q: Certain survey findings are at record high or low, but they are not significantly different from those recorded last time. How should they be reported?

µª¡G ³Ì¦n²M·¡»¡©ú¡u³Ì·s¼Æ¦r¿ý±o¾ú¥v·s°ª©Î·s§C¡A¦ý¦b²Î­p¤W»P¤W¦¸½Õ¬d¼Æ¦r¨S¦³©úÅã®t²§¡v¡C¡u¾ú¥v·s°ª©Î·s§C¡v¬O¥]²[¦W¦¸©M±Æ§Çªº·§©À¡A²Î­p®t»~¬OÃö¥Gµ´¹ï¼Æ­Èªº°ÝÃD¡A¨âªÌÄݩ󤣦P¼h¦¸¡A¦U¦³²z¾Ú¡C¥H¤é±`¥Í¬¡Á|¨Ò¡A¬Y¾Ç¥Í¤µ¦¸¥H¤@¤À¤§·L¹Ü±o¥þ¯Z²Ä¤@¦W¡A±q²Î­p¾Ç¤ÀªR¡A¥L¥i¯à¥u¬O©¯¹B¡A¦]¬°¥Lªº¦¨ÁZ»P²Ä¤G¦Wªº¾Ç¥Í¨S¦³ÅãµÛ¤À§O¡C¦ý¥H±`¤Hªº¥Îªk¡A²Ä¤@´N¬O²Ä¤@¡A¤@¦¸´N¬O¤@¦¸¡C¦p¦ó´y­z³o­Ó¾Ç¥Íªº¦¨´N­nµø¥G¾Ç®Õªº¨î«×¡A©Mªø´ÁªºÆ[¹î¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~6¤ë13¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: It is better to say that "the latest figures are at record high or low, but they are not statistically different from those registered last time." "Record high or low" encompasses the concepts of ranking and ordering, whereas statistical differences relate to absolute values. They belong to different levels, each with its own logic and rationale. Take a real life example - if a student won the first position by only one mark's difference, from a statistical point of view, he is simply lucky, because there is no significant difference between his/her results and his/her peer in the second place. But from a normal person's perspective, first is first, once means once. How to describe this student's results depends on the system of the school, and some long-term observations. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 13 June 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¥Á¬ã­p¹º·|Äþ³d³ø³¹³ø¾É¤£½T¶Ü¡H
Q: Will HKUPOP reprimand newspapers for inaccurate reporting?

µª¡G ¥i¯à·|¡A¦ý§Ú­Ì·|·¥¤§¤p¤ß¡C´N¥H§Ú­Ì©ó6¤ë1¤éµoªíªº¡u¤»¥|¨Æ¥óªº³Ì·s¶g¦~½Õ¬dµ²ªG¡v¬°¨Ò¡A²Ý¤é³ø³¹³ø¾Éªº¤âªk¦U¦³¤£¦P¡C¦³»¡¡u¥­¤Ï¤»¥|¤ä«ù²v·s°ª¡v¡A¦³»¡¡u¤Ï¹ï¥­¤Ï¤»¥|¦^Âk·s°ª¡v¡A¦³¨Ç³ø³¹°¼­«³ø¾ÉÉ]¥Á¹ï°ê¤º¤HÅvª¬ªpªº·N¨£¡A¦³¨Ç¯Á©Ê¨S¦³³ø¾É¡C¥Á¬ã­p¹ºªºµ¦²¤¡A¬O¦b´L­«¨Æ¹êªº­ì«h¤U¡A¹ªÀy¶Ç´C¦Êªá»ô©ñ¡C¦b¨S¦³±M·~¦u«h³W½d¤§¤U¡A³ø³¹ªº³ø¾ÉªÖ©w¦³©Ò°¾»á¡C§Ú­Ì¹ªÀy©Ò¦³³ø³¹ÅªªÌ¨ì¡m¥Á·Nºô¯¸¡n¾\Ū¸Ô²Óªº½Õ¬dµ²ªG¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~6¤ë13¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: Maybe, but we will be extremely careful. Take our latest release of "June Fourth Annual Survey" as an example. Different newspapers had different ways of reporting the survey. Some said "record high for supporting a reversion of the official stand on June 4", some said "record high since handover for objecting a reversion of the official position". Some chose to report people's views on China's human rights only, while some simply neglected the survey. HKUPOP's strategy is to encourage free and diversified reporting, provided that everybody respects the truth. In the absence of a professional code of practice, there are bounded to be biases in newspaper reports. We encourage all newspaper readers to go to our POP Site to study the details of all our surveys. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 13 June 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¤@¶µ©w´Á½Õ¬dªº¥¿­±¤ñ²v¤U¶^¡A¬O§_µ¥¦P­t­±¤ñ²v¤W¤É¡H 
Q: When the proportion of positive answers to a tracking question drops, does it mean that the proportion of negative answers will rise?

