untitled by Civic Exchange

Civic Exchange Opinion Survey Prepared for Civic Exchange 26 June 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Table Of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES ......................................... 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 6 1.1. SURVEY BACKGROUND........................................................................................ 6 1.2. SURVEY OBJECTIVE.............................................................................................. 6 1.3. SURVEY METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 7 VOTING INCLINATION ......................................................................................... 9 1.4. VOTER REGISTRATION ......................................................................................... 9 1.5. INTENTION OF VOTING IN THE COMING LEGCO ELECTION.......................... 11 2. GENERAL OUTLOOK OF HONG KONG ........................................................ 14 1.

UNAIDED COMMENTS ON THE SCNPC DECISION ......................................... 17 3.1. AWARENESS OF THE DECISION........................................................................ 17 3.2. FAMILIARITY OF THE DECISION ........................................................................ 18 3.3. CONCERN LEVEL WITH THE DECISION ............................................................ 18 3.4. RECEIVED MESSAGES ........................................................................................ 20 3.5. AWARENESS, FAMILIARITY AND CONCERN LEVEL BREAK DOWN ............ 21 4. PROMPTED VIEWS .................................................................................... 23 4.1. VIEWS TO THE PAIRED STATEMENTS.............................................................. 23 4.2. AGREEMENT OF THE STATEMENTS BY OVERALL ATTITUDES ................... 26 4.3. INFORMED & CONCERNED RESPONDENTS AND THEIR INCLINATION OF THE STATEMENTS............................................................................................................. 30 4.4. CONCERN LEVEL AFTER DESCRIPTION OF THE DECISION ......................... 35 5. CHANGE IN CONFIDENCE LEVEL................................................................ 37 3.

CONSULTATION METHOD .......................................................................... 41 6.1. REACHING OF OPINIONS .................................................................................... 41 6.2. SATISFACTION WITH THE CONSULTATION METHOD .................................... 42 7. ONE THING AND ONE MESSAGE ................................................................ 43 7.1. ONE THING TO DO TO GAIN PEOPLE’S HEARTS AND MINDS....................... 43 7.2. ONE MESSAGE TO GET ACROSS ...................................................................... 44 APPENDIX – DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION, QUESTIONNAIRE AND VERBATIM TO Q19................................................................................................................. 45 6.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION .......................................................................... 46 QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................................. 47 VERBATIM TO Q19 ........................................................................................... 67

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES

1. Background of survey •

The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (SCNPC) made a decision on 26 April 2004 regarding Hong Kong’s constitutional development. The key part of the decision was: For the election of the 3rd Chief Executive in 2007, and for the election of the 4th LegCo in 2008, the method of universal suffrage shall not be applied. In the case of LegCo’s election in 2008, the half by half ratio of members from functional constituencies and geographical constituencies shall remain unchanged. The procedures for voting on bills and motions in LegCo shall remain unchanged.

•

The survey aimed at assessing Hong Kong people’s awareness and reaction towards the decision.

The key findings are: 2. A divided society •

•

JUNE 2004

In general, every four in ten respondents thought that Hong Kong was heading in the ‘right direction’ while five in ten considered Hong Kong to be on the ‘wrong track’, with one in ten not knowing where Hong Kong was heading. The state of the economy was the key trigger for these responses. Other than this, those who thought Hong Kong was heading in the ‘right’ direction based their reasons on feelings “stability” while those who felt Hong Kong was heading in the ‘wrong’ direction based their reasons on political issues. In many instances, the same message was viewed quite differently by the respondents, which reflected a contradictory and divided mindset of Hong Kong people as a whole on this issue. Respondents reacted to ten pairs of statements picked from press reports that represented the main issues of the debate on the SCNPC decision. Views are divided on various issues related to the SCNPC decision, including: “Would universal suffrage in 2007-08 cause instability?”; “should the SCNPC have ruled out the universal suffrage in 2007-08?”, “would the decision ensure Hong Kong’s long term

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

•

• •

stability and prosperity or harm it?”, and “should a timetable be set for universal suffrage?”. Those who had a positive view on the SCNPC decision thought it was an indication that “the Central People’s Government care[d] about Hong Kong”. Those who felt that the decision was negative viewed the decision as controlling and interference. On the issues of ‘Democracy’, ‘One Country, Two Systems’, and social stability the respondents’ opinions were also divided. Those who considered Hong Kong to be on the ‘right track’ tended to see positive effects arising from the SCNPC decision. Those who were less optimistic towards Hong Kong were more likely to perceive negative effects arising from the decision.

3. A politically mature society •

•

• •

Four out of five respondents were registered voters and seven out of eight of these registered voters said that they were likely to vote in the coming Legislative Council (LegCo) Election in order to fulfil their civic responsibility. Regardless of the respondent’s degree of awareness and familiarity with the SCNPC decision, two-thirds of respondents said they were concerned by it. Those who were more concerned by the SCNPC decision showed greater likelihood to vote in the coming LegCo election. Those who were not registered voters (20% of the total respondents), a lack of interest in politics and time were the main reasons for not having registered.

4. Overall negative reactions towards the SCNPC decision •

•

JUNE 2004

Three-quarters of respondents had heard of the SCNPC decision although more than half of them said they were not familiar with the details of the decision. Regardless of the degree of awareness and familiarity with the decision, two-thirds of the respondents were concerned with it because the decision would exert various effects on society. Many respondents also felt the decision was personally relevant to them. A lack of interest and the perceived inability to change the current situation appeared to be the two main reasons why some respondents were ‘not concerned’ with the decision.

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

•

Out of those who could articulate what the messages they understood from the SCNPC decision, respondents received many more negative messages (64% of the total mentioned messages) than positive ones (36% of the total). More of those who perceived the SCNPC’s decision as harmful also considered Hong Kong to be on the ‘wrong’ track. They also perceived greater negative effects from the decision on various social, economical and political aspects of Hong Kong. No matter whether their response was positive or negative, the majority of the respondents still considered the SCNPC decision was more harmful to Hong Kong than not.

5. Confidence drop after the SCNPC decision •

• •

Among Hong Kong people, the SCNPC decision was more likely to cause confidence to decline regarding whether the Basic Law could protect the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle. The younger the respondents the greater the decline in their level of confidence in the effectiveness of the Basic Law. The drop in confidence was driven mostly by the frustration arising from the ineffectiveness of the HKSAR Government under the leadership of CH Tung as well as the LegCo to do much about improving Hong Kong’s situation.

6. Useless to be concerned •

•

After prompting the respondents about the SCNPC decision, a section of the decision was read out to the respondents. They were then asked again how concerned they were with the decision after having had the section read out to them. Fewer respondents (57%) expressed concern about the decision immediately after hearing the decision. The level of concern was 65% before hearing the excerpt. However, those who thought being concerned was useless because one “cannot change the situation and so must accept it” increased.

7. Unrepresented and neglected voice •

JUNE 2004

More than four out of ten respondents believed that none of the influential groups that exist in society could represent their opinions.

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

•

The majority of Hong Kong people felt their opinions had neither been heard before the SCNPC made its decision nor were reflected in the decision. They were also dissatisfied with the consultation method that the HKSAR Government and SCNPC used in gathering public opinion regarding constitutional development.

8. Three things people are longing for •

• •

There were three things the respondents longed for: that the Government (i) improve the economy and quality of life; (ii) give universal suffrage to Hong Kong people to elect their chief executive and LegCo members; and (iii) genuinely deal with public opinions. To win the ‘hearts and minds’ of Hong Kong people (60%+), the above three wishes need to be satisfied. The respondents looked to CH Tung and the Central People’s Government to satisfy their major wishes.

9. One strong message •

“LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE”. This is the strongest request that respondents want to communicate to the HKSAR Government and the Central People’s Government regarding the SCNPC decision.

10. Survey observations • • • •

JUNE 2004

Heal society by “LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE”. Bridge the gap between the decision-makers and the people by respecting people’s opinions. Deal with people’s concerns and preferences by acknowledging them rather than neglecting or overlooking them. Win people’s minds by winning their hearts.

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

INTRODUCTION

1.1.

SURVEY BACKGROUND

6 April 2004 and 26 April 2004 are two important dates in Hong Kong’s constitutional history. On 6 April, the Standing Committee of the National People Congress (SCNPC) stated publicly its interpretation of provisions of the Basic Law regarding Constitutional Development in Hong Kong. On 26 April, the SCNPC provided a further decision based on the interpretation. This was: For the election of the 3rd Chief Executive in 2007, and for the election of the 4th LegCo in 2008, the method of universal suffrage shall not be applied. In the case of LegCo’s election in 2008, the half by half ratio of members from functional constituencies and geographical constituencies shall remain unchanged. The procedures for voting on bills and motions in LegCo shall remain unchanged. Since then, there have been many differing voices about the decision and its possible longer-term implications to Hong Kong’s constitutional development. These voices reflect a deep division within the Hong Kong society. Under such a political climate, Civic Exchange, a non-profit think tank, wanted to evaluate the impact of the SCNPC decision on Hong Kong and how the decision may have affected the attitudes of Hong Kong people.

1.2.

SURVEY OBJECTIVE

The survey aimed at answering the following questions: ‧ How did Hong Kong people view the SCNPC’s most recent decision on Hong Kong’s constitutional development? ‧ How familiar were they with the decision? ‧ How concerned were they with the decision and why? ‧ What messages did they receive from the decision? ‧ Would their level of concern change if they were better informed and why? ‧ Would their confidence level change towards the “One Country, Two Systems” principle? ‧ Would their confidence level change towards those whom they regarded as responsible for defending “One Country, Two Systems”? ‧ Did they feel they had been heard by SCNPC before the decision?

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

‧ Did they feel that their opinions were respected by SCNPC before the decision? ‧ Were they satisfied with the way the HKSAR and SCNPC collected opinions from Hong Kong people? ‧ Who could represent Hong Kong people’s opinions? ‧ To what extent did business leaders and pro-democracy politicians represent Hong Kong people’s opinions? ‧ What has to be done (and by whom) to gain Hong Kong people’s hearts and minds?

1.3.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The questions asked were developed by Wirthlin Worldwide Asia together with Civic Exchange. Data was collected by telephone interviews in the period from 22 May 2004 to 31 May 2004. A total of 1,000 adults aged 18 – 65 living in Hong Kong were randomly selected to participate in the survey. First, the respondent households were randomly selected from an online database containing 90% of all household telephone numbers in Hong Kong. From this list, those who were 18 to 65 years old on their next birthday were selected. Qualified respondents were permanent residents of Hong Kong. In cases where the qualified respondents were not available when called, four more attempts were made at different times and on other days. Interviewers were briefed thoroughly on the background and objectives of the study. Twenty pilot interviews were completed and the survey was fine-tuned before the actual data collection began. The average time to complete one interview was about 20 minutes. To ensure the quality of the data collected, 20% of the total completed interviews were validated.

