《民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊》編輯委員會 · web...

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊POP EXPRESS

Combined Volume #1 Special Issue

香港大學社會科學研究中心民意研究計劃

PUBLIC OPINION PROGRAMMESOCIAL SCIENCES RESEARCH CENTRE

THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

目錄Table of Contents

序 ii-iiiForeword

編輯委員會 iv Editorial Committee

民意研究計劃小組成員 ivMembers of the Public Opinion Programme (POP) Research Team 第一期九六年九月號 1-12No. 1 September 1996

第二期九六年十月號 13-24No. 2 October 1996

第三期九六年十一月號 25-36No. 3 November 1996

第四期九六年十二月號 37-48No. 4 December 1996

第五期九七年一月號 49-60No. 5 January 1997

第六期九七年二月號 61-72No. 6 February 1997

第七期九七年三月號 73-84No. 7 March 1997

第八期九七年四月號 85-96No. 8 April 1997

第九期九七年五月號 97-108No. 9 May 1997

第十期九七年六月號 109-128No. 10 June 1997

索引 129-133

序

《民意快訊》的發行，是基於前線研究工作者的一份責任感。在資源短缺，人手不足的情況下，民意研究小組的成員仍然堅持在繁忙的常規工作以外，成立編輯委員會按月編寫快訊，目的不外乎希望把研究小組的工作成果，盡快與社會人士分享，好讓各項數據能發揮即時的效用，並為日後研究本地民情的學者提供參考資料。《民意快訊》自九六年九月印發以來，已不斷在內容及格式上作出改良，力

求精簡握要，簡單易明。我們堅持中英對照，樣本資料盡錄，及問卷原文轉載，是基於一份執著。雖然是百上加斤，仍無損我們對未來民意研究發展的一份憧憬。不要說是五十年不變，就算是五年不變，我們也無法保證。但研究小組肯定

會在可見的將來繼續努力，完善民意調查的機制，及發揮民情研究的作用，希望各界人士能多加指正，多給支持！《民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊》結集了第一至第十期的《民意快訊》，亦即自

創刊至香港主權回歸中國為止，記載了香港市民在主權回歸前最後過渡期的各種心態，是研究該段歷史不可或缺的一手資料。

香港大學社會科學研究中心民意研究計劃負責人兼《民意快訊》主編

鍾庭耀　九七年十月二十日

4

Foreword

The publication of POP EXPRESS is the result of extreme dedication on the part of front-line social researchers. In great hardship and under extreme resources constraint, members of the Public Opinion Programme have continued their monthly editorial work of POP EXPRESS, on top of their already very heavy research work, for a very simple reason: we would like to share with the community at large the result of our opinion surveys as soon as they are collected, so that all and everyone can benefit from our research. Needless to say, opinion researchers can always make reference to our findings whenever they find it useful.

Since the first publication of POP EXPRESS in September 1996, we have constantly reviewed and revised its format and content, so that our opinion data could be presented in the most user-friendly fashion. We have kept our presentation simple, in order to let the figures speak for themselves. We have insisted on a bilingual presentation, and on providing all the necessary contact information of our surveys. This demonstrates our optimism in the future development of opinion surveys in Hong Kong.

We are not sure whether things would remain unchanged in the next fifty years, in fact, not even for the next five years. Nevertheless, we would try our very best to maintain, and upgrade, the standard of opinion surveys in Hong Kong, so that such surveys could be put to their better use. We hope the community at large would support us.

This Combined Volume #1 Special Issue of POP EXPRESS has bound together POP EXPRESS Issues Nos. 1 to 10, published before the reversal of the sovereignty over Hong Kong from Britain to China. It describes the sentiment of the people of Hong Kong in its final period of colonial history, and is an important source book for any historical study of Hong Kong.

CHUNG Ting-yiu RobertChief Editor of POP EXPRESS and

Head of the Public Opinion Programme20 October 1997

5

《民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊》編輯委員會Editorial Committee of POP EXPRESS

Combined Volume #1 Special Issue

主編 : 鍾庭耀Chief Editor : Chung Ting-yiu Robert執行編輯 : 李至君陳夢施Editors : Lee Chi-kwan Anita Chan Mung-sze Natalie編委會成員 : 彭嘉麗劉珮欣Committee Members : Pang Ka-lai Karie Lau Pui-yan Flora編務助理 : 李德成Editorial Assistant : Lee Tak-shing Patrick

民意研究小組成員Members of the

Public Opinion Programme (POP) Research Team

民意研究計劃負責人 : 鍾庭耀Programme Head : Chung Ting-yiu Robert

統籌員 : 李至君陳夢施Programme Managers : Lee Chi-kwan Anita Chan Mung-sze Natalie

研究助理馬嘉莉李博儀Research Executives : Ma Ka-lee Carrie Lee Pok-yee Betty彭嘉麗劉珮欣

Pang Ka-lai Karie Lau Pui-yan Flora

技術員 : 李德成Technician : Lee Tak-shing Patrick

秘書 : 周佩蘭Secretary : Chau Pui-lan Erika

文書助理 : 余秀霞Clerical Assistant : Yu Sau-ha Rita

6

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年九月號

民意研究計劃民意快訊 Public Opinion Programme POP EXPRESS

香港大學社會科學研究中心 Social Sciences Research Centre (SSRC), The University of Hong Kong 第 1期 No.1

發刊詞Inaugural Statement

　　香港大學社會科學研究中心的民意研究計劃自九一年六月成立以來，不斷地就市民對各項政治及民生問題進行測試。當中包括不少定期、不定期、及突發的民意調查。　　印發《民意快訊》的目的，是希望透過定期的通訊，把最新的民意數據提供給市民大眾參考。當中當然包括傳媒、學者、政界人士及社會賢達。換言之，《民意快訊》是專為關心民意發展人士而設的一份免費刊物。　　鑑於人力及資源有限，本刊力求在有限的篇幅下簡單介紹本研究計劃進行的各項民意調查之主要發現，當中包括敝中心各項定期調查的最新數據。本刊以資訊為重，並非一份評論性的刊物。　　本計劃所進行的調查一律公開，所有調查報告均會交付香港大學圖書館儲存，歡迎讀者到圖書館參閱。讀者如欲購買個別調查報告，亦可致電敝中心洽商。敝中心只收取釘裝及影印費用，郵費另計，唯需先行付款作實。　　隨著社會逐步開放，科學化的民意數據已成為社會上不可或缺的一種公開資訊。民意研究計劃的各個成員，希望能略盡綿力，為香港的未來發展作出些少貢獻。

鍾庭耀

Since the setting up of the Public Opinion Programme (POP) within the SSRC of The University of Hong Kong in June 1991, we have been continually monitoring the development of public opinion over a variety of political and social issues, by means of different periodic, non-periodic and ad hoc opinion surveys.