µª¡G ¥¼¥²¡A°£«D°ÝÃDªºµª®×¥u¦³¡u¥¿¡v»P¡u¤Ï¡v¨â­Ó¿ï¶µ¡C¦pªG±Ä¥Î¤­µ¥¶q¤Ø©Î¬O¨ä¥L¦³¤¤¶¡¼Æªº¥­¿Å¶q¤Ø¡A³¡¤À¥¿­±©Î­t­±·N¨£¥i¯à¬OÅܱo¤¤©Ê¡A¦Ó«DÂà¦V·¥ºÝ¡A¤ÀªR®É­n®æ¥~¤p¤ß¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~6¤ë20¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: Not necessarily, unless there is only one positive and one negative answer. If we are using a five-point scale, or any balanced scale with a mid-point, some of the positive or negative answers might have just turned neutral, instead of taking sides. We therefore need to be very careful when reading these findings. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 20 June 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¦³¨S¦³¡u²z·Q¡vªº¤ä«ù²v¡H
Q: Is there an "ideal" support rate?

µª¡G¥»Äæ±q¤µ¤Ñ¶}©l·|¦]À³½Õ¬d¼Æ¾Ú¤£®É°Q½×³o­Ó°ÝÃD¡C¯S­º´¿½®Åvªº³Ì·s¥Á·N¤ä«ù²v¬O66%¡A¥¿¬O°Q½×³o­Ó¸ÜÃDªº¦n®É¾÷¡C¯S­º¤£¬O´¶¿ï²£¥Í¡A¥Á±æ¤ä«ù²vªº·§©À»P¤@¯ë¥Á¥DªÀ·|¤£¦P¡C¼È¥B¤£½Í¥Á·N¤ä«ù²v»P¥Á¥D¿ïÁ|µ²ªGªºÃö«Y¡A¦pªG¥Á·N¤ä«ù²v¥i¥Hª½±µ¤Æ¦¨¿ï²¼¡A«h¤T¤À¤§¤Gµ´¹ï¤ä«ù²v¡A§Y67%¡AÀ³¥iµø¬°¤@¯ë¾Ë¨î­n¨Dªº³Ì°ª¼Ð·Ç¡C¯S­º´¿½®Åvªº³Ì·s¤ä«ù²v­è­è¶^¥X³o­Ó¼Ð·Ç¡A¦b¤ÀªR¤W¦³¤@©w·N¸q¡C·íµM¡A²Î­p¤Wªº°¸µMµ²ªG¡B¡u±óÅv¡v·N¨£ªº§@¥Î¡B¡u¤ä«ù«×¡v»P¡u¤ä«ù²v¡vªºÃö«Yµ¥¦]¯À¡A³£·|¼vÅT¦³Ãö¤ÀªR¡A¥»Äæ¤é«á·|¸ò¶i°Q½×¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~7¤ë25¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: We will tackle this question every now and then in this section in light of survey findings. The latest support rate of CE Donald Tsang is 66%, which is opportune moment to discuss this question. To start with, our CE is not returned by universal suffrage, so our idea of support rate differs from that in normal democratic societies. Brushing aside the connection between support rate in opinion polls and actual election results, and assuming that our support rate figures can be converted to vote shares, then two-thirds majority, or 67%, can be taken as the ultimate test for all constitutional requirements. The fact that CE Donald Tsang's support rate has just dropped behind that standard has a special meaning conceptually. Of course, whether this is just a statistical coincidence, the meaning of "abstention", and the connections between "support ratings" and "support rates", are also important factors to be considered. We will discuss them here in future. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 25 July 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¦³¨S¦³¡u¦¨¥\¡vªº¤ä«ù²v¡H
Q: Is there a "successful" support rate?