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

DETAILED FINDINGS

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

VOTING INCLINATION

Key findings for this section: Four out of five respondents were registered voters and seven out of eight of these registered voters said that they were likely to vote in the coming Legislative Council (LegCo) Election in order to fulfil their civic responsibility. Of those who were not registered voters, a lack of interest in politics and time were the main reasons for not registering to vote.

1.4.

VOTER REGISTRATION

Qualified respondents were asked if they were registered voters eligible to vote in the coming LegCo Election. Four out of five were registered voters (Chart 1). The incidence of voter registration increases with age and education level (Table 1). Chart 1: incidence of Registered Voters

Nonregistered voters 21%

Registered voters 79%

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Table 1. Registration Rate by Age and Education Level Registered (%)

Non-registered (%)

62% 77% 81% 84% 87%

38% 23% 19% 16% 13%

75% 77% 85%

25% 23% 15%

Age 18-24 years old 25-34 years old 35-44 years old 45-54 years old 55-65 years old Education Level F3 or below F4 – F7 University or above

For those who were not registered voters (n=212), 36% did not give any specific reasons for not having registered to vote. The remaining 64% of the non-registered voters cited “no interest in politics” as the main reason for not registering (27% of those who gave a reason), followed by “no time” to register (19%), then “no one was worthy of my vote” (10%). (Chart 2) Chart 2: Reasons for Not Having Registered to Vote 27%

Not interested in politics 19%

No time 10%

No one worth my voting I just reach 18 years

Voting is no use

None

36% 0

15 20 25 % of Respondents

Among all registered voters (n=788), 4% of them were also Functional Constituency (FC) Voters. One quarter of the FC Voters belonged to the Educational Sector. (Chart 3)

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Chart 3: Incidence of Being a Functional Constituency Voter

Education (24%)

Don't Know 7%

Health Services (15%) Medical (12%) Legal (9%) Social Welfare (6%)

No 89%

Labour (6%)

Yes 4%

Real Estate And Construction (6%) Industrial First (6%)

1.5.

INTENTION OF VOTING IN THE COMING LEGCO ELECTION

Three-quarters of respondents said that they would definitely cast their votes in the coming LegCo Election, and a further 13% said they would probably vote. This means 85% of all registered voters said they intend to vote in the coming LegCo Election. While it is too early to estimate the voter turnout rate for the election on 12 September 2004, the results of this survey indicate that it could be higher than the 44% turnout rate in the 2003 District Council Election. However, those aged 18 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 24 are less likely to vote. Only 57% indicated that they would definitely vote in the coming LegCo Election. (Chart 4)

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Chart 4: Likelihood to Vote In The September LegCo Election Total

6 2 7

Male

51 6

13 12

Female

6 4

18 - 24

6 4

25 - 34

7 3

35 - 44

33 6

45 - 54 55 - 64

8 24 5 0 10

75 68

57 70

12 13

74 % of Respondents

Definitely not

Probably not

Not sure

Probably

Certainly

The main reason respondents cited as why they would vote was to fulfill their “civic responsibility” and to exercise their “civic rights” (74%) The next most popular reason was that the respondents hoped to “elect the one I want” (16%). This indicates that Hong Kong people do a have mature and rational attitude towards election. (Chart 5) Chart 5: Reasons For Positive Intention To Vote

70%

Civic responsibilities 16%

Elect the one I want 5%

Used to Civic rights

Don't know

None

3% 0

JUNE 2004

30 40 50 % of Respondents

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Those who said they would probably not vote or definitely not vote (n=64) were mainly dissatisfied with the incumbent Councilors. One in five said that they were dissatisfied with the Councilorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance and another one in five said that the Councilors could not reflect their opinion. (Chart 6) Chart 6: Reasons for Negative Intention to Vote Not satisfied with Councilors' performance

20% 19%

Cannot reflect my opinion Voting is useless

13%

Not related to me

13%

Don't know

10%

None

9% 0

JUNE 2004

10 15 % of Respondents

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

2. GENERAL OUTLOOK OF HONG KONG

Key findings for this section: More respondents felt that Hong Kong had somehow gotten on the wrong track, while some believe it is heading in the right direction. The state of the economy was the key trigger for responses. Those who thought Hong Kong was heading in the ‘right’ direction felt there is “stability” in the region, while those who felt Hong Kong was heading in the ‘wrong’ direction attributed it to political reasons.

People’s opinions on various issues usually reflect their overall perception about the society that they live in. Therefore, it is useful to understand how Hong Kong people viewed Hong Kong’s current situation before asking specific questions. Overall, the split between “right direction” and “wrong track” was four to five with another 8% saying that they did not know where Hong Kong was heading. (Chart 7) More younger respondents believed Hong Kong to be on the right track. (Table 2) Chart 7: Right Direction / Wrong Track

Don't Know 8%

Right direction 40%

Wrong track 52%

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Table 2. Overall Perception of Hong Kong by Age

18-24 years old 25-34 years old 35-44 years old 45-54 years old 55-65 years old

On The Right Track (%) 48% 43% 40% 35% 30%

On The Wrong Track (%) 49% 50% 52% 54% 58%

“Improved economy” (16%) and stability (stable economy – 5%, stable life – 5%, and stable politics – 4%) were the main reasons of those who felt that Hong Kong is heading in the right direction (n=398). The next major response was the general feeling of “no big problems” (10%). (Chart 8) Chart 8: Reasons for Right Direction Economy has improved No big problems Progressing in every aspect Stable economy Stable life Stable politics Enjoys freedom of speech Led by Central Govt People value economic development Lower unemployment rate Central Government supports us None

16% 10% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 43% 0

10 15 20 % of Respondents

On the other hand, those who said that Hong Kong had somehow gotten off on the wrong track (n=522) attributed this mainly to two broad reasons: economy (bad economy – 15%, high unemployment rate – 9%) and politics (wrong policies – 9%, no universal suffrage – 7%). (Chart 9)

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Chart 9: Reasons for Wrong Track Bad economy

15%

High enemployment rate

Wrong policies

No universal suffrage

Many wrangles

Controlled by the Central Govt

Unstable politics

Democracy deteriorates

People have resentment

None

36% 0

JUNE 2004

10 15 % of Respondents

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

3. UNAIDED COMMENTS ON THE SCNPC DECISION

Key findings for this section: Three-quarters of the respondents had heard of the SCNPC decision although more than half of them said they were not familiar with the details of the decision. Regardless of the degree of awareness and familiarity, two-thirds of respondents were concerned with the decision because it would exert various effects on society, and the respondents felt the decision was personally relevant to them. Respondents received much more negative messages than positive ones regarding the decision. Those who were more concerned about the decision showed greater likelihood to vote in the coming LegCo election.

In this section, we explored how respondents viewed the SCNPC decision on 26 April 2004 on an unaided basis, that is, without prompting them on the outcome of the decision. 3.1.

AWARENESS OF THE DECISION

Overall, three-quarters of respondents said that they had heard of the SCNPC decision. The awareness level is relatively high. (Chart 10) Chart 10: Awareness of the SCNPC Decision

Not heard of 26%

Heard of 74%

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

3.2.

FAMILIARITY OF THE DECISION

Although the people are aware of the decision, most were not familiar with it (55% unfamiliar vs 45% familiar) Among those who had heard of the decision (n=737), four out of ten said they were “somewhat familiar” with the decision and a further 6% said that they were “very familiar” with the decision. 48% of the respondents said they were “somewhat unfamiliar)” and 7% said they were “not familiar at all” with the SCNPC decision. (Chart 11) Chart 11: Familiarity with the SCNPC Decision

Not familiar at all

Somewhat unfamiliar

Somewhat familiar

Very familiar

3.3.

20 30 40 % of Respondents

CONCERN LEVEL WITH THE DECISION

Regardless of the degree of awareness and familiarity with the SCNPC decision, two-thirds of the respondents said they were concerned about it. There was also a significant difference in the level of concern between those who were aware of the decision and those who were not. Among those who were aware of the decision, seven out of ten expressed concerns about the decision while only half of those who were not aware of the decision expressed concerns with it. (Chart 12)

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Chart 12: Concern Level with the SCNPC Decision

Total

Aware of decision

Not aware of decision

% of Respondents Not concerned at all

Somewhat unconcerned

Somewhat concerned

Very concerned

Respondents who were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ concerned (n=552) mostly stated that they: • were uncertain about the effects the decision might have on Hong Kong’s future development in general (16%), or specifically on democratic development (5%), political development (5%), economic development (4%) and freedom of speech (2%). • saw that the decision had personal relevance to their own interests, that is “related to our own interest” (10%), “concerning to our own matter” (9%) Lack of interest and the perceived inability to change the current situation appeared to be the two main reasons why some respondents were ‘not concerned’ with the decision. For those who lack interest in the decision - 17% of those who were ‘somewhat’ or ‘not at all concerned’ (n=348) - said that they ‘don’t know politics’ or were ‘not interested in politics’. A further 10% said that they were not interested in this particular issue. On the perceived inability to change the situation, 13% said that they ‘could not change the situation’, 5% said that ‘people had no choice but to accept’ the SCNPC decision, 4% said that ‘people had no rights to choose’, and 2% said ‘Hong Kong people could not decide for themselves’. Not all the respondents who indicated concerns could articulate a specific reason for them. The percentage of those who could not provide a particular reason was more than 40%. (Chart 13) JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Chart 13: Reasons for Concerned / Not Concerned Concerned

Not Concerned

• • • •

•

• • • • • •

Affect future development (13%) Related to our interests (10%) Care about our own matter (9%) Understand China’s policy on Hong Kong (6%) Affect democratic development (5%) Affect political development (5%) Affect economy (4%) Affect freedom of speech (2%) Understand the situation (2%) No specific comments (42%)

3.4.

• • • • • • •

Don’t know politics / not interested in politics Cannot change situation Not interested in this issue People have no choice but to accept People have no right to choose It has no impact on me People cannot decide for themselves No specific comments

(17%) (13%) (10%) (5%) (4%) (3%) (2%) (44%)

RECEIVED MESSAGES

Where respondents said they were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very familiar’ with the SCNPC decision, they were asked to identify whether the messages received were positive or negative. Overall, the respondents received many more negative messages (64% of the total mentioned messages) than positive ones (36% of the total mentioned messages). In many instances, the same message was viewed quite differently by the respondents, which reflects the divided mindset among Hong Kong people as a whole. The majority of respondents in both groups (positive/negative message received) received the message ‘no universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008’. This was most critical to the respondents. (Table 3) The next most important message was how respondents perceived the SCNPC’s decision. Those who had a positive view felt that it was an indication of the “Central Government’s care for Hong Kong” (24%). Those who considered it a negative development saw the decision as a manifestation of the “Central Government’s control and interference in Hong Kong” (20%). On the issues of ‘Democracy’, ‘One Country, Two Systems’, and social stability the respondents’ opinion were also divided. (Table 3) It should be noted that since one quarter of all respondents had not heard of the decision and 56% of those who have heard of the decision were ‘not familiar with the

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

decision’, a large proportion of respondents (two-thirds) could not give specific answers to this question. Table 3: Message Received from the SCNPC Decision Positive Messages (136 Negative Messages (246 mentions, 36% of the total mentions, 64% of the total mentioned) mentioned) No universal suffrage in 07, 29% No universal suffrage 26% 08 Central Govt’s care for HK 24% Central Govt’s control & 20% interference over HK Stabilize HK & protect HK 21% No democracy, no freedom 18% people’s interests of speech Progressive democracy 16% Damage the ‘One Country, 16% Two Systems’ principle Central Gov’t wants to 7% Won’t listen to HK people 12% control HK and the freedom of speech Others 3% Dividing HK society 4%

3.5.