Through this POP Express, we hope to provide the most recent public opinion findings for reference by the general public, including the media, scholars, politicians and leaders of our society. In other words, POP Express is a free publication for those who care about public opinion.

Due to limited space and resources, we can only highlight the major findings of our surveys. All survey reports are kept in the Library of The University of Hong Kong. Readers interested in purchasing a copy are welcome to contact our Centre. We only charge photocopying and binding costs, on top of postage if required. However, advanced payment is necessary. As society becomes more open, scientific data on public opinion has become indispensible. Our POP Team pledges to try our best to contribute to the development of

2 1-2

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年九月號Hong Kong in this aspect. Chung Ting-yiu Robert

各項評分調查之設計方法Research Design of Popularity Rating

在過去數年，本中心分別進行多項對社會人物及組織評分之民意調查，其中包括特區籌委、立法局議員、政治人物及政治團體。此等調查均採用相同的設計形式，現在此簡略說明，以助讀者了解此等調查的進行情況。

上述各項以評分形式的民意調查，每兩個月進行一次。在第一階段，被訪者首先在沒有提示情況下，被要求說出他們所認識的名字（議員名字、籌委名字、政治人物名字或政團名稱）。本中心會在這些未經提示下產生的名單中，進一步計算出十二名獲最多人提及的名字，或七個最多人提及的政團名稱，以作第二階段篩選。在第二階段，被訪者會被要求對十二位人物／七個政團進行評分，由零至一百分，零分代表絕對不支持，一百分代表絕對支持。最不為人所熟悉的人物／政團會自動被拋出十大人物或五大政團以外。

在所列數表中，通常最惹人關注的，是市民對人物的支持度及認知度。認知度顯示市民對該等人物或政團的認識程度，越高知名度的人物或政團會在此獲得較高分數。支持度則顯示市民對該位人物或政團的評價，分數越高，顯示該位人物或政團獲得市民的支持越多。

由於此類調查的評分標準劃一（由零至一百分），故讀者在參看數表時，可將不同數表中的人物分數，互相比較。舉例而言，以七至八月的調查計算，最受市民支持的政治人物(陳方安生， 71.3分)比首位立法局議員高分(劉慧卿， 66.2分)，然後到最受歡迎政團(民主黨， 61.1分)，再到首位籌委(李嘉誠， 58.1分)，反映了市民對各類人物及團體的相對支持程度。Research design for individual surveys are explained in detail in the full reports.

各項調查的設計方法均詳述於調查報告中。

　　During the past few years, POP has been

conducting popularity ratings for a variety of political figures and organizations, including members of the Preparatory Committee, Legislative Councillors, politicians and political groups. In order to facilitate readers to understand the process of the surveys, we will briefly explain the research design.

Such popularity ratings were conducted every two months. During the first stage, respondents were requested to nominate, unprompted, all the names they could think of (names of councillors, Preparatory Committee members, politicians, or political groups). POP would then select from this list of unprompted nominees twelve most frequently-cited names or seven most frequently-mentioned groups for the next stage. In the second stage, respondents would be asked to rate each of the twelve figures/seven political groups, using a 0-100 scale. 0 indicated absolutely no support while 100 indicated absolute support. The least well-known political figures/groups would be dropped from the lists of The Top Ten Political Figures or The Top Five Political Groups.

Support and recognition ratings were the two most important statistics arising from these surveys. Recognition rates indicated how well-known certain figures/groups were, while support ratings indicated the extent of support they received.

Since the research method was standardized, it became possible, in general terms, to compare ratings of different exercises. For surveys conducted in July and August, for example, the most popular political figure (Anson Chan, 71.3 points) received a higher score than the most popular Legco member (Emily Lau, 66.2), followed by the most popular political group (Democratic Party, 61.1), then the most popular Preparatory Committee member (Lee Ka-shing, 58.1). This reflected the relative popularity of different

2 1-2

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年九月號kinds of social figures and groups as well.

2 1-2

September 1996 POP EXPRESS COMINDED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE

特區行政長官民意調查Survey on the Chief Executive of HKSA

　　鑑於特區行政長官的產生過程，與本港市民利益息息相關，亦是香港歷史發展重要的一環。本中心在八月二十九日至三十一日期間進行了一個較為全面的調查，了解市民對行政長官的要求，及對現有人選的看法，從而為下階段的遴選工作提供有用的民意數據。由於篇幅有限，現只在此簡述報告中的主要部份。（一）行政長官界別及條件　　是次調查發現，在五百二十四個成功訪問的樣本當中，撇除三十四個沒有意見者，有三成六的被訪者表示最適合出任行政長官之界別為政界，一成九則認為管理階層人士較為恰當，一成三支持公務員界別出任行政長官。八個百分點支持專業人士及七個百分點支持商界人士。雖然數字並非顯示市民對個別界別的絕對支持程度，但明顯表示市民傾向支持政界人士，及對商界背景人士有所保留。　　在行政長官條件方面，九成被訪者認為「代表港人利益」是作為行政長官「非常重要」的因素、八成四及八成三則分別認為「熟悉香港事務」及「為港人接受」屬於「非常重要」，明顯地希望行政長官能以港人利益為本位去治理香港。　　當被訪者被問及倘若某位行政長官人選有某種背景因素，被訪者會否增加抑或減少支持該位人選時，調查發現在各項列舉的因素中，被訪者似乎較對「有商界背景」的人選持有保留態度，其中二成四的被訪者就表示會「不能接受」或會「減少支持」有商界背景的候選人。

Because the selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an important event in the history of Hong Kong, POP conducted a comprehensive survey from August 29 to 31 on the general public’s expectations for the Chief Executive, and their views on the potential candidates.

1. Criteria and Background

Among the 524 respondents successfully interviewed, and excluding 34 without any opinion, 36% welcomed politicians to take up the post of Chief Executive, 19% considered those from the managerial class to be more appropriate, 13% supported civil servants, 8% opted for professionals, while 7% preferred businessmen. Even though these figures did not indicate the absolute strength of different sectors, they clearly showed that the general public tended to favour politicians, and had reservations towards businessmen.

A total of 90% of the respondents considered “representing the interest of Hong Kong people” to be a “very important” criterion of the Chief Executive, while 84% and 83% of the respondents considered “familiarity with the Hong Kong affairs” and “acceptance by Hong Kong people” to be “very important” respectively. This clearly indicated that the people of Hong Kong expected the Chief Executive to put the benefits of the Hong Kong people in the first place when administering the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Other than the criteria mentioned, the survey also tried to map out the effect of other factors on people’s choice of the Chief Executive. It was found that among the various factors given, respondents showed reservations towards candidates with business background. The survey found that 24% of the respondents said they would “not accept”, or would “give less support”, to candidates with a business background.