µª¡G¥»Äæ¦b2006¦~7¤ë25¤éªº¤½³ø¤¤°Q½×¤F¡u²z·Q¡v¤ä«ù²vªº°ÝÃD¡A«ü¥X¦pªG¥Á·N¤ä«ù²v¥i¥Hª½±µ¤Æ¦¨¿ï²¼¡A«h¤T¤À¤§¤Gµ´¹ï¤ä«ù²v¡A§Y67%¡AÀ³¥iµø¬°¤@¯ë¾Ë¨î­n¨Dªº³Ì°ª¼Ð·Ç¡C°h¦Ó¨D¨ä¦¸¡A¥b¼Æ¥H¤Wªºµ´¹ï¤ä«ù²v¡A§Y50%¥H¤W¡A¦pªG¥i¥H¤Æ¦¨¿ï²¼¡A³£·|¦b¤@¯ë¿ïÁ|¨î«×¤¤³Ó¥X¡C¦]¦¹¡A51%ªº¤ä«ù²v¥i¥Hµø¬°¡u¦¨¥\¡vªº¥Á±æ°ò·Ç¡C¥H¥Á¬ã­p¹º¤µ¤éµoªíªº¼Æ¦r¦Ó½×¡A¥u¦³§õ¤Ö¥úªº¥Á±æ¹F¨ì¡u²z·Q¡v¡A´¿½®Åv¡B‹ö¤¯Às¡B¹ù¨q¥V©M¸­æ@ûiªº¥Á±æÄÝ©ó¡u¦¨¥\¡v¦Ó¥¼¤Î¡u²z·Q¡v¡C·íµM¡A²Î­p¤Wªº°¸µMµ²ªG¡B¡u±óÅv¡v·N¨£ªº§@¥Î¡B¡u¤ä«ù«×¡v»P¡u¤ä«ù²v¡vªºÃö«Yµ¥¦]¯À¡A³£·|¼vÅT¦³Ãö¤ÀªR¡A¥»Äæ¤é«á·|Ä~Äò°Q½×¡C (ªìª©¡G2006¦~8¤ë8¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: We discussed the concept of "ideal" support rate in our release of July 25, 2006. We pointed out that if support rate figures can be converted into real votes, then two-thirds majority, or 67%, can be taken as the ultimate test for all constitutional requirements. Likewise, in most constitutional systems, any simple majority of over 50% would return a candidate by popular election. We can, therefore, consider 51% to be the benchmark for a "successful" support rate. Referring to the popularity figures we release today, only Ambrose Lee¡¦s popularity rate could be considered "ideal". The popularity of Donald Tsang, Wong Yan-lung, Sarah Liao and Stephen Ip can all be considered as "successful" but less than "ideal". Of course, the factor of statistical coincidence, the meaning of "abstention", and the connections between "support ratings" and "support rates", are also important factors to be considered. We will discuss them here in future. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 8 August 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¡u²z·Q¡v©M¡u¦¨¥\¡v¤ä«ù²vªº­t­±°ò·Ç¬O¤°»ò¡H
Q: What would be the negative counterparts for "ideal" and "successful" support rates?