AWARENESS, FAMILIARITY AND CONCERN LEVEL BREAK DOWN

In general, the respondents’ awareness of, familiarity with and concern towards the SCNPC decision increased with age. It is not hard to understand this tendency given the various political reforms since 1985 that Hong Kong people experienced, including the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. (Chart 14)

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Chart 14.

Awareness, Familiarity and Concern Level by Age

80 % of Respondents

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 18 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 44

Aware of decision Familiar with decision Concerned with decision

45 - 54

55 - 65

Not aware of decision Not familiar with decision Not concerned with decision

Those who expressed concerns about the SCNPC decision were more likely to also say they would vote in the coming LegCo election. (Chart 15) Chart 15.

Awareness, Familiarity and Concern Level by Intention of Vote

% of Respondents

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Definitely not

Probably not

Aware of decision Familiar with decision Concerned with decision

JUNE 2004

Not sure

Probably

Certainly

Not aware of decision Not familiar with decision Not concerned with decision

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

PROMPTED VIEWS

Key findings for this section: Respondents thought that the SCNPC decision harmed Hong Kong both economically and politically. Economically, it damaged the international image of Hong Kong and China and thus weakened investor confidence. Politically, it circumscribed Hong Kong’s own discussion on constitutional reform and violated the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle. Views remain divided on various issues related to the SCNPC decision, including: “Would universal suffrage in 2007-08 cause instability?”; “should the SCNPC have ruled out the universal suffrage in 2007-08?”, “would the decision ensure Hong Kong’s long term stability and prosperity or harm it?”, and “should a timetable be set for universal suffrage?”. More respondents who perceived the SCNPC’s decision as harmful also considered Hong Kong to be on the ‘wrong’ track. They also perceived greater negative effects from the SCNPC decision on various social, economical and political aspects of Hong Kong. Interestingly, after hearing a crucial section of the SCNPC decision, some of respondents expressed lower concern, although still more than half of all respondents remained concerned. The ‘very concerned’ and ‘somewhat concerned’ respondents appeared to have moved to the ‘somewhat unconcerned’ category. The main reason for this change was that respondents felt helpless, and believed that it was ‘useless’ to try to affect change.

4.1.

VIEWS TO THE PAIRED STATEMENTS

Respondents reacted to ten pairs of statements picked from press reports that represented the main issues of the debate on the SCNPC decision. Each pair of statements (Statement A and Statement B) was read out in rotated order to the respondents and four types of responses were recorded: Agree with Statement A, agree with Statement B, agree with neither, and don’t know. Respondents were asked to identify the statement that was closest to their personal opinion. About 10 -15% (‘neither’ response) did not think any of the statements listed reflected their personal opinions. Only a very small number of the respondents said they did not know how to respond (‘DK’). (Table 4)

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Table 4: Agreement To The Paired Statements Statements The SCNPC decision enhanced both HK and China’s international image The SCNPC decision circumscribed HK’s discussion on constitutional development allowed by the Basic Law The SCNPC decision went too far to circumscribe Hong Kong’s own discussion about constitutional reform The SCNPC decision has not damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong The SCNPC decision violated One-Country-Two-Systems’ principle The SCNPC decision weakens investor confidence Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 will not cause instability or affect economic progress. The SCNPC decision should not have ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because HK is ready for it It is necessary to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage so that both SCNPC and HKSAR have a target for democratic development The SCNPC decision harmed HK’s long term stability and prosperity

Agree 28

Neither 16

DK 3

Agree 53

Statements The SCNPC decision damaged both HK and China’s international image The SCNPC decision ensure HK’s democratic development proceed in a gradual and orderly manner as defined by the Basic Law The SCNPC decision were necessary to clarify the unclear areas of the Basic Law The SCNPC decision has damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong The SCNPC decision enhanced One-Country-Two-Systems’ principle The SCNPC decision bolsters investor confidence Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 will cause instability and affect economic progress. The SCNPC decision ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because HK is not ready for it It is impossible to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage because nobody can predict HK’s actual situation in future The SCNPC decision ensured HK’s long term stability and prosperity

The statements are arranged in descending order of the difference between the agreement percentages so that those statements that appear to provide the most contrast are put at the top.

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

In summary, the majority of respondents agreed that: z

z z z

The SCNPC decision damaged both Hong Kong’s and China’s international image; The SCNPC decision circumscribed Hong Kong’s discussion on constitutional development allowed by the Basic Law; The SCNPC decision went too far to circumscribe Hong Kong’s own discussion about constitutional development; The SCNPC decision damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong; The SCNPC decision violated the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle; and The SCNPC decision weakened investor confidence.

However, the respondents were quite evenly split on the following statements: z

Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 would cause instability and affect economic progress vs. Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 would not cause instability and affect economic progress; The SCNPC decision ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because Hong Kong was unready for it vs. The SCNPC decision should not have ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because Hong Kong was ready for it; It is impossible to set a time table for Hong Kong to achieve universal suffrage because nobody could predict Hong Kong’s actual situation in future vs. It is necessary to set a time table for Hong Kong to achieve universal suffrage so that both the SCNPC and Hong Kong have a target for democratic development; and The SCNPC decision ensured Hong Kong’s long term stability and prosperity vs. The SCNPC decision harmed Hong Kong’s long term stability and prosperity.

Although there was no conclusive opinion from the respondents on whether they thought Hong Kong’s long term stability and prosperity as well as its economic progress would be jeopardized by the SCNPC decision, it was quite clear that the respondents felt that the decision did harm Hong Kong economically and politically. Economically, the respondents thought that the SCNPC decision damaged both Hong Kong’s and China’s international image, weakened investor confidence, and damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong. Politically, it circumscribed Hong Kong’s own discussion of the constitutional development and violated the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle.

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

4.2.

AGREEMENT OF THE STATEMENTS BY OVERALL ATTITUDES

In short, those who considered Hong Kong to be on the ‘right track’ tended to see positive effects arising from the SCNPC decision. Those who were less optimistic towards Hong Kong were more likely to perceive negative effects arising from the decision. No matter whether their response was positive or negative, the majority of respondents still considered the SCNPC decision more harmful to Hong Kong than not. Whether proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007-08 would cause instability and affect economic progress was an area where the respondents’ opinions were quite evenly split. (Chart 16).

Chart 16.

Prompted Views on the Statements by Overall Attitude

Pair 1 The SCNPC decision violated One-CountryTwo-Systems’ principle

Total

JUNE 2004

Right

Wrong

The SCNPC decision enhanced One-CountryTwo-Systems’ principle

49 30

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Pair 2

The SCNPC decision weakens investor confidence

Total

37 30

Right

Wrong

The SCNPC decision bolsters investor confidence

53 26

Pair 3 The SCNPC decision were necessary to clarify the unclear areas of the Basic Law

The SCNPC decision went too far to circumscribe Hong Kongâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own discussion about constitutional reform

Total

Right

Wrong

Pair 4 The SCNPC decision has not damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong

Total

Right

Wrong

JUNE 2004

36 49

The SCNPC decision has damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong

50 39

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Pair 5 The SCNPC decision harmed HK’s long term stability and prosperity

Total

Right

Wrong

The SCNPC decision ensured HK’s long term stability and prosperity

57 28

Pair 6 The SCNPC decision enhanced both HK and China’s international image

Total

Right

Wrong

JUNE 2004

28 36 23

The SCNPC decision damaged both HK and China’s international image

53 44 60

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Pair 7 The SCNPC decision should not have ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because HK is ready for it

Total

Right

Wrong

The SCNPC decision ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because HK is not ready for it

56 30

Pair 8 The SCNPC decision circumscribed HKâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s discussion on constitutional development allowed by the Basic Law

Total

Right

Wrong

The SCNPC decision ensure HKâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s democratic development proceed in a gradual and orderly manner as defined by the Basic Law

46 26

Pair 9 Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 will not cause instability or affect economic progress

Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 will cause instability and affect economic progress

Total

Right

Wrong

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Pair 10 It is necessary to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage so that both SCNPC and HKSAR have a target for democratic development

Total

Right

Wrong

4.3.

47 44 50

It is impossible to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage because nobody can predict HK’s actual situation in future

43 48 39

INFORMED & CONCERNED RESPONDENTS AND THEIR INCLINATION OF THE STATEMENTS

A number of interesting questions could be explored regarding how Hong Kong people view the SCNPC decision. The most controversial sets of statements regardless of respondent’s awareness levels towards the decision were: • Whether it was necessary to set up a timetable for achieving Hong Kong’s universal suffrage; • Whether the SCNPC decision would harm Hong Kong’s long term stability and prosperity; and • Whether the SCNPC decision should have ruled out universal suffrage in 2007-08. It is also interesting to know that among those who were aware of the SCNPC decision, more believed (49% vs. 38%) that “proceeding with universal suffrage will not cause instability or effect economic progress”. In contrast, among those who were not aware of the decision, more believed (44% vs. 36%) that “proceeding with universal suffrage will cause instability or affect economic progress”. Other than the above mentioned areas, regardless of whether respondents were aware of the SCNPC decision or not, the majority of the respondents agreed that the decision had a negative impact rather than an enhancing effect on the ‘One Country,

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Two Systems’ principle, rule of law in Hong Kong, investor confidence, as well as Hong Kong’s and China’s international image. They also considered the decision went too far to circumscribe Hong Kong’s own discussion on constitutional development. (Table 5). Table 5.