1-1010


（二）市民心目中人選

　　除界別及條件外，那些人選較為受市民受落，亦是惹人關注。然而，是次調查發現，在沒有提示的情況下，六成九的被訪者答不出任何人選。在能說出心目中人選的被訪者當中（一百七十一名），有六成八被訪者表示陳方安生為他們心目中出任行政長官人選，其餘被較多提及的人選包括董建華（五點三個百分比）、鍾士元（四點七個百分比）、李柱銘（四點七個百分比）及楊鐵樑（四點一個百分比）。　　　是次調查亦測試被訪者對十一位被傳媒廣泛報導的人選的印象及支持程度。問卷要求被訪者對十一位人選個別評分，在被訪者的評分中，無論在認知率及得分層面上，陳方安生仍然名列榜首，所得的平均分為七十三點八分，而認知率亦相當高，有九成被訪者願意給予陳氏評分。另外有三位人選亦獲得相當高的平均分數，順次序為董建華（六十二點四分）、楊鐵樑（六十點八分）及李柱銘（六十點三分）。在被訪者給予的評分中，以羅德丞得分最低，其所得的平均分為四十六點七分，屬不合格的分數。

鑑於現階段市民尚難表態支持那些人選，因此本中心亦退而求其次設計出另一組問題，以便測試市民對個別人選的抗拒程度。在被訪者被要求逐一對十一位人選表示是否介意該等人選出任行政長官時，九成三的被訪者表示不介意陳方安生出任行政長官，六成七不介意李柱銘，六成五不介意楊鐵樑，六成二不介意李鵬飛，六成不介意董建華出任行政長官。在表示介意某位人士出任行政長官的被訪者中，以羅德丞所得的比率最高，有四成六的被訪者表示介意由羅德丞出任行政

長官，次為李嘉誠，有四成三；接著是霍英東，有四成

2. Potential Candidates

It was discovered from the survey that 63% of the respondents indicated they did not have any ideal candidate for the position. Among those who managed to suggest nominations (171 respondents), 68% mentioned Anson Chan to be their ideal candidate for the Chief Executive. Other more frequently cited candidates included Tung Chee-hwa (5.3%), Martin Lee (4.7%), Chung Sze-yuen (4.7%) and Yang Ti-liang (4.1%).

The survey also tested respondents’ impression of, and support for, the eleven candidates extensively discussed in the press. Using a 0-100 scale, respondents were asked to rate each of the eleven candidates according to their suitability for being the Chief Executive. Anson Chan headed the list both in terms of support and recognition rate. She received an average of 73.8 marks, with 90% of the respondents willing to give her a rating. Three other candidates also received high ratings: Tung Chee-hwa (62.4 marks), Yang Ti-liang (60.8 marks) and Martin Lee (60.3 marks). Lo Tak-shing received the lowest rating of 46.7 marks.

Due to the fact that the public is still very unfamiliar with the potential candidates, POP has designed another set of questions in this survey to test the general public’s impression of the candidates. When respondents were asked whether they would resist certain people becoming the Chief Executive, 93% indicated they would not mind Anson Chan becoming the Chief Executive, while 67% would not mind Martin Lee, 65% would not mind Yang Ti-liang, 62% would not mind Allen Lee, and 60% would not mind Tung Chee-hwa becoming the Chief Executive.

Resistance was highest for Lo Tak-shing, with 46% of the respondents saying that they did not like him taking up the post. Next in line was Lee Ka-shing, with a resistance rate of 43%, followed by Henry Fok’s 42%. These three were all businessmen.

1-11 11


二，三位同屬商界人士。　　整個調查再次肯定，特區行政長官需要以港人利益為本位治理香港，否則難以得到市民支持。人選方面，市民對大部份可能競逐行政長官的人選都極不熟悉。在沒有提示下接近七成被訪者都不能選出心目中的理想人選。因此，有意角逐的人士適宜盡早表態，把治港方案推介給全港市民，爭取市民和輿論的

支持。

Because the general public is far from

familiar with any potential candidates for the

Chief Executive position, those who intend to

compete for the post should better declare their

intention as early as possible, in order to

introduce their policy proposals to the public,

and to rally people’s support.

沒有提示情況下被訪者的提名人選Candidates for the Chief Executive (Unprompted Response)

提名人選人次　　　佔總樣本百分比　　　佔所有被提名人選的　　 Candidates 　　 Frequency （基數=524人) 百分比(基數=171人次) % of total sample % of valid nominations (Base=524 people) (Base=171 times)

陳方安生 Anson Chan 116 22.1% 67.8% 董建華 Tung Chee-hwa 9 1.7% 5.3%

李柱銘 Martin Lee 8 1.5% 4.7%鍾士元 Chung Sze-yuen 8 1.5% 4.7%楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 7 1.3% 4.1%

劉慧卿 Emily Lau 5 1.0% 2.9%司徒華 Szeto Wah 3 0.6% 1.8%陳鑑林 Chan Kam-lam3 0.6% 1.8%羅德丞 Lo Tak-shing 2 0.4% 1.2%陳婉嫻 Chan Yuen-han 2 0.4% 1.2%

劉千石 Lau Chin-shek 1 0.2% 0.6%李卓人 Lee Cheuk-yan1 0.2% 0.6%陸恭蕙 Christine Loh 1 0.2% 0.6%黃震遐 Huang Chen-ya 1 0.2% 0.6%李嘉誠 Lee Ka-shing 1 0.2% 0.6%霍英東 Henry Fok 1 0.2% 0.6%鄭耀棠 Cheng Yiu-tong 1 0.2% 0.6%其他 Others 1 0.2% 0.6%無人選 No one in mind 331 63.2% -唔知/難講 Don’t know/ 29 5.5% - Hard to say

1-12 12


合計 Total 531

1-13 13

行政長官人選評分Ratings of the Potential Candidates for the Chief Executive

行政長官人選平均分數　　有效評分人數認知率 Candidate Average mark No. of valid rater Recognition rate

1. 陳方安生 Anson Chan 73.8 475 90.0%2. 董建華 Tung Chee-wah 62.4 249 47.5% 3. 楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 60.8 318 60.7%4. 李柱銘 Martin Lee 60.3 380 72.5%

