政府民望:常見問題
Popularity of the Government: FAQs

 
   
下列常見問答會隨著社會變化和大眾需要而不斷更新
The content of this FAQ page will be updated from time to time to match societal changes and community needs
   
常見問題 Frequently asked Questions
   
問:「支持度」和「支持率」有什麼分別?
Q: What is the difference between "support ratings" and "support rates"?
   
問:為什麼這份新聞公報中沒有問責局長的支持率?
Q: Why is there no support rate for any Director of Bureau in this press release?
   
問: 為什麼特首和問責官員的支持率採用不同提問方式?
Q: Why are we using different wordings to measure the support rates of CE and the principal officials?
   
問:為什麼民研計劃不同時進行問責局長的支持率和支持度調查?
Q: Why is POP not releasing support ratings and support rates of Directors of Bureau at the same time?
   
問:有沒有「成功」的支持率?
Q: Is there a "successful" support rate?
   
問:以民意支持率計,在最新調查中,特首和各問責官員的民望可以用什麼基準來形容?
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?
   
常見問題與答案 Frequently asked Questions with Answers
   
問:「支持度」和「支持率」有什麼分別?
Q: What is the difference between "support ratings" and "support rates"?

答:「支持度」的單位是0分至100分,顯示一般巿民對支持某某人士或團體的好感程度。「支持率」的單位是0%至100%,代表幾多巿民支持某某人士或政黨。某某人士可能表現平平,得分僅僅合格,但在蜀中無大將的情況下,可能差不多所有巿民都支持他執行某個要職。相反,某某人士可能人品不錯,得分尚可,但因為不是領袖人材,所以巿民都反對他出任某個要職。(初版:2006年1月10日新聞公報之附加資料)
A: "Support ratings" are expressed on a 0-100 scale, it shows how good or bad people feel about certain public figures or organizations. "Support rates" are expressed in terms of 0% - 100%, indicating the proportion of people supporting certain public figures or political groups. A person may have a mediocre support rating, but he may be considered by most people as the best person suited to a job, simply because there is no better people around. Likewise, a person may have an acceptable rating, but because he lacks leadership, nobody wants him to take up a certain job. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 10 January 2006)

   
問:為什麼這份新聞公報中沒有問責局長的支持率?
Q: Why is there no support rate for any Director of Bureau in this press release?

答:2006年開始,我們會隔月公佈問責局長的支持度和支持率,以免混亂,但特首和司長的支持度和支持率則會同時公佈。(初版:2006年1月10日新聞公報之附加資料)
A
In order to avoid confusion, we have decided to release support ratings and support rates of the Directors of Bureaux in alternative months, but we will continue to release support ratings and support rates of the CE and the Secretaries of Departments in parallel. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 10 January 2006)

   
問: 為什麼特首和問責官員的支持率採用不同提問方式?
Q: Why are we using different wordings to measure the support rates of CE and the principal officials?

答: 「支持率」和「認許率」都只是概括用詞,讀者適宜參閱網站內問卷全文。特首支持率的提問方式為──「假設明天選舉特首,而你又有權投票,你會唔會選曾蔭權做特首?」問責官員支持率的提問方式為──「假設明天你有權投票決定續任或者罷免某某官員,你會投續任、罷免、定棄權票?」簡而言之,問卷設計是要盡量劃一概念而又要符合實際需要。(初版:2006年2月9日新聞公報之附加資料)
A
"Support rate", "approval rate" and "vote of confidence/dismissal" used in this release are just a general expressions. One should always look at the exact wordings used in the questionnaire. To measure the support rate of the CE, we used this question -- "If a general election of the Chief Executive were to be held tomorrow, and you had the right to vote, would you vote for Donald Tsang Yam-kuen?" To measure the support rate of the principal officials, we used this question -- "If you had the right to vote on the reappointment or dismissal of a certain official tomorrow, how would you vote?" Put it in simple terms, we have tried our best to use the same concept modified to suit different situations. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 9 February 2006)

   
問:為什麼民研計劃不同時進行問責局長的支持率和支持度調查?
Q: Why is POP not releasing support ratings and support rates of Directors of Bureau at the same time?