µª¡G¥»Äæ¦b2006¦~7¤ë25¤é©M8¤ë8¤éªº¤½³ø¤¤¤À§O°Q½×¤F¡u²z·Q¡v©M¡u¦¨¥\¡v¤ä«ù²vªº°ÝÃD¡A«ü¥X¦pªG¥Á·N¤ä«ù²v¥i¥Hª½±µ¤Æ¦¨¿ï²¼¡A«h¤T¤À¤§¤Gµ´¹ï¤ä«ù²v¡A§Y67%¡AÀ³¥iµø¬°¡u²z·Q¡vªº¤ä«ù²v¡A¦Ó¥b¼Æ¥H¤Wªºµ´¹ï¤ä«ù²v¡A§Y50%¥H¤W¡A«h¥iµø¬°¡u¦¨¥\¡v¤ä«ù²v¡C¤Ï¹L¨Ó»¡¡A¦pªG¥Á·N½}§K²v¹F¨ì50¢H©Î67¢H¥H¤W¡A«h¤À§O¥i¥Hµø¬°¡u«Ü®t¡v©M¡u·¥®t¡vªº¥Á±æ°ò·Ç¡C»P¡u²z·Q¡v©M¡u¦¨¥\¡v©IÀ³¡A¥i¥H¥Î¡u©å¦H¡v©M¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v¨Ó§Î®e¡C·íµM¡A²Î­p¤Wªº°¸µMµ²ªG¡B¡u±óÅv¡v·N¨£ªº§@¥Î¡B¡u¤ä«ù«×¡v»P¡u¤ä«ù²v¡vªºÃö«Yµ¥¦]¯À¡A³£·|¼vÅT¦³Ãö¤ÀªR¡A¥»Äæ¤é«á·|Ä~Äò°Q½×¡C (ªìª©¡G2006¦~8¤ë29¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: We discussed the concepts of "ideal" and "successful" support rate in our releases of July 25 and August 8, 2006 respectively. We pointed out that if support rate figures can be converted into real votes, then support rates over 67% or two-thirds majority can be taken as "ideal", while support rates over 50% or simple majority can be taken as "successful". Conversely, disapproval rate over 50% and 67% can be considered respectively as "very bad" and "extremely bad" benchmarks of popularity. To contrast them with "ideal" and "successful" support rates, we may describe them as "disastrous" and "depressing". Of course, the factor of statistical coincidence, the meaning of "abstention", and the connections between "support ratings" and "support rates", are also important factors to be considered. We will discuss them here in future. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 29 August 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G°£¤F¡u²z·Q¡v¡B¡u¦¨¥\¡v¡B¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v©M¡u©å¦H¡v¥~¡AÁÙ¦³¤°»ò¥Á±æ°ò·Ç¡H
Q: Are there other benchmarks of popularity other than "ideal" and "successful", "depressing" and "disastrous"?

