此平台已於2013年7月19日正式停止運作,所有資料僅供參考。
自由討論園地 Open Forum
   > 編者的話 From the Editor
      > Re : 民調結果分析評論 Poll commentary
下 題 >>
Login | 稱 號 : 過客

頁 數 1 

作者 文 章
chief editor

(04/09/2007 19:31:50)
  
Re : 民調結果分析評論 Poll commentary
鍾庭耀解釋:「由於在過去五次調查中,巿民對泛民提出的2012行政長官和立法會普選方案的支持度都相當穩定,前者平均支持率為54%,後者為47%,是次調查於是用了部分資源探討該等數字背後的意義。結果顯示,對泛民方案不表支持者中,原來有兩至三成是認為有關方案過於保守,佔總樣本一成至成半之間。換言之,如果沒有更加『前衛』的方案可供選擇,泛民的2012行政長官和立法會普選方案,支持率可能分別達到69%和60%。此外,倘若兩個方案不是在2012實行,而是推遲至2017和2016年實行,則在沒有更加『前衛』方案選擇的情況下,支持率可能達到75%和71%。」

鍾庭耀補充:「泛民其實沒有提出2017行政長官和2016立法會普選方案。民研計劃只是透過是次調查的設計,顯示民意的複雜性,和示範如何探討一般民意數字的意義。特區政府在《政制發展綠書》中所提出的簡單提問,和以六成支持率作為民意依歸,如果處理不善的話,可能會得不償失。」

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release06.html

Robert Chung explained, "Over the past 5 surveys, people's support of the pan-democrats' proposals on 2012 CE and LC elections have been very stable, with average support rates of 54% and 47%. We have, therefore, allocated some resources in this survey to examine what it means. We discovered that among those who did not express support to the proposals, 20% to 30% in fact considered such proposals too conservative. They comprised about 10% to 15% of the total sample. In other words, if there are no more ‘progressive' proposals available, people's support of the pan-democrats' proposals on 2012 CE and LC elections may well go up to 69% and 60% respectively. Moreover, if these proposals were delayed from 2012 to 2017 and 2016 respectively, then in the absence of more ‘progressive' proposals, their support rates may go up to 75% and 71%."

Robert Chung added, "The pan-democrats have actually not made any proposal on 2017 CE and 2016 LC elections. The idea of POP's design this time is to show the complexity of public opinion, and to demonstrate how we can read different opinion figures. The simple questions posted by the government in its "Green Paper on Constitutional Development", as well as using 60% as a benchmark of public support, may well backfire on itself if they are not handled properly."

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release06.html
147.8.219.xxx
由 chief editor 修改 (11/09/2007 04:18:03)
chief editor

(04/09/2007 19:30:33)
  
Re : 民調結果分析評論 Poll commentary
特區政府在7月11日發表《政制發展綠書》後,民研計劃在7月底的調查使用了部分政府在綠皮書推薦,但在設計上有偏頗的題目進行調查,得出「泛民主派提出的2012年行政長官普選方案獲得56%支持」和「37%選擇2012年普選行政長官」看似犯駁的結論。為了深入討論箇中的問題,民研計劃會按照原定計劃,於本星期內設計一份比較完整和詳細的模擬問卷,作為討論的起點,和供給其他民間機構參考使用。在今日發放的調查之中,民研計劃繼續採用自2004年5月開始使用的提問方法,測試巿民對普選的訴求。提問方式如下:

* 基本法第45條寫明行政長官既產生辦法根據香港既「實際情況和循序漸進的原則」,最終達至普選產生。咁你認為應該係邊一年實現普選行政長官?

* 基本法第68條寫明立法會既產生辦法根據香港既「實際情況和循序漸進的原則」,最終達至全面普選。你認為應該係邊一年實現普選立法會?

* 你認為香港係咪有足夠條件進行普選?