5. 李鵬飛 Allen Lee 55.8 366 69.8%6. 李嘉誠 Lee Ka-shing 55.4 343 65.5%7. 陳祖澤 John Chan 54.1 281 53.6%8. 梁振英 Leung Chun-ying 53.3 284 54.2%9. 霍英東 Henry Fok 53.1 314 59.9%

10.鍾士元 Chung Sze-yuen 50.7 275 52.5%11.羅德丞 Lo Tak-shing 46.7 220 42.0%

總樣本：524個, 認知率=有效評分人數佔總樣本的比率 Total sample: 524 respondents, recognition rate=percentage of no. of valid raters over total sample

十大香港特別行政區籌備委員會委員評分Ratings of the Top Ten HKSAR Preparatory Committee Members

從下頁所列數據得知，籌委馮檢基在首兩次名列榜首，所得支持度最高。然而，在後兩次的調查中，由於被訪者對他所提及的次數不及另外十位籌委，故跌出十大籌委以外，榜首由李嘉誠取代。其他幾位籌委如譚耀宗、李鵬飛、曾鈺成、鍾士元、霍英東等，則較為穩定地在每次的十大籌委中出現。然而，要注意的是，各籌委的知名度，是直接影響他們能否進入十大籌委之列。

論市民對整體籌委的認識及知名度而言，兩者在四次調查中都是不斷下跌的。在首次（一月）調查中，首五名籌委的平均認知度為七成四、平均支持度為五十七分。

From the data presented, Frederick Fung received the most support and headed the list for the first two surveys. However, in the last two surveys, he dropped from the list of the Top Ten since he was mentioned less often than the others. His position was replaced by Lee Ka-shing. Other committee members such as Tam Yiu-chung, Allen Lee, Jasper Tsang, Chung Sze-yuen and Henry Fok tended to stay on the list more steadily.

As for the general public’s support and recognition for the committee members, both have dropped steadily throughout the four surveys conducted. In the first (January) survey, the average recognition rate for the top five members was 74%, and the average

1-614

support rate was 57 points.

1-615

September 1996 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1

SPECIAL ISSUE 到七月調查，認知度已跌至六成二，支

持度則跌至五十五分。這可能反映籌委在最初成立時，籌委們曝光較多，故較為市民所認識，但近月籌委減少了面對市民的機會，市民對籌委遺忘自是正常。

However, in the July survey, the average recognition rate dropped to 62%, and the average support rate down to 55 points. This might be due to more frequent media exposure of its members when the committee was set up, as compared to more limited exposure at later stages.

1-16 1

6

September 1996 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL

ISSUE

Result from surveys in 1996 一九九六年調查結果Date of rating survey in July 七月評分日期 : 26/7/96

July 七月 May 五月 March 三月 January 一月Date of rating survey in May 五月評分日期 : 22-23/5/96

Date of rating survey in March 三月評分日期 : 25-27/3/96 Date of rating survey in January 一月評分日期 : 17-18/1/96

Support 支持度 Recognition 認知度 Support 支持度 Recognition 認知度 Support 支持度 Recognition 認知度

Support 支持度 Recognition 認知度

Lee Ka-shing 李嘉誠 58.1 70.3% 61.0 75.0% 51.8 67.8% 57.7 74.5%Rita Fan 范徐麗泰 56.5 68.2% 58.4 74.7% 55.9 69.9% - -Tam Yiu-chung 譚耀宗 55.1 59.2% 57.2 66.4% 57.2 63.1% 57.3 71.3%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 53.2 69.5% 56.5 75.8% 55.4 78.3% 56.6 82.1%Leung Chun-ying 梁振英 51.6 44.5% 55.2 51.8% - - - -Henry Fok 霍英東 51.3 60.9% 51.3 63.5% 49.5 57.4% 53.2 65.0%Jasper Tsang 曾鈺成 50.1 54.1% 53.0 64.7% 51.4 62.3% 54.2 68.0%Chung Sze-yuen 鍾士元 50.1 51.0% 52.0 54.3% 51.3 52.0% 52.3 57.0%Tam Wai-chu 譚惠珠 49.5 64.5% 51.2 69.3% - - 50.7 74.2%Lo Tak-shing 羅德承 40.2 47.9% 47.3 43.2% - - 43.6 46.7%Frederick Fung 馮檢基 - - - - 59.8 67.8% 59.7 73.6%Run-run Shaw 邵逸夫 - - - - 51.4 65.9% - -Liza Wong 汪明荃 - - - - 47.3 71.9% 43.5 78.4%

Top 5 average 首五名平均分 54.9 62.3% 57.7 68.7% 56.0 69.4% 57.1 73.9%

Top 10 average 首十名平均分 51.6 59.0% 54.3 63.9% 53.1 65.6% 52.9 69.1%

港督彭定康評分 Ratings of Governor Chris Patten　

64.1

59.657.9 57.6 58.5

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

4/92

8/92

12/9

2

4/93

8/93

12/9

3

4/94

8/94

12/9

4

4/95

8/95

12/9

5

4/96

8/96

1-17 1

7

September 1996 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1

SPECIAL ISSUE

1-18 1

8


施政報告滿意程度Satisfaction with Policy Addresses

今年十月二日港督將發表在英國政府統治下最後一次施政報告，相信會特別矚目。本研究小組特在港督發表最後一次施政報告前，回顧過去幾年市民對施政報告的滿意程度。由九二年十月至九六年八月，市民對港督施政報告最滿意的時間，是九二年十一月，即港督最初到港剛上任發表首份施政報告後。然而，此滿意程度有逐漸下降趨勢，由九二年十一月的三成九下降至今年八月的一成二。　　另外，在過去三個施政年度，市民對施政報告最滿意的時間多集中於報告發表期間，但九六年則較特別，最高滿意程度集中在三月財政報告推出時，可能反映政府的財政預算案受市民歡迎，間接增加市民對施政報告

的滿意程度。 The Governor’s last policy address to be delivered on October 2 is bound to arouse attention, because it will be the last policy speech released under the governance of the British government. At this point, let us review how satisfied the general public was with the policy addresses for the past few years. Between October 1992 and August 1996, the general public seemed to be most satisfied in November 1992, immediately after the Governor delivered his first address. Satisfaction rate then slid steadily, from 39% in November 1992 to only 12% in August this year.

Moreover, during the past three policy years, the public was generally most satisfied with the policy addresses during the time they were announced, except in 1996, when satisfaction culminated in March. This coincided with the Financial Secretary’s Budget Speech. People’s satisfaction with this year’s Budget might have “spilled over” to increase their satisfaction with the policy address.