µª¡G¥»Äæ¦b2006¦~7¤ë25¤é¡B8¤ë8¤é©M8¤ë29¤éªº¤½³ø¤¤°Q½×¤F¥H¤W¥|­Ó°ò·Ç¡A¦b¦¹¤£ÂØ¡C¤µ¦^°Q½×ªº¡A¬O­Õ­Y¦³©x­ûªø´Á¤£³QÉ]¥Á»{ÃÑ¡A¥Á·N¤ä«ù²v©M½}§K²v¦X­p°_¨Ó³£§C©ó50¢H¡A¥ç§Y¬O»¡¥H¤W¥|­Ó°ò·ÇµL¤@¹F¨ì¡A¥L¬OÄÝ©ó«ç»ò¼Ëªº©x­û¡C®Ú¾Ú§Ú­Ì¥H¥Á·N¤ä«ù²v¤Æ¦¨¿ï²¼ªº±À²z¡A¦b¤£¤Ö¾Ë¨î¤¤¡A§C©ó50¢H§ë²¼²vªº¥þ¥Áªí¨M·|³Qµø¬°ªí¨MµL®Ä¡C¥H¦¹±À²z¡A¦b¥Á±æ½Õ¬d¤¤¡A¦pªG¬Y©x­ûªº¡u±óÅv¡v¡B¡u¤£ª¾¹D¡vµ¥¤ñ²v¦X­p¶W¹L50¢H¡A«h¤£½×¥Lªº¡u¤ä«ù¡v»P¡u½}§K¡v¤ñ²v¦p¦ó¤À§G¡A¥L³£¬O¤@­Ó¡u¤£Åã±oºÙ¾¡vªº©x­û¡C (ªìª©¡G2006¦~9¤ë12¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: We discussed the concepts of these four benchmarks in our releases of July 25, August 8 and 29, 2006, so they are not repeated here. Today's discussion is how to benchmark some officials' performance if they are not known by the people over a long period of time, meaning that the summation of their popularity support and disapproval rates is lower than 50%, and none of the 4 benchmarks has ever been achieved. According to our reasoning regarding the conversion of support rate figures into real votes, in many constitutions, less than 50% turnout in a referendum would make it invalid. We therefore deduce that if the total proportion of an official's "abstention" or "don't know" rates exceeds 50% in an opinion survey, then whatever the distribution of his/her "support" versus "disapproval" rates, he/she is not seen to be a capable official. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 12 September 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¬F©²©x­ûªº¥Á±æ¤ä«ù²v¥i¥Î¡u²z·Q¡v¡B¡u¦¨¥\¡v¡B¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v¡B¡u©å¦H¡v©M¡u¤£¹ü¡v§@¬°°ò·Ç¡A¬F©²ªº¾ãÅé¥Á±æ¥i§_¥Î³o®M°ò·Ç´y­z¡H
Q: In describing the support rates of government officials, there are benchmarks like "ideal", "successful", "depressing", "disastrous" and "inconspicuous". Are there similar benchmarks for describing a government's popularity?

µª¡G¥»Äæ¦b2006¦~7¤ë25¤é¡B8¤ë8¤é¡B8¤ë29¤é©M9¤ë12¤éªº¤½³ø¤¤°Q½×¤F¥H¤W¤­­Ó¥Á±æ°ò·Ç¡A¤£¹L³£¬O¥H¬F©²©x­ûªº¥Á±æ¬°°ò¦¡A©M¥H¥Á·N¤ä«ù²v¤Æ¬°¿ï²¼¤ñ²v§@¬°±À²z¡C¬F©²¥Á±æ½Õ¬d¤è­±¡A¦pªG±Ä¥Îªº´£°Ý¬°¡u°²³]©ú¤Ñ¶i¦æ¥þ¥Á§ë²¼¡Aªí¨M²{¥ô¬F©²À³§_Ä~Äò°õ¬F¡A§A·|¦p¦ó§ë²¼¡H¡v«h©Î¥i²£¥Í¦P¼Ë¥\®Ä¡C¤£¹L¡A¥Á¬ã­p¹º²{®É±Ä¥Îªº´£°Ý¤èªk¬O¡u§A¹ï¬F©²¾ãÅéªí²{¬O§_º¡·N¡v¡A¦Óµª®×¥ç¤À¤­µ¥¡C³oºØ´£°Ý¤ñ¸û®e©ö´x´¤É]¥Áªº¤@¯ë·Pı¡A¦ý´NÃø©ó±À½×¬F©²À³§_­Ë¥x¡A¤W­z¤­¶µ¥Á±æ°ò·Ç¥ç¤£©öÀ³¥Î¡C¤£¹L¡A§Ú­Ì¥i¥H¤jÁx°²³]¡A¦pªG¯S°Ï­ºªøªº¥Á±æªø´Á³B©ó¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v¡B¡u©å¦H¡v©Î¡u¤£¹ü¡vªºª¬ºA¡AÉ]¥Á§ó´«¬F©²ªº¶D¨D¡A´N·|¤£¨¥¦Ó³ë¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~9¤ë26¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: We discussed the concepts of these five benchmarks in our releases of July 25, August 8 and 29, and September 12, 2006, but they are related to the popularity figures of government officials, and they are all derived from our logic of converting support rate figures into actual votes. In mapping the popularity of a government, if we use questions like "Assuming there is a referendum tomorrow to decide whether the government should remain in power, how would you vote?", we may well come up with similar benchmarks. However, the wordings used by HKUPOP in gauging government popularity is "Are you satisfied with the overall performance of the government?" and we use a 5-point scale to register the answers. We manage to grasp people's feeling better using this question, but it makes it difficult to project whether a government should be removed. The five benchmarks we discussed become inapplicable. Nevertheless, we may boldly assume that if the popularity of our supreme leader remains to be "depressing", "disastrous" or "inconspicuous" for a long time, it will go unspoken that people wants the government to be removed. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 26 September 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G¥H¥Á·N¤ä«ù²v­p¡A¦b³Ì·s½Õ¬d¤¤¡A¯S­º©M¦U°Ý³d©x­ûªº¥Á±æ¥i¥H¥Î¤°»ò°ò·Ç¨Ó§Î®e¡H
Q: In HKUPOP's latest survey, judging from government officials' support rates alone, how can we describe the popularity of the CE and the principal officials using various benchmarks?

µª¡GÃö©ó©x­û¥Á±æ°ò·Çªº°ÝÃD¡A¥»Äæ¦b2006¦~7¤ë25¤é¡B8¤ë8¤é¡B8¤ë29¤é¡B9¤ë12¤é©M9¤ë26¤é¤w¸g°Q½×¤F¤­­Ó°ò·Ç¡A¥]¬A¡u²z·Q¡v¡B¡u¦¨¥\¡v¡B¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v¡B¡u©å¦H¡v©M¡u¤£¹ü¡v¡A¦b¦¹¤£ÂØ¡C¤µ¤é°Q½×ªº¡A¬O¦p¦ó§â¥H¤W°ò·ÇÀ³¥Î¦b³Ì·sªº½Õ¬d¤W¡C¼Æ¾ÚÅã¥Ü¡A¦b10¤ëªì¡A«O¦w§½§½ªø§õ¤Ö¥úªº¤ä«ù²v¶W¹L66¢H¡AÄÝ©óªí²{¡u²z·Q¡v¡F«ß¬F¥q¥qªø¶À¤¯Às¡B¯S­º´¿½®Åv¡B°]¬F¥q¥qªø­ð­^¦~¡B¤ÎÀô¹Ò¹B¿é¤Î¤u°È§½§½ªø¹ù¨q¥Vªº¤ä«ù²v¶W¹L50¢H¡AÄÝ©óªí²{¡u¦¨¥\¡v¡F¤½°È­û¨Æ°È§½§½ªø«\©v©É¡B¤u°Ó¤Î¬ì§Þ§½§½ªø¤ý¥Ã¥­¡B¤Î¬F°È¥q¥qªø³\¥K¤¯ªº¤ä«ù©M¤Ï¹ï²v¦X­p¤£¨¬50¢H¡AÄÝ©óªí²{¡u¤£¹ü¡v¡F¨ä¾l©x­ûªºªí²{¤¶¥G¡u¦¨¥\¡v»P¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v¤§¶¡¡AÄÝ©óªí²{¡u¤@¯ë¡v¡A¥]¬A¸gÀÙµo®i¤Î³Ò¤u§½§½ªø¸­æ@ûi¡B½Ã¥ÍºÖ§Q¤Î­¹ª«§½§½ªø©P¤@À®¡B±Ð¨|²ÎÄw§½§½ªø§õ°ê³¹¡B°]¸g¨Æ°È¤Î®w°È§½§½ªø°¨®É¦ë¡B¥Á¬F¨Æ°È§½§½ªø¦ó§Ó¥­¡B©Ð«Î¤Î³W¹º¦a¬F§½§½ªø®]©ú´­¡B¤Î¬F¨î¨Æ°È§½§½ªøªL·çÅï¡C¥H10¤ëªì­p¡A¨S¦³©x­ûªºªí²{ÄÝ©ó¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v©ÎªÌ¡u©å¦H¡v¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~10¤ë10¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: In our press releases of July 