民研計劃主任鍾庭耀解釋:「民研計劃設計的提問方式,是以最簡單和平實的方式,要求巿民在考慮基本法中提及的『實際情況和循序漸進的原則』後,表達對普選時間表的意見。由於答案選項中沒有例如『一步達至普選』和『先經過一個過渡期』等具引導性的字眼,所以結果更加能夠顯示巿民的從容抉擇。」

就最新調查的一般結果,鍾庭耀分析:「就普選方面,最新調查顯示,51%巿民認為應該在2012年或之前實現普選行政長官,64%認為應該在2012年或之前實現普選立法會,57%認為香港已有足夠條件進行普選。三者都與兩個月前的數字差不多完全一樣。就泛民提出的2012年行政長官和立法會普選方案,最新民意支持率為56%和50%,與上次調查錄得的數字差不多。至於是次調查開始探討關於基本法第45條所述,在普選行政長官時要先經過『一個有廣泛代表性的提名委員會按民主程序提名』的問題,調查顯示,在四個調查涵蓋的『民主程序』考慮因素之中,84%認為『確保整個選舉是一個真正民主的選舉』是重要的考慮,『確保獲得巿民支持的候選人全部可以參選』和『確保符合國際社會公認的民主提名程序』屬於重要的,分別有77%及75%,而認為要『確保中央政府不接受的候選人不能參選』重要的就有47%。如何引導和權衡巿民對有關『民主程序』的訴求,相信會是討論政改方案的重要環節。」

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release05.html

After the HKSAR Government released its "Green Paper on Constitutional Development" on July 11, POP tested a number of error-prone questions suggested by the Green Paper in our last round of political reform survey late last month, and came to the following apparently contradictory conclusion: "That 56% supported pan-democrats' proposals regarding universal suffrage for CE in 2012" and "that 37% chose 2012 as the year to introduce universal suffrage for CE". In order to debug the problem, POP will proceed to design a detailed and comprehensive model questionnaire this week, for discussion purpose and for use by other non-government organizations if thought fit. In the survey released today, POP continues to use the questions designed in May 2004 to gauge people's demand for universal suffrage, namely:

Article 45 of Basic Law states that the method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the HKSAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Which year do you think the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage should be implemented?

Article 68 of Basic Law states that the method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. Which year do you think the selection of Legislative Councillors by universal suffrage should be implemented?

Do you think Hong Kong's condition is sufficient for introducing universal suffrage?

Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, explained, "The questions designed by POP have used the simplest and plainest way to ask people for a time table for universal suffrage, after mentioning the concept of 'in the light of the actual situation in the HKSAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress' stipulated in the Basic Law. Because the answers do not contain leading phrases like 'attaining universal suffrage in one go' and 'going through a transitional phase', the findings should be more representative of people's relaxed opinion."

On the general findings of the latest survey, Robert Chung observed, "On universal suffrage, our latest survey finds that 51% considered 2012 to be the right time to introduce universal suffrage for CE, 64% considered 2012 to be the right time to introduce universal suffrage for LC, while 57% said Hong Kong's current condition is sufficient for introducing universal suffrage. All three figures are almost the same as those registered two months ago. As for the pan-democrats' proposals regarding universal suffrage for CE and LC in 2012, their latest support rates are 56% and 50% respectively, almost the same as those of the last survey. With regard to the new issue which we start to investigate in this survey, namely that Article 45 of the Basic Law states that 'CE shall be selected by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures', our survey shows that among the four criteria covered by this survey relating to 'democratic procedures', 84% considered it important that 'the election on the whole is a truly democratic election', 77% and 75% respectively considered it important 'to ensure all candidates supported by Hong Kong people can participate in the election' and 'to ensure that the nominating procedure comply with internationally-recognized standards', 47% considered it important 'to vet out candidates not accepted by central government'. Exactly how public opinion will be channeled or balanced on the definition of these 'democratic procedures' will become a critical point in the discussion of political reform."