Agreement of the Statements by Awareness of the Decision

Aware of decision The SCNPC decision… (%) Enhanced ‘One Country, Two-Systems’ principle 37 Violated ‘One Country, Two-Systems’ principle 52 first - second -15 The SCNPC decision… Bolstered investor confidence 36 Weakened investor confidence 46 first - second -10 The SCNPC decision… Was necessary to clarify the unclear areas of the 35 Basic Law Went too far to circumscribe Hong Kong’s own 50 discussion about constitutional development first - second -15 The SCNPC decision… Damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong 51 Has not damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong 36 first - second 15 The SCNPC decision… Ensured HK’s long term stability and prosperity 40 Harmed HK’s long term stability and prosperity 42 first - second -2 The SCNPC decision… Damaged both HK’s and China’s international 52 image Enhanced both HK’s and China’s international 29 image first - second 23 The SCNPC decision… Ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 42 because HK is not ready for it Should not have ruled out universal suffrage in 45 2007 and 2008 because HK is ready for it first - second -3 The SCNPC decision… Ensure HK’s democratic development proceed in a gradual and orderly manner as defined by the Basic 34 Law Circumscribed HK’s discussion on constitutional 55 development allowed by the Basic Law first - second -21

JUNE 2004

Not aware of decision (%) 38 44 -6

Awareness gap (%) -1 8 -9

38 49 -11

-2 -3 1

-2

-24

46 36 10

5 0 5

38 44 -6

2 -2 4

-2

-3

-8

-17

-4

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

The SCNPC decision… proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 will cause instability and affect economic progress Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 will not cause instability or affect economic progress first - second It is impossible to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage because nobody can predict HK’s actual situation in future It is necessary to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage so that both SCNPC and HKSAR have a target for democratic development first - second

Aware of decision (%)

Not aware of decision (%)

Awareness gap (%)

-6

-11

-19

-1

-4

-6

When looking into whether familiarity with the SCNPC decision played a role in respondents’ inclination towards those statements, respondents who said they were not only aware of but also familiar with the decision shared similar opinion with those who said they were less familiar with the decision in the following aspects: • That the decision damaged Hong Kong’s and China’s international image; • It circumscribed Hong Kong’s discussion on constitutional development; • It damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong; • Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2907-08 would not cause instability or affect economic progress; and • It weakened investor confidence. However, respondents’ opinions were divided into the following arguments: • Whether the SCNPC should have ruled out universal suffrage in 2007-08; and • Whether a time table for Hong Kong to achieve universal suffrage was necessary. In the following fields, those who said they were more familiar with the SCNPC decision shared opposite views with those who said they were less familiar with the decision: • More of the informed respondents considered the SCNPC decision ensured Hong Kong’s long term stability and prosperity; and • More of the informed respondents considered the SCNPC decision enhanced ‘One Country, Two Systems’. (Table 6)

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Table 6.

Agreement of the Statements by Familiarity of the Decision Familiar with decision

Not familiar with decision

Familiarity gap

The SCNPC decision…

(%)

Enhanced ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle Violated ‘One-Country, Two Systems’ principle first - second

43 47 -4

32 56 -24

11 -9 20

40 46 -6

32 49 -17

8 -3 11

-2

-11

-17

48 39 9

53 33 20

-5 6 -11

44 39 5

38 44 -6

6 -5 11

51 29 22

53 28 25

-2 1 -3

-1

-6

-2

-18

-24

The SCNPC decision… Bolstered investor confidence Weakened investor confidence first - second

The SCNPC decision… Were necessary to clarify the unclear areas of the Basic Law Went too far to circumscribe Hong Kong’s own discussion about constitutional reform first - second

The SCNPC decision… Damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong Has not damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong first - second

The SCNPC decision… Ensured HK’s long term stability and prosperity Harmed HK’s long term stability and prosperity first - second

The SCNPC decision… Damaged both HK and China’s international image Enhanced both HK and China’s international image first - second

The SCNPC decision… Ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because HK is not ready for it Should not have ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because HK is ready for it first - second

The SCNPC decision… Ensure HK’s democratic development proceed in a gradual and orderly manner as defined by the Basic Law Circumscribed HK’s discussion on constitutional development allowed by the Basic Law first - second Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007-08 will cause instability and affect economic progress

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Familiar with decision

Not familiar with decision

Familiarity gap

The SCNPC decision…

(%)

Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007-08 will not cause instability or affect economic progress first - second

-11

-10

-1

-5

-3

-2

It is impossible to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage because nobody can predict HK’s actual situation in future It is necessary to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage so that both SCNPC and HKSAR have a target for democratic development first - second

Regardless of the awareness of or familiarity with the SCNPC decision, those who said they were more concerned about the decision agreed more on the negative effects the decision might affect on Hong Kong. Only in the following two areas were the respondents’ opinions divided: • Whether the SCNPC decision enhanced or harmed Hong Kong’s long term stability and prosperity; and • Whether the SCNPC should have ruled out universal suffrage in 2007-08. (Table 7)

Table 7.

Agreement of the Statements by Concern Level of the Decision

Concerned Not concerned Concern decision decision gap The SCNPC decision… (%) (%) (%) 39 33 6 Enhanced ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle Violated ‘One Country, Two-Systems’ principle 51 49 2 -12 -16 4 first - second The SCNPC decision… Bolstered investor confidence 38 34 4 Weakened investor confidence 47 48 -1 -9 -14 5 first - second The SCNPC decision… Were necessary to clarify the unclear areas of the 32 34 -2 Basic Law Went too far to circumscribe Hong Kong’s own 52 47 5 discussion about constitutional reform -20 -13 -7 first - second The SCNPC decision… Damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong 52 46 6 Has not damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong 36 35 1

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

The SCNPC decision…

Concerned Not concerned Concern decision decision gap (%) (%) (%) 16 11 5 first - second

The SCNPC decision… Ensured HK’s long term stability and prosperity Harmed HK’s long term stability and prosperity first - second The SCNPC decision… Damaged both HK and China’s international image Enhanced both HK and China’s international image first - second The SCNPC decision… Ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because HK is not ready for it Should not have ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because HK is ready for it first - second The SCNPC decision…

40 43 -3

40 41 -1

0 2 -2

55 28 27

49 30 19

6 -2 8

-1

-5

-3

-2

Ensure HK’s democratic development proceed in a gradual & orderly manner as defined by the Basic Law

-3

Circumscribed HK’s discussion on constitutional development allowed by the Basic Law first - second

-26

-11

-15

Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 will cause instability and affect economic progress Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 will not cause instability or effect economic progress first - second

-5

-13

-7

It is impossible to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage because nobody can predict HK’s actual situation in the future It is necessary to set a timetable for HK’s universal suffrage so that both SCNPC and HKSAR have a target for democratic development first - second

-11

-12

-22

4.4.

CONCERN LEVEL AFTER DESCRIPTION OF THE DECISION

After gathering the respondents’ unaided opinions towards the SCNPC decision, a section of the decision was read out to the respondents: For the election of the 3rd Chief Executive in 2007, and for the election of the 4th LegCo in 2008, the method of universal suffrage shall not be applied. In the case of LegCo’s election in 2008, the half by half ratio of members from functional constituencies and geographical constituencies shall remain unchanged. The procedures for voting on bills and motions in LegCo shall remain unchanged.

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

The respondents were then asked again how concerned they were with the decision after having the section read out to them. Fewer respondents expressed concern about the decision immediately after hearing it read to them. Overall, 57% of respondents remained concerned before hearing the exceprt of the decision read to them, whereas before hearing the section, the level of concern was 65%. Respondents who answered ‘very concerned’ and ‘somewhat concerned’ appeared to have moved to the ‘somewhat unconcerned’ category. (Table 8) Table 8:

Difference of Concern Level Unprompted

Prompted

Difference

Very Concerned

12%

10%

-2%

Somewhat Concerned

53%

47%

-6%

Somewhat Unconcerned

27%

35%

+8%

Not Concerned At All

The respondents were then probed on the reasons for the level of their concern. Almost the same types of reasons were given as before, but those who thought being concerned was ‘useless’ as one “cannot change the situation and so must accept it” increased. (Chart 17) Chart 17.

Concern Level towards the Decision Post Statement Testing

Concerned

Not Concerned

• • •

• •

• • • • • •

Impact future development (18%) Concerned with our things (9%) Understand China policy on HK (8%) Related to our benefits (7%) Impact political development (6%) Impact economic development(5%) Impact democratic development (5%) To understand HK situation (2%) No specific comments (38%)

JUNE 2004

• • • • • •

Cannot change the situations (12%) Don’t know politics / not interested in politics (9%) Not interested in this issue (7%) People have no choice but to accept (5%) People has no rights to choose(3%) It has no impact on me (3%) HK people cannot decide for themselves (1%) No specific comments (57%)

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

5. CHANGE IN CONFIDENCE LEVEL

Key findings for this section: The SCNPC decision was more likely to cause confidence among Hong Kong people to decline regarding the ability of the Basic Law to protect ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle; people are apprehensive that the Basic Law cannot protect it. The drop in confidence was driven mostly by the HKSAR Government under the leadership of CH Tung and the Hong Kong Legislative Council.

It is important to assess level of confidence in Hong Kong and how that level may change if events occur that affect the way residents live. The focus of this section is to evaluate whether Hong Kong people are still confident that the Basic Law could protect ‘One Country, Two Systems’ and whether their confidence level changed after the SCNPC decision. Overall, more respondents voiced decreased confidence than those who voiced increased confidence (40% vs. 28%, respectively). Another 30% of the respondents said that their confidence level remained unchanged. The younger the respondents, the greater the decline in their level of confidence. (Chart 18) Chart 18: Change in Confidence Level Towards The Basic Law Total 1 8

Male 1

Female 1 7

25 - 34 0 7

28 9

55 - 64

29 26

32 11

30 34

45 - 54 1 10

18 - 24 1 3

35 - 44 1

2 9

24 19 19

4 5 7

% of Respondents DK

JUNE 2004

Decreased greatly

Decreased

Neither

Increased

Increased greatly

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

After being told more about the decision, respondents were asked if their confidence level had changed towards a list of key stakeholders and their efforts to protect ‘One Country, Two Systems’. Overall, with the exception of Hong Kong non-profit organizations, respondents felt less confident that the stakeholders are effective in protecting the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle. A confidence index was created by dividing those with decreased confidence by those with increased confidence. The greater the number, the bigger the decline in confidence. The indices for various stakeholders were: z z z z z z z

HKSAR Government under the leadership of CH Tung: 1.93 Political parties in general: 1.91 Hong Kong Legislative Council: 1.68 Hong Kong media in general: 1.4 Hong Kong business in general: 1.29 Hong Kong academics in general: 1.19 Hong Kong non-profit making organizations in general: 1.00

‘HKSAR Government under the leadership of CH Tung’ and ‘political parties in general’ appeared to have been the main drivers among the stakeholder groups in causing confidence to decrease. The LegCo came as the third main factor. (Chart 19) Chart 19: Change in Confidence Level by Different Stakeholders