25, August 8 and 29, September 12 and 26, 2006, we discussed five benchmarks of popularity, namely, "ideal", "successful", "depressing", "disastrous" and "inconspicuous". We will not repeat the discussion here, but we will apply them to our latest survey findings. In early October, the support rate of Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee exceeds 66%, his performance can be labeled as "ideal". The support rates of SJ Wong Yan-lung, CE Donald Tsang, FS Henry Tang and Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works Sarah Liao all exceed 50%, their performance can be labeled as "successful". The combined support and disapproval rates of Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue, Secretary for the Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong and CS Rafael Hui do not reach 50%, their performance can be labeled as "inconspicuous". The performance of all other officials range between "successful" and "depressing", they can be labeled as just "mediocre". They include Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip, Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food York Chow, Secretary for Education and Manpower Arthur Li, Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Frederick Ma, Secretary for Home Affairs Patrick Ho, Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen, and Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam. In early October, no official falls under the categories of "depressing" or "disastrous". (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 10 October 2006)
¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡Gªñ¤é³ø³¹ªºµû½×ª©¦³¦h½g¤å³¹½×¤Î¥Á·N©M¥Á½Õªº§@¥Î¡A¥Á¬ã­p¹º¦³§_¦^À³¡H
Q: There are a number of column articles recently, on the functions of polls and public opinion. Does HKUPOP have any comment?
µª¡G¥Á¬ã­p¹ºª`·N¨ìªñ¤é°_½X¦³¤­½gµû½×¤å³¹°Q½×¤W­z¥DÃD¡A¤À§O¦³¤ý®a­^¡G¡q¯S­º¥Á±æªº¬Fªv¾Ç¡r¡A¡m·s³ø¡n¡A11¤ë4¤é¡F´¿à±¦¨¡G¡q¥Á·N¦ó¨Ó¡H¥Á½Õ¦ó¥Î¡H¥Á±æ¦ó»ù¡H¡r¡A¡m©ú³ø¡n¡A11¤ë6¤é¡F§E­YÁ¨¡G¡q´¿½®Åv¤£¦A©t¿W¡r¡A¡m©ú³ø¡n11¤ë7¤é¡F¤ý®a­^¡G¡qªi°Êªº¥Á·N»P¶Ý¦åªº¬Fªv¡r¡A¡m·s³ø¡n¡A11¤ë11¤é¡F©M´¿à±¦¨¡G¡q¿ïÁ|¡B¥Á±æ»P¬I¬F¡r¡A¡m©ú³ø¡n¡A11¤ë13¤é¡C¥Ñ©ó¦³Ãö¤å³¹¥u¬O°Q½×¦UÃþ¥Á·N½Õ¬dªº§@¥Î¡A¦Ó¥¼¦³½èºÃ¥Á¬ã­p¹ºªº±M·~¤ô¥­©M¾Þ¦u¡A¥Á¬ã­p¹º»{¬°¨S¦³¦^À³ªº¥²­n¡C¥Á¬ã­p¹ºÅwªï§ó¦h¾ÇªÌ±M®a°Ñ»P°Q½×¡A¶°«ä¼s¯q¡C¥Á¬ã­p¹º§Æ±æ¦³Ãö¤H¤h¦b°Q½×¦³Ãö°ÝÃD®É¡A·|¦P®ÉÃöª`­»´äªÀ·|¯Ê¥F¥Á·N¬ã¨sªº±M·~¦u«h¡A¥H¦Ü¤£¤Ö¹ÎÅé©M¶Ç´C¦bµo©ñ©M³ø¾É¦³Ãö½Õ¬d®É¡A¨S¦³°Ï¤À½Õ¬dªºÀu¦H¡C§ó¦³¬ÆªÌ¡A¤£¤Ö¤H¤h¦b§åµû¥Á·N½Õ¬d¤§®É¡A¤S¦P®É°Ñ»P©Î¹ªÀy¤£±M·~¤£¬ì¾Çªº¥Á·N½Õ¬d¡A¨Ò¦p­µÀW¤¬°Ê½Õ¬d©MÀH·N¦¡ªºµóÀY³X°Ý¡A¦Ó¤S©Úµ´µoªí©Ò¿×½Õ¬dªº¸Ô²Ó³ø§i¡C¨Æ¹ê¤W¡A¦b¹q¸£ºôµ¸µo¹Fªº¤µ¤Ñ¡A¥u­n¦b¤¬Ápºô¤Wµy§@·j¬d¡A«K¤£Ãøµo²{¥@¬É¦U¦aªº¥Á·N¬ã¨s±M·~¦u«h¡C²¤¬°¤@Ū¡A«K¥iª¾¹D¶Ç´C©M½Õ¬d¾÷ºcªº±M·~³d¥ô¡A§Y®É©M©w´Á¥Á·N½Õ¬dªº¥\¯à©M§½­­µ¥¡C¥Á¬ã­p¹º¦b¦¹¦VŪªÌ±ÀÂË¥H¤Uºô§}¡AÂ×´I°Q½×¡G 