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release05.html
147.8.219.xxx
由 chief editor 修改 (11/09/2007 04:17:43)
chief editor

(04/09/2007 19:29:04)
  
Re : 民調結果分析評論 Poll commentary
特區政府在7月11日發表《政制發展綠書》,當中以類似問卷形式列出了若干問題和若干選項,負責的官員更加建議民意調查機構可以按照綠皮書的提問和選項形式進行民意調查,收集巿民意見。民研計劃主任鍾庭耀在細閱綠皮書後,對有關建議作出以下回應:「政府提出的民意調查方法有其道理,但若果全面採用兼且作為最後定案的指引,則會嚴重不足。例如,就行政長官選舉方面,綠皮書就提出三條題目,各預設三個答案。按照政府提出的選項,三條題目就有27個組合,而每位巿民都可能只是『支持』或『接受』27個組合的其中一個或幾個。倘若把立法會普選的兩條問題也一併結合,則答案的組合便會增加至243個。要在眾多答案組合中找出巿民支持的部分,須要非常小心。例如,部分巿民可能會在2012普選實施的前題下,接受一個比較保守的提名方案,但如果普選推遲至2017以後,巿民會要求一個非常開放的提名機制。政府建議的簡單調查方法,可能無法查出以上的圖象。此外,就調查角度而言,綠皮書就提出的答案選項亦有不足。例如,綠皮書詢問巿民行政長官候選人應該有2至4名?還是最多8名?還是10名以上?如果部分巿民選擇9名,應該如何作答?民研計劃在上次調查中採用一組三題處理同一問題,可能更具參考價值:『假設2012年行政長官選舉是由一個提名委員會先提名或者過濾候選人,然後由市民一人一票選出行政長官。你認為提名委員會最少要提名幾多個候選人俾巿民一人一票選出行政長官?』『你認為提名委員會最好提名幾多個候選人俾巿民選擇?』和『你認為提名委員會提名既候選人唔應該超過幾多個?』民研計劃因此未再就候選人數問題進行調查。」

就政府建議的調查方法,鍾庭耀補充:「沒有一個調查方法會是盡善盡美,政府提出的方法可以列作參考,但不能照單全收。況且,有關行政長官選舉中極其重要和敏感的『民主提問程序』和所引申的『預先篩選機制』,綠皮書都沒有使用同樣方法詢問巿民,導致政府建議的『五問各三選』方法有所不足。民研計劃會在未來數個星期嘗試設計一份比較完整和詳細的模擬問卷,供給其他民間機構參考使用。現階段,民研計劃會繼續從6月開始,大約每月兩次,每次大約6題的調查方法追蹤民意。」

就是次追蹤調查的設計方法,鍾庭耀解釋:「民研計劃暫時沒有資源就綠皮書的建議進行全面調查。況且,社會對綠皮書的討論亦未見熱切。因此,民研計劃只能以非常有限的調查資源回應綠皮書提出的部分問題。就政府建議的五條題目,基於前述設計缺陷的問題,民研計劃沒有再次跟進行政長官候選人數的問題。事實上,我們在上次的新聞公報已經指出,『調查顯示,以平均數計,巿民認為最少要有6人,最好要有8人,最多不應超過14人。』至於政府建議的其餘四條題目,我們雖然認為政府有關選舉『路線圖及時間表』的兩條題目有偏頗之處,但亦差不多照單全收作為初步測試。不過,在關於行政長官選舉提名委員會的人數和普選立法會的方案方面,我們就只能以『假設2012年普選』的前提縮窄調查的範圍。這個假設是基於過往調查顯示2012年是最多巿民希望進行普選的年份,倘若普選年份不是2012,巿民對其他選項的要求可能有變。有關變數,將會留待日後探討。」

就是次調查的一般結果,鍾庭耀分析:「泛民主派提出的2012年行政長官和立法會普選方案,最新民意支持率為56%和48%,前者比上次調查上升7個百分比,回復到一個月前的水平,後者則在最近三次調查都變化不大。就普選路線圖及時間表方面,調查雖然使用了綠皮書所載有所偏頗的提問方式進行調查,仍然得出2012年普選是最多巿民選擇的年份。選擇2012年普選行政長官者有37%,而選擇2012年普選立法會者有42%,都多於其他選項。假設2012年進行普選的話,調查再次使用綠皮書有所偏頗的提問方式進行調查,結果顯示,66%認為行政長官選舉提名委員會應該由超過800人組成,而普選立法會方面,較多巿民認為應該保留功能界別議席但改變選舉模式,但有關意見亦只佔三分之一左右,相當紛紜。此外,就前次調查開始探討的『行政長官選舉預先篩選機制』的問題,是次調查發現,認為基本法已有足夠條文確保中央政府可以接受行政長官候選人,和認為應該設立預先篩選機制者不相伯仲,各佔四成以上。有關問題似乎未有主流意見,須要繼續探討。」