Satisfaction with Policy Address¥ «¥ Á¹ ï¬ I¬ F³ ø§ iº ¡· Nµ {« ×

20.2%

38.6%

13.4%

35.9%

15.2%

21.7%

11.6%

21.7%

10.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

10/92 2/93 6/93 10/93 2/94 6/94 10/94 2/95 6/95 10/95 2/96 6/96

1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96

19 1-19

September 1996 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE

五大政治團體評分Ratings of the Top Five Political Groups

Result from the survey in August 1996

九六年八月份調查結果Accumulated results in the past 12 months

(6 surveys) 累積過去十二個月( 六次)調查結果Date of rating survey 評分日期 : 28-29/8/96

Support

支持度

Standard error

標準誤差

Total sample

總人數

No. of raters

評分人數

Recog-nition

認知度

No. of time on the list

上榜次數

Average support rating 平均支持度

Average rate of recognition

平均認知度DP 民主黨 61.1 1.0 500 357 71.4% 6 59.1 70.6%

FTU 工聯會 60.3 1.1 500 274 54.8% 6 56.7 56.8%

DABHK 民建聯 54.3 1.0 500 286 57.2% 6 53.1 59.1%

ADPL 民協 53.7 1.1 500 221 44.2% 6 52.1 51.9%

LP 自由黨 53.1 1.1 500 284 56.8% 6 50.1 61.2%

Top 5 average首五名平均分 56.5 56.9%

ADPL = HK Association for Democracy & People's Livelihood 香港民主民生協進會DABHK = Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong 民主建港聯盟DP = Democratic Party 民主黨FTU = HK Federation of Trade Unions 香港工會聯合會LP = Liberal Party 自由黨

十大立法局議員評分Ratings of the Top Ten Legco Members

Result from the survey in August 1996

九六年八月份調查結果Accumulated results in the past 12 months

(6 surveys) 累積過去十二個月(六次)調查結果Date of rating survey 評分日期 : 6/8/96

Support

支持度

Standard error

標準誤差

Total sample

總人數

No. of raters

評分人數

Recognition

認知度

No. of time on the list

上榜次數


Average rate of

recognition 平均認知度Emily Lau 劉慧卿 66.2 0.9 515 386 75.0% 6 63.8 75.2%

Christine Loh 陸恭蕙 64.7 0.9 515 383 74.4% 6 62.3 73.7%

Martin Lee 李柱銘 62.3 1.0 515 409 79.4% 6 59.2 80.1%

Szeto Wah 司徒華 61.6 1.0 515 415 80.6% 6 58.5 80.2%

Yeung Sum 楊森 61.4 0.9 515 318 61.7% 3 60.4 64.3%

Lee Cheuk-yan 李卓人 61.2 1.0 515 361 70.1% 5 61.3 63.8%

Elizabeth Wong 黃錢其濂 60.6 0.8 515 352 68.3% 3 57.7 70.7%

Lau Chin-shek 劉千石 59.7 0.8 515 380 73.8% 6 62.9 77.2%

Andrew Wong 黃宏發 57.7 0.9 515 353 68.5% 5 56.6 66.6%

Allen Lee 李鵬飛 56.6 0.8 515 390 75.7% 6 53.6 56.8%

Top 5 average首五名平均分 63.3 74.2%Top 10 average首十名平均分 61.2 72.8%

1-9 9


十大政治人物評分Ratings of the Top Ten Political Figures

Result from the survey in August 1996 九六年八月份調查結果 Accumulated results in the past 12 months (3 surveys) 累積過去十二個月(三次)調查結果

Date of rating survey 評分日期 : 6/8/96 Support

支持度Standard

error標準誤差Total

sample總人數No. of raters 評分人數

Recognition

認知度No. of time on the list 上榜次數


Average rate of recognition 平均認知度

Anson Chan 陳方安生 71.3 0.7 515 436 84.7% 3 67.5% 80.6%

Emily Lau 劉慧卿 66.2 0.9 515 386 75.0% 3 65.1% 74.1%

Christine Loh 陸恭蕙 64.7 0.9 515 383 74.4% 2 62.9% 75.3%

Lydia Dunn 鄧蓮如 63.0 1.0 515 354 68.7% 3 61.0% 70.5%

Martin Lee 李柱銘 62.3 1.0 515 409 79.4% 3 60.5% 79.0%

Szeto Wah 司徒華 61.6 1.0 515 415 80.6% 3 59.8% 79.8%

Lee Cheuk-yan 李卓人 61.2 1.0 515 361 70.1% 2 61.4% 73.0%

Lau Chin-shek 劉千石 59.7 0.8 515 380 73.8% 3 62.6% 75.0%

Allen Lee 李鵬飛 56.6 0.8 515 390 75.7% 3 80.4% 73.7%

Maria Tam 譚惠珠 50.8 1.0 515 358 69.5% 1 50.8% 69.5%

Top 5 average首五名平均分 65.5 76.4%Top 10 average首十名平均分 61.8 75.2%

九六年八月份社研定期調查之樣本數據 Contact information for POP tracking polls 　　　　　　 conducted in August 1996

第一次調查第二次調查First poll Second poll

日期 Date of surveys 6/8/96 28-29/8/96

訪問對象 Target population 十八歲或以上之香港市民 Hong Kong population aged 18 or above

調查方法 Survey method 電話訪問Telephone survey

抽樣方法 Sampling method 從住宅電話簿中隨機抽出號碼，再用電腦配套另一部份．當成功接觸目標住戶後，再用出生日期抽取其中一名被訪者接受訪問．Telephone numbers selected randomly from telephone directories and additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.

樣本數目 Sample size 515 500

回應率 Response rate 43.0% 52.7%

抽樣誤差 Standard error 2.2% 2.2%

10 1-10


有關釣魚台領土主權爭論之民意調查Survey on the Controversy over the Sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands

沉靜了二十多年的釣魚台主權問題又再掀起了各地華人的保釣情緒，引發了港人自八九年六四後最大規模的社會運動。本中心民意研究小組於九月十二至十六日探討了港人於釣魚台問題上的取態供各界人士參考。調查成功訪問了五百四十七位十八歲以上香港居民，回應率百分之五十四點七。結果顯示九成八的被訪者知道這次釣魚台領土主權紛爭。至於主權應歸誰屬，則有八成七認為釣魚台當屬中國領土（包括八成二說「中國大陸」，百分之三說「中國大陸及台灣」，百分之一說「台灣」）。另有一成二被訪者取態不定，認為釣魚台屬日本領土的不足一個百分比。面對此次紛爭中國應如何取態？調查發現，六成被訪者贊成以談判或和平方式解決，約有一成半人則主張採取軍事行動，另有成半未有表態。若中日雙方在釣魚台問題上交戰，被訪者意見亦是一面倒支持中國（近八成九）；然而雙方一但交戰，只有五成八被訪者認為應該罷買日貨，亦有二成八人認為不應該，民意並非一面倒。另一方面，兩岸政府於釣魚台問題上的態度是否得民心？認為中國政府態度軟弱的佔六成四，只有二成四人認為其態度適中；認為台灣政府態度適中及軟弱者各佔四成一。最後，有關近日曾健成等人準備往釣魚台拆去日本燈塔，調查發現，贊成及反對者分別有四成七及三成六，雖然贊成者較多，但民意仍有分歧，可見此舉具有爭議。

The controversy over the sovereignty of the Diaoyu islands has stirred up the sentiments of Chinese all over the world, leading to the largest social movement since June 4, 1989.