HK Govt 1

HK LegCo 2 5

Political parties 3 7 HK business

4 5

HK non-profit

HK media 3 5 HK academic

% of Respondents DK

Decreased greatly

Decreased

Neither

Increased

Increased greatly

Further analysis (a regression method) was conducted to understand which stakeholder group was the driving force of the overall change in confidence. The constant factor (dependent variable) was the overall confidence change while the JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

changing factors (independent variables) were the confidence changes within different stakeholder groups. The result of the analysis revealed that ‘HKSAR Government under the leadership of CH Tung’ was the strongest driver for the overall confidence change. The second most important driver is the ‘Hong Kong Legislative Council’. Both of these two stakeholders were significant drivers. (Chart 20) Chart 20: How The Different Stakeholders Drive The Confidence Change

0.467

HKSAR Govt 0.124

HK LegCo Political Party

-0.019 0.061

HK Business

0.045

HK Media HK Academics

-0.007 0.057

HK Non-profit -0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Standardized coefficient

The respondents were also asked which one of the stakeholder group(s) they considered best represented their own opinions. Four out of ten respondents believed that none of the groups could represent their opinions. Among those who felt that a particular group could best represent them, LegCo, the Hong Kong media (in particular Apple Daily and Commercial Radio), Hong Kong academics and Hong Kong political parties (in particular the Democratic Party and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong) were the top four groups mentioned. (Chart 21)

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Chart 21: The One Considered to Represent Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Opinions Best HK LegCo

12%

HK media

11%

HK academics

10% 9%

HK political party 7%

CH Tung Some individuals

HK business

3% 1%

non-profits

42%

None 0

JUNE 2004

6 8 10 % of Respondents

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

6. CONSULTATION METHOD

Key findings for this section: The majority of respondents felt their opinions had neither been heard before the SCNPC made its decision nor were they reflected in the decision. Respondents were also dissatisfied with the consultation method HKSAR Government and SCNPC used in gathering public opinion regarding constitutional development.

6.1.

REACHING OF OPINIONS

Respondents were asked a series of questions about the way the HKSAR Government and SCNPC consulted the public on constitutional development before the SCNPC made its decision. Overall, nearly one in four respondents (38%) felt that their opinions were â&#x20AC;&#x153;not heard at allâ&#x20AC;? by the SCNPC. Only one in ten said that their opinions had been heard completely while another 50% said that their opinions were only partially heard. Furthermore, not all opinions that had been made were reflected in the SCNPC decision. A high percentage of the respondents considered their opinions to have been completely ignored compared to those who believed they had been fully heard. Hong Kong people felt that their opinions had not been sufficiently respected. (Chart 22) Chart 22: Opinions Heard Before / Reflected By the SCNPC Decision

Heard by SCNPC before the decision

Reflected in the SCNPC decision

% of Respondents Yes, completely

JUNE 2004

Partially

Not, not at all

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

6.2.

SATISFACTION WITH THE CONSULTATION METHOD

Respondents were also asked if they were satisfied with the consultation method that the HKSAR Government and SCNPC used in collecting Hong Kong people’s opinions regarding constitutional development. In both cases, only one-third of all respondents were satisfied and one half of all respondents were dissatisfied. The older respondents (55 – 65) tended to be more satisfied (40% - 43%) but the young respondents were among the less satisfied groups (24% - 33%). (Chart 23) Chart 23: Satisfaction with the Consultation Method

The consultion method used by 2 the HKSAR Govt

The consultation method used by 3 SCNPC

% of Respondents DK

JUNE 2004

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

Very satisfied

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

7. ONE THING AND ONE MESSAGE

Key findings for this section: There were three things that the respondents longed for. If they could be met, it may mean winning more than 60% of Hong Kong people’s ‘hearts and minds’. They are: (i) improving the economy and life quality; (ii) giving universal suffrage to Hong Kong people to elect their chief executive and LegCo members; and (iii) genuinely dealing with the public’s opinions. Obviously, CH Tung and The Central People’s Government are the key to achieving these aspirations. “Listen to the people” is the strongest request that the respondents want to communicate to the HKSAR and The Central People’s Governments regarding the SCNPC’s decision on 26 April 2004.

7.1.

ONE THING TO DO TO GAIN PEOPLE’S HEARTS AND MINDS

At the end of each interview, respondents were asked what has to be done to regain the hearts and minds of Hong Kong people in reassuring them that the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle is workable. Half of the respondents did not give specific answers. However, of those who had specific recommendations most often mentioned (Table 9): z z z

Improving the economy (22%) Addressing people’s opinions properly / more communication (21%) Electing the Chief Executive or LegCo Members via one-man-one-vote (19%)

Table 9:

One Thing To Gain People’s Hearts and Minds (N = 457)

Improve economy and life quality Deal with people’s opinions properly and more communication ‘One man one vote to’ elect CE and LegCo members Let HK people rule HK and respect the Basic Law Protect democracy and freedom of speech Replace CH Tung Lower unemployment Improve government structure Others

JUNE 2004

% 22% 21% 19% 16% 10% 9% 6% 2% 2%

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Respondents were also asked to nominate the right stakeholder(s) to take action. Table 10 indicated those who would be appropriate for these tasks. (Table 10) Table 10:

Who Is Going to Do What?

Improve economy and life quality (22%) Deal with people’s opinions properly and more communication (21%) ‘One man one vote’ to elect CE and LegCo members (19%) Let HK people rule HK and respect the Basic Law (16%) Protect democracy and freedom of speech (10%) Replace CH Tung (9%) Lower unemployment (8%)

7.2.

HK Gov. 40% 27%

CH Tung 22% 26%

Cent. Gov. 2% 5%

HK People 7% 0%

15%

24%

21%

33%

47%

54% 0% 56%

8% 4% 30%

8% 44% 0%

8% 15% 0%

ONE MESSAGE TO GET ACROSS

At the end of the interview, all respondents were asked if they had one sentence to say to the HKSAR Government and SCNPC regarding the SCNPC decision on 26 April 2004. Of 1,000 respondents, 576 responded to this request. The most frequently stated comment was “LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE” - one in four respondents who answered the question made this appeal. The theme of ‘listening’ runs throughout the respondents’ statements, such as “listen more”, “listen to all”, “listen to different voices”, “listen and respect”, “listen and communicate”, “listen and respond”, “listen and be transparent”, “listen and change”, “listen and improve”, “listen and correct”, “listen and trust”, “listen and act upon” and “listen and deliver”. The appendix provides the full list of what people said.

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

APPENDIX – DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION, QUESTIONNAIRE AND VERBATIM TO Q19

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Age 18 – 24 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 65

Gender 13% 24% 30% 22% 11%

Place of Birth Hong Kong Mainland China Elsewhere

No income Under 6K 6K - <10K 10K - <15K 15K - <20K 20K - <30K 30K - <40K 40K or above

JUNE 2004

Male Female

Marital Status 50% 50%

Presence of Kids 83% 15% 2% Monthly Personal Income 32% 8% 17% 14% 9% 10% 4% 6%

Yes No

49% 51%

Monthly Household Income 4% 7% 20% 22% 26% 9% 13%

Single Married Separated/Divorced Widow/Widowed

32% 66% 1% 2%

Education Level Primary / below F.1 – F.3 F.4 – F.5 F.6 – F.7 University Postgraduate/above

11% 14% 33% 9% 31% 1%

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

QUESTIONNAIRE

Current Affairs & Public Perceptions Survey May 2004 (Forth draft) Introduction 介紹: Hello, my name is ____________. I am an interviewer with Wirthlin Worldwide Asia, an independent international research firm. We are currently conducting a survey on the current affairs of Hong Kong and their impact on Hong Kong people. 您好，我姓___，係偉思林（國際）有限公司嘅訪問員，我哋係一間獨立嘅市場研究公司，而家做緊一項有關香港時事同埋佢哋對香港人嘅影響嘅意見調查。

You have been selected through a random process for this survey. Your opinion will be very valuable to helping people understand what impact of various issues might have on HK people. Could you please spare about 15 minutes to answer some simple questions? 您係經過我哋用隨機抽樣方式挑選出嚟嘅。您嘅寶貴意見可以幫助其他人明白呢啲事情對香港人嘅影響。請問可唔可以抽 15 分鐘時間，回答一啲簡單嘅問題呢？

Screener 過濾問卷 S1.

Are you a permanent resident of Hong Kong? 請問您係咪香港永久居民? 1. Yes – continue 係 - 繼續 2. No – Thanks and terminate 唔係 - 多謝並終止訪問

S2.

Into which of the following categories does your age fall? (Read) 請問您嘅年齡係屬於以下邊一個類別呢? (讀出) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

JUNE 2004

17 or below (thanks and terminate) 17 歲或以下 (多謝並終止訪問) 18 – 24 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 65 Above 65 (thanks and terminate) 65 歲或以上 (多謝並終止訪問)

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

S3.

Where were you born? (Read) 請問您嘅出生地點係? (讀出) 1 2 3 4

S4.

In Hong Kong – go to S5 香港 - 跳至 S5 In Mainland China – go to S4 中國大陸 - 跳至 S4 Elsewhere – go to S4 其他地方 - 跳至 S4 Refuse to answer – go to S5 拒絕作答 - 跳至 S5

How long have you lived in Hong Kong? 請問您喺香港住咗幾耐呢? _______________________________________________________

S5.

Are you a registered voter for this year’s September Legco election? 請問您係咪登記選民，可以喺今年九月嘅立法會選舉投票呢?

1 2 3

S6.

Yes – go to S7 係 - 跳至 S7 No – continue 唔係 - 繼續 Don’t know – go to S8 唔知道 - 跳至 S8

Why did you not register as a voter for this year’s September Legco election? (Probe and record clear and specific answers) 點解您唔登記做選民，使您可以喺今年九月立法會選舉投票呢? (請追問及清楚記錄詳細答案)

________________________________________________________ (Go to Main Questionnaire) (跳至主問卷) S7.

Apart from being a voter in a geographical constituency, are you also a voter in a functional constituency? 除咗係地方選區選民，您係咪功能界別嘅選民呢? 1

JUNE 2004

Yes, if yes which one (please specify): __________________

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

2 3

係, 係邊一個組別(請記錄) __________________ No 唔係 Don’t know 唔知道

(Go to S9) (跳至 S9) S8.

Are you a voter in a functional constituency? 您係咪功能界別嘅選民呢? 1 2 3

Yes, if yes which one (please specify): __________________ 係, 係邊一個組別(請記錄) __________________ No 唔係 Don’t know 唔知道

S9. Do you plan to vote in this year’s September Legco election? (Read) 您有無打算喺今年九月嘅立法會選舉投票呢? (讀出)

1 2 3 4 5

S10.

Definitely not 一定唔會 Probably not 或者唔會 Not sure 唔肯定 Probably 或者會 Certainly 一定會

Why do you have that intention now? (Probe and record clear and specific answers) 點解您依家已經有呢個打算呢? (請追問及清楚記錄詳細答案)

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Main questionnaire 主問卷 Note: Please alternate the order of reading out the scales for the scaled questions Q1.