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release04.html

On July 11, the HKSAR Government released its "Green Paper on Constitutional Development". In it the government listed a number of survey-type questions with specific answers. A government official responsible for the consultation even suggested research organizations to adopt those questions to poll people's opinion. On such suggestions, Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, responded after studying the Green Paper, "While there are good grounds for the government to suggest such a polling method, it contains serious deficiencies if adopted in total as the final reference. For example, regarding CE election, the Green Paper asked 3 questions, each with 3 answers. Simple arithmetic shows that there are 27 combinations of possible answers, and each person may just 'support' or 'accept' only one or a few of these 27 combinations. If we incorporate the two questions on LC election, then the number of combinations will increase to 243. Exactly how many of these combinations are supported by the people requires very careful analysis. For example, some people might accept a relatively conservative proposal on the constitution of the nomination committee, if CE is returned by universal suffrage in 2012. However, if the date is pushed to beyond 2017, people may opt for a very open nomination system. Using a simple questionnaire design suggested by the government may not be able to paint the picture. Moreover, from a survey designer's point of view, the answer items offered by the Green Paper are also insufficient. For example, the Green Paper asks people how many CE candidates there should be, and offered three options of 2 to 4, 8 at most, and 10 or more. What if some people want nine? It seems that the set of three questions we used in our last survey is more useful. We asked, 'If a nomination committee were to be set up to nominate or vet candidates for the 2012 Chief Executive election before entering the stage of universal suffrage, at least how many candidates do you think should be nominated?' 'What do you think is the ideal number of candidates to be nominated by the nomination committee for the universal suffrage?' and 'What do you think is the maximum number of candidates to be nominated by the nomination committee for the universal suffrage?' We therefore decided not to repeat this topic in this survey."

Still on the government's proposed survey method, Robert Chung added, "This is no single perfect method of conducting surveys. The government's proposed method serves as one possible reference, but should not be adopted in total. As a matter of fact, the Green Paper did not use the same method to ask people for opinion on the very important and sensitive issue of 'democratic procedures of nomination' and the 'prior vetting mechanism' relating to it. This significantly undercuts the usefulness of the '5 questions of 3 choices' approach suggested by the Green Paper. We at POP will try to design a detailed and comprehensive model questionnaire in the next few weeks for use by other non-government organizations. At this stage, we will continue to track public opinion with the mechanism we have set up in June, namely, about two tracking surveys each month, each with about 6 opinion questions."

With respect to the research design of this tracking survey, Robert Chung explained, "Because POP does not have the resources to conduct a comprehensive survey on the Green Paper, and because discussion of the Green Paper has just begun, we have only used very limited resources to respond to the Green Paper. As explained before, of the five questions posted by the government, POP has decided to skip the one on the number CE candidates due to methodological flaws. As a matter of fact, in our press release last time, we have already pointed out that 'people on average would like the nomination committee to provide at least 6, preferably 8 but not more than 14 candidates for people to choose by one person one vote'. As for the remaining four questions posted by the government, although we consider the two questions on 'roadmap and timetable' to be error-prone, we have nevertheless used them almost word-by-word in this survey to test the water. As for the question on CE election nomination committee, and that on options for forming the LC, we have to limit ourselves to the most popular scenario according to our previous surveys, namely, 'assuming that there will be universal suffrage in 2012'. In case this parameter is changed, people's choice of the other items may change a lot. We will explore such scenarios in future."