Between September 12 and 16, the POP Team conducted a survey of 547 Hong Kong residents 18 years or above, with a response rate of 54.7%, and found that 98% of the respondents were aware of the controversy.

A total of 87% believed that the Diaoyu islands should be part of Chinese territory (82% said “Mainland China”, 3% answered “Mainland China and Taiwan”, 1% said “Taiwan”). Twelve percent expressed uncertainty while less than 1% said that the sovereignty of the Diaoyu islands belonged to Japan.

It was also found from the survey that 60% of the respondents agreed to negotiate with Japan or resolve the issue through peaceful means, while only 15% favoured military action.

If a war breaks out between China and Japan, there would be landslide support for China (89%), but only 58% would boycott Japanese products, and 28% would definitely not do so.

Concerning reaction from the Chinese government, 64% of the respondents said the Chinese government (in Beijing) was too weak, only 24% said its attitude was appropriate. For the Taiwan government, opinion was divided equally between those who considered it too weak and those who thought it had acted appropriately (both 41%).

Finally, on the attempt to dismantle the Japanese lighthouse on the Diaoyu islands by the alliance led by Tsang Kin-shing, 47% and 36% of the respondents agreed and disagreed with the action respectively, indicating a divided opinion over the issue.

請問你是否知道最近發生釣魚台領土主權既爭論？Do you know there is a controversy over the sovereignty of the Diaoyu islands?

知道 98.2% 不知道 1.9%Yes No

你認為釣魚台既主權應該屬於邊個國家或地方?Which country do you think has sovereignty over the Diaoyu islands?

中國大陸 82.4% 日本 0.5%Mainland China Japan台灣 1.1% 不定論 12.1%Taiwan Not sure中國大陸及台灣 3.3% 其他 0.6%Mainland China and Taiwan Others

1-11 11


你認為中國(指北京政府)應該點樣解決釣魚台領土既主權問題?How do you think China (meaning the Beijing government) should resolve the Diaoyu islands issue?

談判/和平解決 60.0% 暫時擱置 1.1% 唔知/難講 16.1%Negotiation/ Delay the issue Don't know/Hard to say through peaceful means軍事行動 14.6% 其他方式 8.2%Military action Other approaches

如果中日在釣魚台問題上交戰,你會支持邊一方?If a war breaks out between China and Japan over the Diaoyu islands, which side would you support?

支持中國 89.0% 兩方都唔支持 2.7% 唔知/難講 4.2%Support China Won’t support either side Don't know/Hard to say 保持中立 1.7% 視乎情況而定 2.4%Remain neutral Depends on situation

如果中日在釣魚台問題上交戰,你認為港人應唔應該罷買日貨?If a war breaks out between China and Japan over the Diaoyu islands, do you think the people of Hong Kong should boycott Japanese products?

應該 58.1% 唔應該28.0% 唔知/難講 13.9%Yes No Don't know/Hard to say

你認為中國政府在釣魚台事件上態度屬於適中定軟弱?Do you think the Chinese government is taking an appropriate or a weak attitude towards the issue?

態度適中 23.5% 態度軟弱 64.2% 唔知/難講 12.3%Appropriate Weak Don't know/Hard to say

你認為台灣政府在釣魚台事件上態度屬於適中定軟弱?Do you think the Taiwanese government is taking an appropriate or a weak attitude towards the issue?


請問你是否贊成曾健成等人到釣魚台拆日本燈塔?Do you agree to the action of the alliance led by Tsang Kin-shing to dismantle the Japanese lighthouse on the Diaoyu islands?

贊成 46.9% 無意見5.5% 唔知/難講 5.3%Yes No opinion Don't know/Hard to say 中立 6.8% 反對 35.5%Neutral No

12 1-12


有關釣魚台領土主權爭論

之民意調查Survey on the Controversy over the Sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands

沉靜了二十多年的釣魚台主權問題又再掀起了各地華人的保釣情緒，引發了港人自八九年六四後最大規模的社會運動。本中心民意研究小組於九月十二至十六日探討了港人於釣魚台問題上的取態供各界人士參考。

調查成功訪問了五百四十七位十八歲以上香港居民，回應率百分之五十四點七。結果顯示九成八的被訪者知道這次釣魚台領土主權紛爭。至於主權應歸誰屬，則有八成七認為釣魚台當屬中國領土（包括八成二說「中國大陸」，百分之三說「中國大陸及台灣」，百分之一說「台灣」）。另有一成二被訪者取態不定，認為釣魚台屬日本領土的不足一個百分比。

面對此次紛爭中國應如何取態？調查發現，六成被訪者贊成以談判或和平方式解決，約有一成半人則主張採取軍事行動，另有成半未有表態。若中日雙方在釣魚台問題上交戰，被訪者意見亦是一面倒支持中國（近八成九）；然而雙方一但交戰，只有五成八被訪者認為應該罷買日貨，亦有二成八人認為不應該，民意並非一面倒。

另一方面，兩岸政府於釣魚台問題上的態度是否得民心？認為中國政府態度軟弱的

佔六成四，只有二成四人認為其態度適中；認為台灣政府態度適中及軟弱者各佔四成一。

最後，有關近日曾健成等人準備往釣魚台拆去日本燈塔，調查發現，贊成及反對者分別有四成七及三成六，雖然贊成者較多，但民意仍有分歧，可見此舉具有爭議。

1-11 11

民意快訊編輯委員會EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OF POP EXPRESS

主編: 鍾庭耀Chief Editor: Chung Ting-yiu Robert副編: 陳夢施, 楊釬岩Editors: Chan Mung-sze Natalie Yeung Chin-arm Patrick

電話 Telephone: 2859 2988, 2859 2989傳真 Fax: 2517 6951

地址: 香港薄扶林道, 香港大學黃子明樓 8 樓, 社會科學研究中心Address: Social Sciences Research Centre, 8/F, Wong Chue Meng Building, The University

of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, HK.