A: We notice that there are at least five newspaper column articles recently on the above-mentioned topic, written separately by Timothy Wong, Jasper Tsang and Audrey Eu, between November 4 and 13. Because those articles contain no criticism on the professional standards and ethics of HKUPOP, we do not see the need to respond to them. We actually welcome more experts and scholars to join the discussion. We also hope during such discussions, attention would also be drawn to the lack of professional standards for public opinion research in Hong Kong. As a result, the media and the research organizations often neglect the distinction between professional and unprofessional polls in their dissemination and reporting. What is more, quite a number of those who criticizes opinion polls themselves produce or encourage sub-standard polls, like IVR polls and casual street polls, and refuse to disclose methodological details of such polls. As a matter of fact, with the proliferation of the internet these days, it is so easy to search and find professional standards for opinion polling around the world. A quick glance through them would easily show us the responsibility of the media and the researchers, as well as the functions and limitations of instant and tracking polls. HKUPOP hereby recommends the following websites to the reader, in order to enrich the discussion - 

(First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 14 November 2006)

¡@ ¡@
°Ý¡G ¥Á¬ã­p¹º·|§_¦Ò¼{±N´¼®w²Õ´¤Î½×¬F¹ÎÅé¯Ç¤J½Õ¬d¤§¦C¡H
Q: Would HKUPOP consider including think tanks and political forums into the survey?


µª¡G ­»´ä¨S¦³¬FÄÒªk¡A½×¬F©M°Ñ¬F¹ÎÅ饼¥²®e©ö¤À¿ë¡C¦Ü©ó´¼®w²Õ´¡A¦³®É¤S»P½×¬F¹ÎÅé©M§Q¯q¹ÎÅé¤À¤£¶}¡C¦]¦¹¡A¥Á¬ã­p¹º¥u·|«ö·Ó¥Ø«eªº½Õ¬d¤èªk¡A¥HÉ]¥Á¥Î³Ì¼s¸q¤èªk¬É©wªº¬Fªv¹ÎÅ鬰¥D¶b¡A¶i¦æ¬Fªv¹ÎÅéµû¤À½Õ¬d¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~11¤ë30¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A: Political parties are not legally entities in Hong Kong, it may not be easy to distinguish political forums from political parties. Likewise, it may not be easy to distinguish think tanks from political forums or interest groups. We will therefore continue our current practice of using the widest definition adopted by the people themselves, in order to measure the popularity rating of different political groups. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 30 November 2006)
¡@ ¡@