On the general findings of this survey, Robert Chung observed, "On the pan-democrats' proposals regarding universal suffrage for CE and LC in 2012, their latest support rates are 56% and 48% respectively. The former represents an increase of 7 percentage points since the last survey, back to the level registered one month ago. For the latter, there is not much change over the past three surveys. On the 'roadmap and timetable' of universal suffrage, although we have adopted the error-prone question posted by the Green Paper, we still find that 2012 is the most favourable choice made by the people. For CE election, 37% chose 2012, and for LC election, 42%, both being most favourable choices. Assuming that CE would be returned by universal suffrage in 2012, and again using the error-prone questions posted by the Green Paper, 66% answered that the nominating committee should consist of more than 800 members. As for LC election, most people chose retaining the functional seats but changing their election methods. However, opinion is split, as even this most favourable answer only captures the support of about one-third of the respondents. On the issue of 'CE election prior vetting mechanism' which POP began to study in the second last survey, this survey has found that opinion is almost equally divided between those who think the Basic Law has already provided sufficient precautions to guarantee Central Government's blessing of the candidates, and those who think that a prior vetting mechanism should be introduced. Each of these opposing views has the support of over 40%. It seems that mainstream opinion on this issue is yet to be formed, and we need to continue studying it."

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release04.html
147.8.219.xxx
由 chief editor 修改 (11/09/2007 04:17:20)
chief editor

(04/09/2007 19:27:47)
  
Re : 民調結果分析評論 Poll commentary
就是次調查的設計方法,民研計劃主任鍾庭耀解釋:「根據民研計劃與泛民達成的協議,本系列政改調查每次都會包括巿民對泛民政改方案的支持程度,其他題目則由民研計劃決定,而調查中所有問題的設計和分析,都會由民研計劃全權決定。民研計劃初步決定,除了在每次調查測試泛民政改方案的支持程度外,亦會隔次調查測試巿民認為幾時應該實現普選行政長官和普選立法會。至於其他項目,則會視乎社會討論的焦點而定。由於政府尚未發表政改綠皮書,是次調查於是以有限資源探討巿民對行政長官選舉最後階段候選人數目的意見,以及跟進上次調查開始探討的行政長官選舉『預先篩選機制』。是次調查採用了概念對比法,測試巿民如何面對選擇篩選機制可能引申的兩種效應,即篩選機制可以確保候選人得到中央政府接受,但又會把選舉變成沒有真正競爭。有關討論,在未來一段日子可能變得相當重要。」

就是次調查的一般結果,鍾庭耀分析:「就普選時間方面,最新調查顯示,56%巿民認為應該在2012年或之前實現普選行政長官,65%認為應該在2012年或之前實現普選立法會,比一個月前的數字略為上升。就泛民主派提出的2012年行政長官和立法會普選方案,最新民意支持率為49%和48%,比上次調查分別下跌8個百分比和上升3個百分比。至於假設2012年實施行政長官普選,提名委員會應該提名多少候選人讓市民可以一人一票選出行政長官,調查顯示,以平均數計,巿民認為最少要有6人,最好要有8人,最多不應超過14人。若以中位數計,則最少要有3人,最好要有5人,最多不應超過6人。綜合而論,巿民似乎最希望能夠以一人一票從5至8人中選出行政長官。」

就上次調查開始探討的『行政長官選舉預先篩選機制』的問題,鍾庭耀分析:「上次調查發現,不少巿民同意在行政長官選舉過程中要照顧中央政府的意願,而預先溝通機制又比預先篩選機制較易接受。今次調查進一步以概念對比法,測試巿民如何面對有關可能帶來的影響。結果顯示,在對比中央政府能夠接受候選人和確保選舉有真正競爭之間,較多巿民認為真正競爭更加重要,比認為照顧中央政府意願更加重要者略高半成。」

鍾庭耀最後補充:「由於官方的政改諮詢還未開始,而且社會討論亦未成熟,所以有關民意數字只宜用作初步參考。不過,三輪民意調查過後,若干民意訴求已經呼之欲出。首先,巿民希望會有半年的諮詢期。其次,巿民希望會有5至8人參加2012年的行政長官選舉。第三,巿民要求有真正競爭的選舉,亦希望候選人得到中央政府接受。第四,在未有其他具體方案之前,泛民提出的2012年行政長官和立法會普選方案,支持率大概是五成左右。政府如何揉合巿民的要求,順應民意,將會直接影響政府的管治威信。」