Everything considered, would you say things in Hong Kong are going along in the right direction or have they somehow got off on the wrong track? 考慮晒所有嘅嘢，你會話香港依家係朝住一個正確嘅方向走，定係一個錯誤嘅方向走呢？ 1 2 3

Right direction 正確嘅方向 Wrong track 錯誤嘅方向 Don’t know (force respondent to choose 1 or 2 based on their experience with the community) 唔知道 (根據被訪者在社區嘅經驗，要求被訪者選 1 或 2)

Q2.

Why is that? (Probe and record clear and specific answers) 點解你會咁講呢？(請追問及清楚記錄詳細答案)

Q3.

Have you heard of the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the methods for selecting the chief executive in 2007 and forming LegCo in 2008 (SCNPC decision hereinafter)? 您有無聽過人大常委會關於 2007 年行政長官嘅選舉方法，以及 2008 年立法會組成方法嘅決定呢? 1 2

Q4.

How familiar would you say you are with the SCNPC decision? (Read) 您對人大常委會呢個決定有幾熟悉呢? (讀出) 1 2

JUNE 2004

Yes 有 No 無

Not familiar at all 完全唔熟悉 Somewhat unfamiliar 50

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

3 4

Q5.

幾唔熟悉 Somewhat familiar 幾熟悉 Very familiar 非常熟悉

How concerned would you say you are with the SCNPC decision? (Read) 您對人大常委會呢個決定有幾關心呢? (讀出) 1 2 3 4

Q6.

Not concerned at all 完全唔關心 Somewhat unconcerned 幾唔關心 Somewhat concerned 幾關心 Very concerned 非常關心

Why is that? (Probe and record clear and specific answers) 點解你會咁講呢？(請追問及清楚記錄詳細答案)

________________________________________________________

Q7.

What are the messages you receive from the SCNPC decision? Are they positive or negative messages? (Probe and record top-of-mind three clear and specific answers) 對於人大常委會呢個決定，您收到乜嘢訊息呢? 係正面定係負面呢？ (請追問及清楚詳細記錄首三個答案)

(+ / -)

b. c.

(+ / -) (+ / -)

Q8.

JUNE 2004

The followings are paired statements some people made regarding the SCNPC decision. To each pair of the statements, please tell me which statement is comparatively more close to your personal opinion? (Rotate the pairs of the statements and rotate the statements within the pair)

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

以下係一啲人對於人大常委會呢個決定嘅一啲唔同意見。對於每一對嘅句子，請您話俾我知邊一句句子最接近您嘅個人意見。(輪流讀出每一對句子及每對中的每一句句子) Pair 1 a) The SCNPC decision enhanced One-Country-Two-Systems’ principle 人大常委會嘅決定強化咗一國兩制嘅原則 b) The SCNPC decision violated One-Country-Two-Systems’ principle 人大常委會嘅決定違背咗一國兩制嘅原則 1 2 3 4

Agree with (A) 同意(A) Agree with (B) 同意(B) Neither 兩者都不同意 Don't know / no answer 唔知道 /拒答

Pair 2 a) The SCNPC decision bolsters investor confidence 人大常委會嘅決定增強咗投資者嘅信心 b) The SCNPC decision weakens investor confidence 人大常委會嘅決定削弱咗投資者嘅信心 1 2 3 4

JUNE 2004

Agree with (A) 同意(A) Agree with (B) 同意(B) Neither 兩者都不同意 Don't know / no answer 唔知道 /拒答

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Pair 3 a) The SCNPC decision were necessary to clarify the unclear areas of the Basic Law 人大常委會嘅決定對於澄清《基本法》中不明確嘅地方係必須嘅 b) The SCNPC decision went too far to circumscribe Hong Kong’s own discussion about constitutional reform. 人大常委會嘅決定去得太盡，以至限制咗香港自身對政制改革嘅討論 1 2 3 4

Agree with (A) 同意(A) Agree with (B) 同意(B) Neither 兩者都不同意 Don't know / no answer 唔知道 /拒答

Pair 4 a) The SCNPC decision has damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong 人大常委會嘅決定損害咗香港嘅法治 b) The SCNPC decision has not damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong 人大常委會嘅決定無損害香港嘅法治 1 2 3 4

JUNE 2004

Agree with (A) 同意(A) Agree with (B) 同意(B) Neither 兩者都不同意 Don't know / no answer 唔知道 /拒答

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Pair 5 a) The SCNPC decision ensured HK’s long term stability and prosperity 人大常委會嘅決定保證咗香港嘅長期穩定同埋繁榮 b) The SCNPC decision harmed HK’s long term stability and prosperity 人大常委會嘅決定損害咗香港嘅長期穩定同埋繁榮 1 2 3 4

Agree with (A) 同意(A) Agree with (B) 同意(B) Neither 兩者都不同意 Don't know / no answer 唔知道 /拒答

Pair 6 a) The SCNPC decision damaged both HK and China’s international image 人大常委會嘅決定損害咗香港同埋中國嘅國際形象 b) The SCNPC decision enhanced both HK and China’s international image 人大常委會嘅決定提升咗香港同埋中國嘅國際形象 1 2 3 4

JUNE 2004

Agree with (A) 同意(A) Agree with (B) 同意(B) Neither 兩者都不同意 Don't know / no answer 唔知道 /拒答

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Pair 7 a) The SCNPC decision ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because HK is not ready for it 人大常委會嘅決定否定咗 07，08 年普選嘅可能，因為香港仲未具備足夠條件 b) The SCNPC decision should not have ruled out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 because HK is ready for it 人大常委會嘅決定唔應該否定 07，08 年普選嘅可能，因為香港已經具備足夠條件 1 2 3 4

Agree with (A) 同意(A) Agree with (B) 同意(B) Neither 兩者都不同意 Don't know / no answer 唔知道 /拒答

Pair 8 a) The SCNPC decision ensure HK’s democratic development proceed in a gradual and orderly manner as defined by the Basic Law 人大常委會嘅決定保證咗香港嘅民主發展喺按照《基本法》界定嘅循序漸進方式進行 b) The SCNPC decision circumscribed HK’s discussion on constitutional development allowed by the Basic Law 人大常委會嘅決定限制咗香港人喺按照《基本法》容許下關於民主發展嘅討論 1 2 3 4

JUNE 2004

Agree with (A) 同意(A) Agree with (B) 同意(B) Neither 兩者都不同意 Don't know / no answer 唔知道 /拒答

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Pair 9 a) Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 will cause instability and affect economic progress. 07，08 年實行普選會造成社會不穩定以及影響經濟發展 b) Proceeding with universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 will not cause instability or affect economic progress. 07，08 年實行普選唔會造成社會不穩定以及唔會影響經濟發展 1 2 3 4

Agree with (A) 同意(A) Agree with (B) 同意(B) Neither 兩者都不同意 Don't know / no answer 唔知道 /拒答

Pair 10 a) It is impossible to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage because nobody can predict HK’s actual situation in future 為普選定下時間表係唔可能嘅，因為無人可以預見到香港未來嘅實際情況 b) It is necessary to set a time table for HK’s universal suffrage so that both SCNPC and HKSAR have a target for democratic development 為普選定下時間表係必須嘅，咁樣人大常委會同香港先有一個香港民主發展嘅具體目標 1 2 3 4

JUNE 2004

Agree with (A) 同意(A) Agree with (B) 同意(B) Neither 兩者都不同意 Don't know / no answer 唔知道 /拒答

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Now, I would like to quote the decision that the SCNPC made on April 26 regarding HK’s constitutional development. The following are quote from the SCNPC authority: 依家，我會引述人大常委會喺 4 月 26 日關於香港政制發展所作出嘅決定。人大常委會嘅聲明指出： For the election of the 3rd Chief Executive in 2007, and for the election of the 4th LegCo in 2008, the method of universal suffrage shall not be applied. In the case of LegCo’s election in 2008, the half by half ratio of members from functional constituencies and geographical constituencies shall remain unchanged. The procedures for voting on bills and motions in LegCo shall remain unchanged. 零七年香港第三任特首的選舉不實行由普選產生；零八年第四屆立法會的選舉也不實行全部議員由普選產生，功能團體和分區直選產生的議員各佔半數的比例維持不變，立法會對法案、議案的表決程序維持不變。 Q9.

After knowing more about the SCNPC decision, how concerned would you say you are with the SCNPC decision? (Read) 知道多啲人大常委會嘅決定之後，您對人大常委會嘅決定有幾關心呢? (讀出) 1 2 3 4

Q10.

Not concerned at all 完全唔關心 Somewhat unconcerned 幾唔關心 Somewhat concerned 幾關心 Very concerned 非常關心

Why is that? (Probe and record clear and specific answers) 點解你會咁講呢？(請追問及清楚記錄詳細答案)

____________________________________________________________

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Q11.

How does your confidence level change towards the Basic Law in protecting One Country Two Systems after knowing more about the SCNPC decision? (Read) 知道多啲人大常委會嘅決定之後，您對《基本法》能夠保障一國兩制嘅信心有無改變呢? 係… (讀出) 5 4 3 2 1 0

JUNE 2004

Increased greatly 大大增加 Increased 增加 Neither increased nor decreased 無話增加定減少 Decreased 減少 Decreased greatly 大大減少 Don’t know / No opinion (do not read out this answer, select only when respondent volunteered it) 唔知道 / 無意見 (不要讀出，除非被訪者提出才圈此答案)

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Q12a. How does your confidence level change towards the following listed organizations / groups / people in protecting One Country Two Systems after knowing more about the SCNPC decision? (Read and rotate the statements) 知道多啲人大常委會嘅決定之後，您對以下嘅機構 / 團體/ 人物能夠保障一國兩制嘅信心有無改變呢? 係…(循環讀出句子) 5 4 3 2 1 0

a. Hong Kong SAR Government under the leadership of CH Tung 由董建華領導下嘅香港特別行政區政府 b. Hong Kong LegCo 香港立法會 c. Political party in general 香港嘅政黨 d. Hong Kong business community in general 香港嘅商業團體 e. Hong Kong media in general 香港嘅傳媒

JUNE 2004

Increased 增加

Neither increased nor decreased 無話增加定減少

Decreased 減少

Decreased greatly 大大減少

DK / No opinion 唔知道/ 無意見

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

f. Hong Kong academics in general 香港嘅學術界 g. HK non-profit making organizations in general 香港嘅非牟利機構 h. What individual cause you to have the greatest change in confidence level? In what degree? Please specify _____________ 有無個別人士對您嘅信心影響最大呢? (請列明。) 係… _____________ i. What other organization/group cause you to have the greatest change in confidence level? In what degree? Please specify

有無其他機構 /對您嘅信心影響最大呢? (請列明。) 係… _____________ Q13.