答:自從主要官員問責制實行開始,民研計劃便就有關官員的民望進行定期調查。初時設計主要以支持度評分為主,支持率評價為次,其他指標則作為附加參考。隨著民主發展,投票意識增加,我們在2006年開始,正式把問責官員的支持度和支持率調查調整至相同比例。特首的支持度和支持率每月調查和公佈兩次,司長的支持度和支持率每月調查和公佈一次,而局長的支持度和支持率則分開單月及雙月調查和公佈一次。(初版:2006年3月14日新聞公報之附加資料)
A
Since the accountability system started, POP has closely monitored the popularity of the Principal Officials using regular surveys. At first, we mainly used rating questions, supplemented by support rate questions. Other indicators were also used, mainly for additional analysis. However, parallel to the development of democracy on the whole and people’s sense of voting in particular, starting from 2006, we have adjusted the importance of support rating and support rate questions to the ratio of 1:1. CE support ratings and support rates are now conducted and released twice a month, those of Secretaries of Departments once a month, and those of Directors of Bureaux separately in odd and even months respectively. (First release: Supplementary section of our press release of 14 March 2006)

   
問:有沒有「成功」的支持率?
Q: Is there a "successful" support rate?

答:本欄在2006年7月25日的公報中討論了「理想」支持率的問題,指出如果民意支持率可以直接化成選票,則三分之二絕對支持率,即67%,應可視為一般憲制要求的最高標準。退而求其次,半數以上的絕對支持率,即50%以上,如果可以化成選票,都會在一般選舉制度中勝出。因此,51%的支持率可以視為「成功」的民望基準。以民研計劃今日發表的數字而論,只有李少光的民望達到「理想」,曾蔭權、鬗素s、廖秀冬和葉澍i的民望屬於「成功」而未及「理想」。當然,統計上的偶然結果、「棄權」意見的作用、「支持度」與「支持率」的關係等因素,都會影響有關分析,本欄日後會繼續討論。(初版:2006年8月8日新聞公報之附加資料)
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)

   
問:以民意支持率計,在最新調查中,特首和各問責官員的民望可以用什麼基準來形容?
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?

答:關於官員民望基準的問題,本欄在2006年7月25日、8月8日、8月29日、9月12日和9月26日已經討論了五個基準,包括「理想」、「成功」、「失敗」、「拙劣」和「不彰」,在此不贅。今日討論的,是如何把以上基準應用在最新的調查上。數據顯示,在10月初,保安局局長李少光的支持率超過66%,屬於表現「理想」;律政司司長黃仁龍、特首曾蔭權、財政司司長唐英年、及環境運輸及工務局局長廖秀冬的支持率超過50%,屬於表現「成功」;公務員事務局局長俞宗怡、工商及科技局局長王永平、及政務司司長許仕仁的支持和反對率合計不足50%,屬於表現「不彰」;其餘官員的表現介乎「成功」與「失敗」之間,屬於表現「一般」,包括經濟發展及勞工局局長葉澍i、衛生福利及食物局局長周一嶽、教育統籌局局長李國章、財經事務及庫務局局長馬時亨、民政事務局局長何志平、房屋及規劃地政局局長孫明揚、及政制事務局局長林瑞麟。以10月初計,沒有官員的表現屬於「失敗」或者「拙劣」。(初版:2006年10月10日新聞公報之附加資料)
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)

   


本網站內一切內容與香港大學立場無關。民意專欄內的文章及民意平台內的言論及法律責任由作者自負,其餘內容則由民意研究計劃總監鍾庭耀博士負責。網站所載資料,包括問卷提問方式及各份研究報告,除非特別註明,知識產權皆由香港大學民意研究計劃擁有後,透過本網站向外全面開放。各界人士使用有關資料時,敬請註明出處。

香港大學民意研究計劃版權所有。 本網站由[email protected] 製作。最後更新 : 31/12/2009