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release03.html

With respect to the research design of this survey, Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, explained, "According to the agreement reached between POP and the pan-democrats, POP will measure people's support for the pan-democrats' proposals in every tracking survey, while all other questions would be left for POP to decide. Moreover, the design and analysis of all questions will rest entirely at POP's discretion. POP's initial decision is to measure people's views on the schedule of universal suffrage in every alternative survey, on top of measuring people's receptiveness of the pan-democrats' proposal each time. Other topics will depend on the talking points of the time. Because the government has not yet released its green paper on constitutional reform, we have concentrated our scarce resources available to this survey to study people's view on the number of candidates competing in the last round of CE election, and to follow up on the issue of ‘prior vetting mechanism' studied in the last survey, by confronting people with two conflicting ideas, namely, the idea that prior vetting mechanism would produce CE candidates acceptable to the Central Government, and the idea that prior vetting mechanism would eliminate real competition. Such debates are likely to become more important in new future."

On the general findings of this survey, Robert Chung observed, "On the schedule of universal suffrage, this survey finds that 56% believe that CE should be returned by universal suffrage by 2012, while 65% believe Legco should be returned by universal suffrage by 2012. Both figures have increased slightly over the last month. On pan-democrats' proposals regarding universal suffrage for CE and Legco in 2012, people's latest support rates are 49% and 48% respectively, representing a respective drop of 8 percentage points and a rise of 3 percentage points since the last survey. Assuming that CE will be returned by universal suffrage in 2012, this survey finds that people on average would like the nomination committee to provide at least 6, preferably 8 but not more than 14 candidates for people to choose by one person one vote. The median figures are 3, 5 and 6 candidates respectively. It seems in general that people would like to have 5 to 8 candidates to choose from at the final stage of the election using one person one vote."

On the issue of ‘prior vetting mechanism' which POP began to study in the last survey, Robert Chung observed, "In our last survey, we discovered that many people agreed that the wish of the Central Government should be taken into consideration in the CE election, and that many preferred communication over vetting mechanisms. In this survey, we further examine people's views on the possible effect of these vetting mechanisms by confronting them with conflicting concepts. We found that between acceptance by the Central Government and real competition, more people prefer real competition to Central Government's wish. The edge is about 5 percentage points."

Robert Chung added, "Because the official consultation period is yet to begin, and many issues are still not thoroughly discussed, opinion figures at this stage could only be taken as very preliminary. Nevertheless, after our three rounds of surveys, a number of public demands have become obvious. One, people want to have a 6-month consultation. Second, people want to have 5 to 8 candidates to choose from in the 2012 CE election. Three, people want real competition, but also hope the Central Government would endorse the candidates. Four, before the emergence of other concrete proposals, the proposals put forward by the pan-democrats regarding universal suffrage for CE and Legco in 2012 have secured about 50% support rate. Exactly how the government would incorporate people's demands according to people's wishes will directly affect the credibility of the government itself."

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release03.html
147.8.219.xxx
由 chief editor 修改 (11/09/2007 04:16:24)
chief editor

(04/09/2007 19:26:22)
  
Re : 民調結果分析評論 Poll commentary
就是次調查的設計方法,民研計劃主任鍾庭耀解釋:「根據民研計劃與泛民達成的協議,本系列政改調查每次都會包括巿民對泛民政改方案的支持程度,其他題目則由民研計劃決定,而調查中所有問題的設計和分析,都會由民研計劃全權決定。是次調查沒有重複巿民認為幾時應該實現普選行政長官和普選立法會,是因為我們估計有關數字在過去兩星期內應該變化不大。因此,我們騰出資源,測試一些近期比較受到關注的理念和建議。我們於是選擇了『預先篩選機制』和『預先溝通機制』進行測試。不過,由於有關機制尚無具體說明,我們只能廣義引用『確保中央政府能夠接受候選人』的理念。事實上,本人在上次新聞公報中已經說明,不少所謂『方案』其實並未具體,而且社會討論亦未成熟,所以,現階段所有民意數字只宜用作初步參考。」