Do you feel that your opinions towards HK’s constitutional development had been heard by the SCNPC before the decision? (Read) 您認為人大常委會在做出呢個決定前聽到您對香港政制發展嘅意見嗎? (讀出) 1 2 3

JUNE 2004

Yes, completely 完全有聽到 Partially 部份 No, not at all 一啲都冇

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Q14.

Do you feel that your opinions towards HK’s constitutional development had been reflected in the SCNPC decision? (Read) 您認為人大常委會嘅決定有無反映到您對香港政制發展嘅意見呢? (讀出) 1 2 3

Q15.

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the current consultation method that the HKSAR Government uses in collecting HK people’s opinion regarding constitutional development? (Read) 您滿唔滿意香港特別行政區政府收集香港市民對政制發展意見嘅方法呢? (讀出) 5 4 3

2 1 0

JUNE 2004

Yes, completely 完全有反映到 Partially 部份 No, not at all 一啲都冇

Very satisfied 非常滿意 Satisfied 滿意 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (do not read out this answer, select only when respondent volunteer it) 無話滿意定唔滿意(不要讀出，除非被訪者提出才圈此答案) Dissatisfied 唔滿意 Very dissatisfied 非常唔滿意 Don’t know / No opinion (do not read out this answer, select only when respondent volunteered it) 唔知道 / 無意見 (不要讀出，除非被訪者提出才圈此答案)

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Q16.

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the current consultation method that the SCNPC uses in collecting HK people’s opinion regarding constitutional development? (Read) 您滿唔滿意人大常委會收集香港市民對政制發展意見嘅方法呢? (讀出) 5 4 3

2 1 0

Q17a. Out of the following listed organizations / groups / people, comparatively speaking who do you consider as the one to best represent your own opinion? (Rotate and read a-h) 喺以下所有嘅機構/ 團體/ 人物當中，相對嚟講，邊一位最能代表您嘅個人意見呢? (輪流讀出 a-h) a. Hong Kong SAR Government under the leadership of CH Tung 由董建華領導下嘅香港特別行政區政府 b. Hong Kong LegCo 香港立法會 c. A particular political party – Ask for name __________________ 某一個政黨 - 名稱__________________ d. Hong Kong business leaders – Ask for name(s)______________ 某一位香港商界領袖者 - 名稱__________________ e. Hong Kong media, please specify ________________________ 香港傳媒- 名稱__________________ f. Hong Kong academics 香港學術界 g. HK non-profit making organizations – Ask for name(s)_________ 香港嘅非牟利機構 - 名稱__________________ h. Some individuals, Ask for name (s) _________________________ 個別人士，名稱_____________ i. Others, please specify _______________

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Q18.

其他，請註明 __________________ None of the above 以上皆不能代表您嘅個人意見

If there is one thing anyone should do to gain HK people’s heart and mind in reassuring the One Country Two Systems principle, what would that be? Who should be doing it? 如果可以做一樣嘢嚟贏番香港人嘅心，去再次保證一國兩制嘅原則，呢樣嘢應該係乜嘢? 同埋應該邊個去做? What: 做啲乜嘢:_________________________________________________ Who: 邊個去做:_________________________________________________

Q19.

JUNE 2004

Is there a message that you feel strongly about that you wish to say to the SCNPC and the HKSAR government regarding the current SCNPC decision on the Basic Law? What is it? Please use only one sentence. 對於目前人大常委會關於《基本法》嘅決定，您有無一句說話係好想話俾人大常委會同埋香港特別行政區政府知道嘅呢？請用一句說話嚟表達。

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

The following are demographic information for classification purpose only. 以下係一啲基本資料，只係用嚟做整體統計分析用途。 D1.

Gender (by listening) 性別（聽） 1 2

D2.

What is your marital status? 請問你而家嘅婚姻狀況係? 1 2 3 4

D3.

Yes 有 No 無

What is your highest education level? 請問您嘅最高學歷係? 1 2 3 4

JUNE 2004

Single 單身 Married 已婚 Separated / divorced 分居 / 離婚 Widow / widowed 喪偶/鰥寡

Do you have any child (children)? 請問您有無仔女? 1

D4.

Male 男 Female 女

Lower than primary school 小學以下 Primary school 小學 Form 1 to Form 3 中一至中三 Form 4 to Form 5 中四至中五

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

Form 6 to Form 7 / Matriculated 中六至中七 / 預科 Undergraduate / university 大專/ 大學 Postgraduate and above 研究生或以上

6 6

D5.

What is your monthly personal income? (Read) 請問您嘅每月個人總收入係? (讀出) 1

Less than HK$2,000 or less 港幣$2,000 以下

HK$2,000 - 5,999 港幣$2,000 - 5,999

HK $6,000-9,999 港幣$6,000-9,999

HK $10,000-14,999 港幣$10,000-14,999

HK$15,000-19,999 港幣$15,000-19,999

HK $20,000-24,999 港幣$20,000-24,999

HK $25,000-29,999 港幣$25,000-29,999

HK $30,000-39,999 港幣$30,000-39,999

HK $40,000-59,999 港幣$40,000-59,999

HK $60,000 or above 港幣$60,000 或以上

No income 無收入

Refuse (Do not read out) 拒答(不要讀出)

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

D6.

What is your monthly household income? (Read) 請問您嘅每月家庭總收入係? (讀出) 1

HK$5,999 or less 港幣$5,999 或以下

HK $6,000-9,999 港幣$6,000-9,999

HK $10,000-14,999 港幣$10,000-14,999

HK$15,000-19,999 港幣$15,000-19,999

HK $20,000-24,999 港幣$20,000-24,999

HK $25,000-29,999 港幣$25,000-29,999

HK $30,000-39,999 港幣$30,000-39,999

HK $40,000-59,999 港幣$40,000-59,999

HK $60,000 or above 港幣$60,000 或以上

Refuse (Do not read out) 拒答(不要讀出)

Thank you very much for your precious time and opinion! 多謝您寶貴嘅時間及意見!

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

VERBATIM TO Q19 香港應該尊重法治精神,唔應該歪曲法案令到香港繁榮，人人有工開聽清楚市民意見，多了解民意聽多 D 市民意見港人治港一個有能力既人去取代董建華希望聽取香港人的意見深入了解香港人既需要希望以後人大一定要百分百按照基本法辦事不變應萬變唔好 Set 死個普選時間表, 應循序漸進應該積極不干預聽取民心人大常委所作決定是對香港未來好搞好經濟凡事按部就班，全面 D 中國好，香港好樣樣野做好 D 比市民睇冇用堅守五十年不變，尊重基本法，維持不變的自由統治移民來港極度失望，想盡快移民去別國多 D 了解香港人的感受多聆聽市民聲音接受市民的意見照基本法辦事就無問題人大及特區政府好自為之應該做就做唔好倒行逆施,聽取民意未經修改履行基本法中之承諾主要搞好香港經濟，不要失業特區政府應循序漸進，不應受群眾壓力影響冇用香港人要高度自治中央不應漠視人民要求比番 D 自主權香港人條路唔係難行，政府可以盡快盡量想辦法突破困難聽從民意個個有工開搞好經濟，唔好咁多人失業繼續平穩向前無奈擴闊聆聽空間

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

繼續保持現狀叫佢地(中央)係香港褢面做少 D 野唔好咁多釋法聽多 D 意見政制不用太急，待香港穩定先實行己所不欲，勿施於人叫中央關心多 D 香港人經濟，不要輸入太多外地勞工應該多 D 聽取香港人的意見溝通和聽多 D 民意比多 D 自由空間比香港市民物極必反我想人大同香港政府百分百實行一國兩制我想爭取自由維持由英國留下的民主自由，不可干預太多還香港人的自由政府要想清楚盤計畫才推行叫董建華退休相信香港市民既智慧同能力應該尊重民意比多 D 時間市民，聽取多 D 意見要聽多 D 人意見唔好搞咁多野以香港人為首要必須聽取民意身為中國元首，須知多 D 民意多關心些市民唔好理香港，等香港自由發揮，搞掂台灣先講希望真係回復 97 年的繁榮，咁就回復以前 80%信心多 D 人有工做，人工要好似 97 前咁，唔好壓低人工做每件事唔好一意孤行搞好經濟聽民意，給我們民主唔好俾咁多限制香港香港人愛自由香港不要給大陸管治多聽多關心小市民意見實行全民普選安定繁榮中國做好自己榜樣希望經濟復甦唔好強壓自由盡量搞好經濟香港現時的社會不安定中央多 D 照顧香港人循序漸進方式進行

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

不要影響港人言論自由聽取民意聽多 D 市民的心聲大家唔好去得太盡，唔好太偏激叫佢地(中央)少 D 作出對香港政制及內部事情發表評論聽多 D 反對意見普選行政長官，不可過快聽市民的意見及心聲最好俾香港人話事，各方面都係多 D 關心經濟方面，改善香港，多 D 關心香港人既去向中方要盡快定一個時間進行普選關心香港人民意聲音應該要多聽取不同的意見，不應只聽單方面意見唔好咁多爭拗做野醒目 D 安定民心，而家人心傍徨不可以繼續釋法，歸回香港的司法部的人去釋法真正聽取民意，不要扮假，不理市民意見堅決執行人大決定否決 07/08 雙普選中央及香港要互相體諒非常滿意以民為本落實普選時間表佢地(中央同埋 CE)無聽香港人的意見保持香港人 50 年不變搞好經濟對港人意見多考慮，如政改同經濟多 D 關心市民叫四五行動收聲好自為知聽民主派及市民/大眾的诉求多收集民意萬事以和為貴叫中央放心，香港人不敢搞革命，別說那麼多廢話，中央官員如姓曾，即曾憲梓，不要說那麼多去扮博士我地普通市民只想得到安居樂業及言論自由，官員做得好就比人讚，做得差就比人鬧按照回一國兩制唔好再干預香港政制最好一國兩制唔好改變香港要獨立和實行一國兩制依基本法辦事聽人民的意見多 D 支持香港快做出直選時間表

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

香港人有成熟的思想去普選彻底失望真係要聽香港人的訢求，真係要安定不要比我地壓迫力希望全面 D 聽香港人的意見，希望施政做得更好香港要搞自己的事，不好煩到人大，自己做番用投票最好搞好經濟政府真心去聽取民意搞好經濟希望中央不要自私，要聽取市民心聲要民主要同政府說話，政府不要滥用權力睇實際情況做實際既事咹既野就要去做，唔好受群眾壓力影響非常唔好冇普選唔好幫有錢佬保持香港繁榮及穩定，人人有工作反醒一下，七月一日上街遊行政府不要搞咁多野，令到百物騰貴搞好香港醫療制度冇聽取香港人既話多聽民意多聽市民心聲，解決問題，唔好聽完就算對港人要公正聽取民意比多 D 信心香港人會繼續支持香港政府要關心香港市民希望愈搞愈好，唔好愈搞愈衰特區做任何事都要有一個合理的理由董建華下台所有關於政制的事都應該由國家決定，不需搞普選多 D 同港人溝通令香港人可發表自己意見適可而止要有言論自由，五十年不變，搞好經濟就算人大唔釋法，都未必有普選，咁樣會影響香港人的信心做返好 D 經濟希望香港多民主 D 希望佢地做好 D，好似以前一樣同多 D 就業機會聽商界之餘，都要聽大家心聲希望維持一國兩制不要作出一些變動，人大和政府依照原本的方式去做就得市民生活困苦了解更多香港人的心聲