民意研究計劃最新調查報告LATEST POP REPORT AVAILABLE

《特區行政長官民意調查報告》Survey Report on the Chief

Executive of the HKSAR

中英雙語版 Bilingual version 每本HK$120 per copy中文版 Chinese version 每本HK$80 per copy


The controversy over the sovereignty of the Diaoyu islands has stirred up the sentiments of Chinese all over the world, leading to the largest social movement since June 4, 1989.

Between September 12 and 16, the POP Team conducted a survey of 547 Hong Kong residents 18 years or above, with a response rate of 54.7%, and found that 98% of the respondents were aware of the controversy.

A total of 87% believed that the Diaoyu islands should be part of Chinese territory (82% said “Mainland China”, 3% answered “Mainland China and Taiwan”, 1% said “Taiwan”). Twelve percent expressed uncertainty while less than 1% said that the sovereignty of the Diaoyu islands belonged to Japan.

It was also found from the survey that 60% of the respondents agreed to negotiate with Japan or resolve the issue through peaceful means, while only 15% favoured military action.

If a war breaks out between China and Japan, there would be landslide support for China (89%), but only 58% would boycott Japanese products, and 28% would definitely not do so.

Concerning reaction from the Chinese government, 64% of the respondents said the Chinese government (in Beijing) was too weak, only 24% said its attitude was appropriate. For the Taiwan government, opinion was divided equally between those who considered it too weak and those who thought it had acted appropriately (both 41%).

Finally, on the attempt to dismantle the Japanese lighthouse on the Diaoyu islands by the alliance led by Tsang Kin-shing, 47% and 36% of the respondents agreed and disagreed with the action respectively, indicating a divided opinion over the issue.

請問你是否知道最近發生釣魚台領土主權既爭論？Do you know there is a controversy over the sovereignty of the Diaoyu islands?

知道 98.2% 不知道 1.9%Yes No

你認為釣魚台既主權應該屬於邊個國家或地方?Which country do you think has sovereignty over the Diaoyu islands?

中國大陸 82.4% 日本 0.5%Mainland China Japan台灣 1.1% 不定論 12.1%Taiwan Not sure中國大陸及台灣 3.3% 其他 0.6%Mainland China and Taiwan Other

1-12 12


你認為中國(指北京政府)應該點樣解決釣魚台領土既主權問題?How do you think China (meaning the Beijing government) should resolve the Diaoyu islands issue?

談判/和平解決 60.0% 暫時擱置 1.1% 唔知/難講 16.1%Negotiation/ Delay the issue Don't know/Hard to say through peaceful means軍事行動 14.6% 其他方式 8.2%Military action Other approaches

如果中日在釣魚台問題上交戰,你會支持邊一方?If a war breaks out between China and Japan over the Diaoyu islands, which side would you support?

支持中國 89.0% 兩方都唔支持 2.7% 唔知/難講 4.2%Support China Won’t support either side Don't know/Hard to say 保持中立 1.7% 視乎情況而定 2.4%Remain neutral Depends on situation

如果中日在釣魚台問題上交戰,你認為港人應唔應該罷買日貨?If a war breaks out between China and Japan over the Diaoyu islands, do you think the people of Hong Kong should boycott Japanese products?

應該 58.1% 唔應該28.0% 唔知/難講 13.9%Yes No Don't know/Hard to say

你認為中國政府在釣魚台事件上態度屬於適中定軟弱?Do you think the Chinese government is taking an appropriate or a weak attitude towards the issue?


你認為台灣政府在釣魚台事件上態度屬於適中定軟弱?Do you think the Taiwanese government is taking an appropriate or a weak attitude towards the issue?


請問你是否贊成曾健成等人到釣魚台拆日本燈塔?Do you agree to the action of the alliance led by Tsang Kin-shing to dismantle the Japanese lighthouse on the Diaoyu islands?

贊成 46.9% 無意見5.5% 唔知/難講 5.3%Yes No opinion Don't know/Hard to say 中立 6.8% 反對 35.5%Neutral No

11 1-11

民意快訊編輯委員會EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OF POP EXPRESS

主編: 鍾庭耀Chief Editor: Chung Ting-yiu Robert副編: 陳夢施, 楊釬岩Editors: Chan Mung-sze Natalie Yeung Chin-arm Patrick

電話 Telephone: 2859 2988, 2859 2989傳真 Fax: 2517 6951

地址: 香港薄扶林道, 香港大學黃子明樓 8 樓, 社會科學研究中心

Address: Social Sciences Research Centre, 8/F, Wong Chue Meng Building, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, HK.

民意研究計劃最新調查報告LATEST POP REPORT AVAILABLE

《特區行政長官民意調查報告》Survey Report on the Chief

Executive of the HKSAR

中英雙語版 Bilingual version 每本HK$120 per copy中文版 Chinese version 每本HK$80 per copy

October 1996 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE

民意研究計劃民意快訊Public Opinion Programme POP EXPRESS

香港大學社會科學研究中心Social Sciences Research Centre (SSRC), The University of Hong Kong 第 2期 No.2

編者的話 From the Editor

2-11 13


承蒙各界厚愛，《民意快訊》發刊以來不斷收到讀者索閱表格。團體索閱者已超愈半百，個人索閱者尚在處理中。有意索取《民意快訊》的人士請從速交回印於本刊背頁之表格。

民意研究小組在編製《民意快訊》的同時，亦鼓勵個別組員撰寫文章投稿報章，唯所發表意見只代表個人立場，並不代表香港大學、或社會科學研究中心、或民意研究小組的取向。事實上，研究小組所關注的只是數據的準確和真實性，立場與取向則由論者自負：這是學術自由的基礎。研究小組在演譯數據時雖盡量避免主觀評論，但在避無可避，而又沒有個人署名的時候，研究組長將負起一切責任。

印發《民意快訊》的目的，是向社會人士提供可靠的民意數據。鑑於本港華洋集處，中西交融，本刊將堅持中英對照，務求在九七前後保持本地的優良傳統。　鍾庭耀 Chung Ting-yiu Robert

The inaugural issue of POP Express was well received. Our distribution list now covers over fifty organizations, on top of individual requests. Persons interested in receiving our POP Express should return the Request Form, which is printed at the back cover, to us as soon as possible.

At the same time that we publish the POP Express, our POP Team members are also submitting articles to newspapers. Nevertheless, it should be noted that individual members’ views do not represent that of the POP Team, nor SSRC, nor the University. One basic tenet of academic freedom is that every academic is entitled to, and responsible for, one’s own view. The POP Team, as a whole, is only responsible for the validity and accuracy of the data published. Where value statements are explicitly made, or implicitly implied, without individual authorship (a situation we always try to avoid), the head of the POP Team shall be deemed responsible.