就是次調查的結果,鍾庭耀分析:「是次調查繼續以『有意見認為怎樣怎樣』作為問卷引子,在除掉標籤效應後,測試泛民主派提出的2012年行政長官和立法會普選方案。最新數字顯示,上述兩個方案在現階段的民意支持率為57%和45%,比上次調查同步上升5個百分比。至於設立行政長官選舉『預先篩選機制』和『預先溝通機制』方面,調查顯示分別有45%和52%巿民支持。不過,須要注意,由於有關『機制』尚無實質內容,調查問卷於是採用了以下提問方法:『有意見認為,行政長官選舉應該加入預先篩選/預先溝通機制,確保中央政府能夠接受候選人,然後由市民一人一票選出行政長官。』45%和52%巿民支持有關機制,可能顯示不少巿民同意在行政長官選舉過程中要照顧中央政府的意願,而預先溝通機制又比預先篩選機制較易接受。至於甚麼方法屬於最好,則仍然有待研究。最後,關於政制檢討綠皮書的諮詢時間方面,調查顯示,巿民一般希望有6個月的諮詢期。如果只有3個月的話,則只有24%巿民感到滿意。」

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release02.html

With respect to the research design of this survey, Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, explained, "According to the agreement reached between POP and the pan-democrats, POP will measure people's support for the pan-democrats' proposals in every tracking survey, while all other questions would be left for POP to decide. Moreover, the design and analysis of all questions will rest entirely at POP's discretion. This survey did not repeat the questions on people's views on the schedule of universal suffrage because we did not expect the result to change much over the past two weeks. We therefore would like to spare some resources to test some concepts and proposals which have drawn public attention recently, and we have chosen the ideas of 'prior vetting mechanism' and 'prior communication channel'. However, since these ideas still lack concrete details, we have connected them to the concept of 'acceptance of the candidates by the Central government' in a broad sense. As I wrote in the last press release, many of the so-called 'proposals' are still quite vague and not thoroughly discussed by the public. Opinion figures at this stage could only be taken as very preliminary."

On the survey results, Robert Chung analyzed, "This survey continues to use questions starting with 'it is proposed such and such' in order to avoid labeling effect when we measure people's support for pan-democrats' proposals regarding universal suffrage for CE and Legco in 2012. Our latest findings show that the support rates for these two proposals now stand at 57% and 45%, both being 5 percentage points higher than those of the last survey. With respect to the 'prior vetting mechanism' and 'prior communication channel' for CE election, our survey shows that they are supported by 45% and 52% respectively. However, it should be noted that since these 'mechanisms' still lack concrete details, we only used the following wordings in our questions: 'It is proposed that some kind of prior vetting/communication mechanisms should be added to the CE election to secure the acceptance of candidates by the Central government before using one-person-one-vote'. The fact that 45% and 52% supported the mechanisms may mean that many people agree that the wish of the Central Government should be taken into consideration in the CE election, and that prefer communication more than vetting mechanisms. Exactly what mechanism is the best remains to be investigated. Finally, regarding the consultation period of the propsective green paper on political development review, our survey shows that people generally wish to have a 6-month consultation period. Only 24% would be satisfied with a 3-month consultation."

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release02.html
147.8.219.xxx
由 chief editor 修改 (11/09/2007 04:15:43)
chief editor

(04/09/2007 19:24:47)
  
民調結果分析評論 Poll commentary
民研計劃主任鍾庭耀分析:「2003年7月至2004年5月期間,主要在人大常委尚未就2007/08普選問題進行釋法前*,民研計劃的定期調查顯示,雖然估計2007/08會實行普選的巿民明顯屬於少數,但要求在2007/08達到雙普選的比率一直過半。人大釋法後不久,民研計劃改變了提問方式,詢問巿民對普選時間表的意見。結果顯示,在2005年12月中,立法會否決特區政府提出的政改方案前,59%巿民認為應該在2012年或之前實現普選行政長官,包括29%認為應該在2007年或之前實施。至於立法會選舉方面,當時有38%認為應該在2008年或之前實現普選立法會。年半過後,社會的焦點已經轉移到2012年應否實行普選。最新調查顯示,現時有53%巿民認為應該在2012年或之前實現普選行政長官,64%認為應該在2012年或之前實現普選立法會。如果同樣以2012年作為截止年份,則民意數字在年半以來的變化不算太大。認為應該在2012年或之前實現普選行政長官的下跌了6個百分比,認為應該在2012年或之前實現普選立法會的則上升了3個百分比,而認為香港有足夠條件進行普選的則下跌3個百分比。」