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

積極改進對香港有利的事要去做，對香港冇利的事不要去做要普選真真正正聽真正的民意豈有此理不要做太多影響市民信心的事應該做就做平衡 D 聽多 D 各方面既意見立法唔好咁多限制不知所謂普遍香港人也是支持普選的表達方式要更加強硬要民主多聽香港市民意見多聽市民意見聆聽接受香港市民意見唔好胡亂釋法，快 D 換特首人大常委佢唔知道市民心聲，自己按佢地方法去做。就算我地掂，佢地都係照佢地既方法去做，最好多關心香港人的現況公開同埋增加透明度希望個個(立法會、問責官員)真心真意對香港好新聞自由希望可以保持香港繁榮安定需要普選立法會及特首要得共識唔好淨聽一邊聽多 D 民意對於香港人最好不要太激烈，多說對經濟有幫助的話題政治氣候、民生政策真係唔好，現時政府應該以香港人為依歸你地的否定 07/08 年雙普選及政制改革的決定令到我非常憤怒及遺憾香港人絕對有能力決定誰人治港我相信港人愛有權自選特首多與市民溝通先搞好經濟，再搞政治香港人熱愛中國不是想搞獨立，希望佢聽取市民心聲搞好經濟，減低失業率搞好經濟內地政府應該對香港有信心聽下香港人的意見對香港政府好失望最好搞好政治等外資入嚟香港投資慢慢嚟，唔好太急，香港人唔夠時間去適應最好搵 D 香港人喜歡既人嚟幫手，如陳方安生比多 D 香港人言論自由香港要慢慢適應基本法既決定，不可過急香港人會做的有利香港既野，大陸唔駛太擔心

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

叫佢地不要再施壓最好中央唔好再干預香港內政不要干預香港政治希望香港繼續繁榮香港政府改善民生及經濟香港人應該團結 D 中央應幫香港實行民主發展希望有民主自由政府應多關心低下層人士聽市民心聲希望言論自由最好叫陳方安生幫手搞好香港努力 D 將香港經濟搞好聽取香港市民既心聲同意見，不要強行施壓政府改善政策要關心香港各階層市民應該接聽市民意見希望人大真係可以照基本法辦事接受下不同意見既人士意見堅守 50 年不變既承諾民主自由檢討遊行，要普選多聽市民意見多聽市民意願香港人有時真係好無奈太多釋法，對香港人無好處香港人有話事權特區政府好自為之搞好經濟以民為本聽民意關心香港市民多聽取民意以香港人好處為首要多聽市民意見要有言論自由，民主比番香港人話事中央同香港市民應互相體諒希望中央真係可以一國兩制，而唔係佢控制香港安定繁榮人大這個決定做得好香港的自由已經越收越窄俾香港人自由有話事權希望香港有一個普選時間表

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

政府要聽市民的意見，不要蒙箸眼和耳不去看和聽設定民主選舉時間表安定繁榮希望可以聽取香港民意請佢地唔好太強硬最好香港的話事人能夠做番 D 野，幫我地 D 打工仔盡量不干涉香港既政治發展完全唔想理佢地呢 D 野以和為貴叫政府倒台聽取各方意見希望得到安定繁榮，增加就業機會用平常心，多溝通揸住宗旨做事，唔好左搖右擺多聽民意董生聽民意對特區政府、人大常委好失望最好搞好經濟，唔好搞咁多政治中央唔好干預香港內部事情安定繁榮政府改善民生，改政制團結，共識香港實行民主對國家前途和香港前途係無害最希望民主自由真心真意地關心低下層市民聽民意一國兩制的原則應增加透明度努力搞好香港用持平的心態，聽取香港市民的意見希望個個人有工開，有錢搵，唔好再講咁多野唔好放賊人落黎認真看清楚香港人需要什麼比香港人多點決定政治唔好太急盡快進行普選政府應該強硬些聽市民心聲真真正正聽香港人的意見想清楚香港人的意向應該實事求事，唔好講一套做一套 50 年不變就不變,要守承諾慢慢黎唔好太急應給予香港市民自選特首唔好強壓自由

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

搞好經濟多聽民意了解市民心聲多關心市民多聆聽市民心聲安定繁榮香港人可發表自己意見唔好咁煩特區政府和市民溝通多 D 聽取民意叫董生收皮尊重民意多聆聽市民心聲多聽小市民心聲多聽市民心聲要普選聽民心多了解港人感受多聽香港人的訴求，穩定民心港人治港政府搞好經濟保持香港繁榮應真心聆聽市民意見聽全面 D 保持社會經濟繁榮多聽港人訴求，保持社會安定接受市民意見照基本法辦事給予港人言論自由多些聆聽民意搞好經濟港人治港聽民意多聽民意快 D 令經濟好聽取民意，不要忽視民意非常滿意盡快有普選言論自由不要收窄香港人可以管好香港中央應照基本法去做，唔好成日諗點樣控制香港人不要控制香港香港人不搞港獨，中央請放心聽民意要民主自由

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

團結 D 呢香港人以民為本普選特首政府多聽民意要有三民主義以和為貴唔好再煩普選特首互相體諒要用心多溝通希望佢地真係依基本法去管治香港多 D 民主希望社會安定繁榮，失業率降進行普選循序漸進，聽多 D 香港市民意見搜集民意就要實行可以自由選特首搞好香港經濟聽取市民心聲社會繁榮穩定人大盡力幫肋香港搞好經濟政黨互相包容，以穩定發展香港經濟為大前題多聽取民意安定民心，搞好經濟講過既事，必須實踐香港政府無能，辨事不力於基本法中既決定，不能除便修改多聽市民聲音聽取市民既意見港人治港多聽意見，平衡選舉自由選舉做一個強勢政府要讓市民有自由選擇繼續保持一國兩制要保持真正一國兩制和要普選要維持香港經濟穩定希望唔好干擾香港既決定大家多 D 坦誠溝通聽完香港人的意見先，然後再討論請多聽民意董伯伯請努力跟基本法做事支持

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

萬事唔好急聽取多 D 唔同階層的意見唔好出咁多聲我很憤怒，香港已經比你地玩完唔會有普選接納多方意見比多 D 自主權香港香港人有主意，唔係要聽北京政府繼續努力朝住呢過方向走希望少 D 爭拗要接納不同政見人士的意見香港市民是理智既聽多 D 各方意見希望市民行動不要過激，我討厭民主黨一國兩制應增加透明度聽民意聽市民心聲我地要民主冷靜聽民意盡快進行普選港人治港 07/08 雙普選多聽市民心聲，不要激起民怨不要再壓迫言論自由唔好得中央講晒照基本法辦事循序漸進咁做就得應高度自治人善人欺天不欺，政府繼續努力以人為本，重視港人社會安定繁榮，不要人心惶惶就好香港不要俾大陸管唔好強壓自由搞好政治香港人愛自由，唔好輸入共產黨意識關心人民的意願唔好收窄傳媒的言論自由中央同香港應互相體諒一國兩制唔好改照基本法辦事就冇太大問題香港政府做事適可而止聽多 D 民意，唔好有偏見請先給香港自由

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

尊重港人意見聽吓我 D 想要咩好唔好基本法應比市民多 D 時間適應大家應比多些時間了解大家的立場同方向比民主派人士上京開會，互相體諒聽吓民主派講嘢，唔好一意孤行董生唔該請個幫得手的下屬基本法不等於人大法律給予特首多些權力俾我地有自主權，中央睇就好啦，唔好掂多聽港人意見，唔好玩得太盡做 D 好事，唔好再錯落去接納諫言多照顧年老的人，唔好得個講搞乜都好，最緊要人人有工開唔掂搵人幫啦，好似陳方安生呢 D 人還政於民，人民選特首搞好經濟唔好再搞不利的活動尊重港人俾我 D 自己話事你們不應當香港人是蠢財希望多 D 自由請尊重香港人既政制意見聽多 D 市民聲音做多 D 統計，做多 D 調查，收集多 D 意見炒咗董建華搞好經濟，民主希望與市民有多些溝通多聽民意放下歧見香港的市民都係好乖還政於民搞好經濟和平對話，同尋出路多聽市民心聲要真心和真意為香港未來發展努力多聽民意請相信我們要政府聽市民的心聲尊重民意搞好經濟中央你地要信任港人唔好玩分歧，會有好多不好的後果我 D 香港做事自有分吋，你 D 中央唔好成日理我 D

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

唔好要基本法啦政府太多多餘同冇用的人，炒一兩個啦，收服民心用心聆聽社會是人民的請聽民意香港法治不一定要與內地相同希望佢 D 真係實質諗 D 辦法出嚟幫香港搞好經濟，而唔係得把嗡香港人應該耐心 D 等同嘗試去用中央 D 角度去諗，睇吓係咪中央真係咁差試 D 同不同階層人士傾，唔好只係同 D 親中派關埋門密斟內陸干涉少 D 香港的政制發展希望香港人能夠得到真正的言論自由希望香港人能夠團結 D，唔好分化政制氣氛唔好，叫中央暫時對香港唔好施壓叫曾憲梓講嘢唔好太偏激希望香港 D 市民可以係嚟緊的 10 至 20 年可以自己選特首希望中央真係可以根據基本法去管治香港好試吓接見民主黨的人傾吓基本法著重不同階層既意見及反思想現在中央迫到香港人要遊行香港市民唔好太激烈表達自己既意見，亦希望中央了解香港市民驚咩對你地好失望唔好蝦我地唔識野的人真心聽小市民心聲俾我地普選特首，唔要假民主維持一國兩制我地要民主，唔想中央插手俾我地有多 D 言論自由唔掂就求人啦，但唔好再搵班無料之人啦團結就係力量檢討遊行，唔好再有下次中央不應成日滋擾特區政府多理民意，唔好再有下次一切照舊，唔好加減太多政府不要壓制香港市民的言論自由快 D 有普選，選過新特首行民主啦，唔好共產要全力為香港服務世事難料，政府要小心 D 董建華唔好扮傻啦，面對現實啦中央不好多事，香港應有自主權不要再這樣下去，香港應有自主權真真正正聽香港人意見董伯伯請將大隻耳仔聽香港人想要咩多照顧弱細社群大家要互相體諒

JUNE 2004

CIVIC EXCHANGE OPINION SURVEY CIVIC EXCHANGE

重視民主

JUNE 2004