就巿民對個別政改方案的支持程度方面,鍾庭耀解釋:「是次調查主要測試了泛民主派提出的2012年行政長官和立法會普選方案。問卷以『有意見認為怎樣怎樣』為引子,主要是避免標籤效應,是民研計劃一貫的做法。調查顯示,上述兩個方案在現階段的民意支持率為52%和40%。此外,調查亦以同樣方法測試了由前政務司司長陳方安生及其核心小組所提出擴大選舉委員會選民基礎的方案,發現支持率為45%。不過,須要說明,不少所謂『方案』其實並未具體,而且社會討論亦未成熟,所有民意數字只宜用作初步參考。」

民研計劃在未來半年,會不斷就政改進行民意調查。至於有關調查的運作,鍾庭耀解釋:「民研計劃與泛民已經達成協議,每次調查都會包括巿民對泛民政改方案的支持程度,其他題目則由民研計劃決定。調查中所有問題的設計和分析,都會由民研計劃全權決定。此外,泛民又同意資助由民研計劃在網上開設的「政制改革民意平台」,示範民間諮詢工作。」

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release01.html

Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of Public Opinion Programme, observed, "Between July 2003 and May 2004, mainly before the NPC Standing Committee ruled out universal suffrage in 2007/08*, POP's regular surveys showed that consistently more than half of the population wanted universal suffrage in 2007/08, even though very few people actually believed it would come true. Shortly after NPCSC made the ruling, POP changed the wording of the tracking questions, and began to track people's views on the schedule of universal suffrage. A survey conducted in mid-December 2005, shortly before Legco vetoed the reform package proposed by the SAR Government, showed that 59% of the population said the Chief Executive should be returned by universal suffrage by 2012, including 29% who opted for 2007 or before. As for Legco, 38% at that time said Legco should be returned by universal suffrage by 2008. Now, after one and a half years, people's focus has shifted to universal suffrage in 2012. According to our latest survey, 53% now believe that CE should be returned by universal suffrage by 2012, while 64% believe Legco should be returned by universal suffrage by 2012. If we use 2012 as the cut-off year, we can conclude that public opinion has not changed much over these one and a half years. There is a drop of 6 percentage points regarding the universal suffrage for CE in 2012, but a rise of 3 percentage points regarding universal suffrage for Legco in 2012. The percentage of those who said Hong Kong's condition is sufficient for introducing universal suffrage has dropped 3 percentage points."

Regarding the degree of public support for specific political reform proposals, Robert Chung explained, "This survey has mainly measured people's support for pan-democrats' proposals regarding universal suffrage for CE and Legco in 2012. In line with our general practice, we have used questions starting with 'it is proposed that…' without mentioning names, in order to avoid labeling effect. Our findings show that the support rates of pan-democrats' CE and Legco proposals now stand at 52% and 40%. On the other hand, we have also measured the proposal put forward by Former Chief Secretary Anson Chan's Core Group to widen the constituency of the Election Committee, again without mentioning names. Its support rate now stands at 45%. It should be noted, however, that many of the so-called proposals are still quite vague and not thoroughly discussed by the public. Opinion figures at this stage should, therefore, be used for preliminary reference only."

In the coming six months, POP will conduct frequent surveys on people's views on political reform. Regarding the operation of these surveys, Robert Chung explained, "According to the agreement reached between POP and the pan-democrats, POP will measure people's support for the pan-democrats' proposals in every survey, while all other questions would be left for POP to decide. Moreover, the design and analysis of all questions will rest entirely at POP's discretion. Furthermore, the pan-democrats have also agreed to sponsor POP's online "Political Reform Opinion Platform", in order to demonstrate how independent consultation should be done."

http://prop.hkpop.hk/chi/release/release01.html
147.8.219.xxx
由 chief editor 修改 (11/09/2007 04:14:33)

頁 數 1 
下 題 >>