The main objective of the POP Express is to provide opinion data for public consumption. We will continue to keep our publication bilingual, although this created serious constraint on our resources and publication space. We believe that Hong Kong’s cosmopolitan tradition is worth preserving, before and beyond 1997.

港督彭定康評分Ratings of Governor Chris Patten

本刊上期刊登了由九二年四月至九六年八月市民對港督的評分。由於港督評分調查每個月最少進行兩次，故本刊今期繼續向讀者報告港督在最新四次調查（九月至十月）中所獲得的支持度評分。

Last time, we reported the Governor’s ratings from April 1992 to August 1996. Since such rating exercises are conducted at least twice per month, we hereby present our latest findings.

Date of survey 調查日期 Support rating 支持度 Monthly average 按月平均分九月份第一次調查 1st survey in September 12-16/9/96 55.9 56.5

九月份第二次調查 2nd survey in September 25/9/96 57.1 (September 九月)十月份第一次調查 1st survey in October 2/10/96 56.4 (待定)十月份第二次調查 2nd survey in October 8/10/96 58.1 (Pending)

2-12 13

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十月號市民對港督施政報告的即時反應

Instant Reaction towards the Governor’s Policy Address

在過去四個施政年度，本研究小組均在港督公佈施政報告當日或翌日進行民意調查，測試市民對施政報告的即時反應。今年亦不例外，本中心在施政報告發表當日，以隨機抽樣電話訪問了一千三百七十二位市民，了解市民對施政報告的看法。

滿意程度方面，在被訪者當中，撇除未聞施政報告者外，只有一成九表示滿意施政報告，表示中立的有一成，而對施政報告不滿的則有一成六，其餘五成六不置可否，相信是市民還未有足夠時間去了解施政報告的內容。

對比過去四個年度，市民對施政報告的即時滿意程度有下降的趨勢。由九二年的三成四跌至今年的一成九，而不滿的比率則相對逐年上升，由九二年的四個百分比，增加至今年的一成六。可見市民對施政報告的滿意程度是有明顯下降的趨勢。

此外，以施政報告發表當日計，市民給予港督彭定康的評分，亦隨年份而有下降的趨勢。在一九九二年，市民給予彭定康的分數為六十五點五分，往後則逐年遞減，分別為九三年的六十點四分、九四年的五十七點二分，及九五年的五十點九分，而今年則回升至五十六點四分。至於本研究小組在十月八日進行的最新民意調查則顯示，港督所獲評分已進一步上升至五十八點一分。

During the past four policy years, the POP Team has conducted instant opinion surveys on the first or second day after the release of the Governor’s policy address. The same survey was repeated this year with 1,372 successful respondents on the first day of the release.

In terms of the satisfaction with the address, and excluding those who had not heard about it, only 19% said they were satisfied, 16% said they were not, 56% did not have an opinon, which might be attributed to the fact that the public did not have sufficient time to understand the contents.

In the past four years, the public’s instant satisfaction with the Governor’s address has dropped steadily from 34% in 1992 to 19% this year. At the same time, the dissatisfaction rate has increased steadily from 4% in 1992 to this year’s 16%.

Besides, the Governor’s support rating taken on the same day also suffered the same descending trend. In 1992, the general public gave a rating of 65.5 to Chris Patten. A fall was evident in each succeeding year, with 60.4 marks in 1993, 57.2 in 1994 and 50.9 in 1995. However, there was a slight increase this year to 56.4. According to our latest survey conducted on 8 October 1996, the Governor’s rating further climbed to 58.1 marks.

51.5%45.9% 42.1%

72.3%76.8%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Satisfied ¡ ]º ¡· N¡ ^

Satisfaction with the Governor's policy address: Instant reaction (Excluding those without opinon)¥ «¥ Á¹ ï ä· þ¬ I¬ F³ ø§ iª º§ Y® Éº ¡· Nµ {« × (º J° £ S¦ ³· N £ª Ì)

14 2-2


市民對施政報告的即時反應 Instant Reaction towards Policy Address 調查日期 Date of survey 7-8/10/1992 6/10/1993 5/10/1994 11/10/1995 2/10/1996

樣本數目 Successful cases 1,376 980 1,716 805 1,372

問題：請問你整體黎講對港督今日發表既施政報告滿唔滿意呢？Question: How satisfied are you with the Governor's policy address?

實際樣本（撇除未聞施政報告者）Raw data (Exclude those who had not heard about the policy address)

非常滿意 Very satisfied 8.1% 5.6% 4.1% 1.4% 2.6%

(一般)滿意 Just satisfied 25.4% 36.1% 22.0% 19.7% 16.0%

中立 Neutral 6.2% 10.2% 11.9% 8.7% 9.8%

(一般)不滿 Just dissatisfied 2.7% 4.8% 11.1% 12.9% 12.0%

非常不滿 Very dissatisfied 1.2% 1.2% 1.6% 3.3% 3.9%

唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 56.4% 42.3% 49.4% 54.0% 55.8%

合計 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

組合數據 Collapsed data

滿意 Satisfied 33.5% 41.7% 26.1% 21.1% 18.6%

中立 Neutral 6.2% 10.2% 11.9% 8.7% 9.8%

不滿 Dissatisfied 3.9% 6.0% 12.7% 16.2% 15.8%


合計 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

有效基數 Base 1,375 588 705 426 543

撇除沒有意見者Omitting "don't know"(% of those expressing an opinion)

滿意 Satisfied 76.8% 72.3% 51.5% 45.9% 42.1%

中立 Neutral 14.2% 17.7% 23.5% 18.9% 22.1%

不滿 Dissatisfied 8.9% 10.1% 24.9% 35.2% 35.8%

合計 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

港督彭定康評分 Ratings of Governor Chris Patten

平均支持度 Average support ratings 65.5 60.4 57.2 50.9 56.4

評分人數 No. of valid raters 1153 855 1297 632 1155

市民整年對施政報告滿意程度總結 People’s satisfaction level year-round: summary statistics 撇除沒有意見者 Excluding those without opinion年份Session

十月October 翌年九月 Following September 每年平均數Yr average 樣本總數Aggregate sample

1992/93 69.2% 52.5% 58.7% 36,9611993/94 61.2% 44.4% 50.4% 16,6891994/95 50.1% 50.7% 44.3% 11,2361995/96 33.1% 48.6% 44.8% 15,432

包括沒有意見者 Including those without opinion年份Session

十月October 翌年九月 Following September 每年平均數Yr average 樣本總數Aggregate sample

2-3 15


1992/93 36.2% 20.2% 28.9% 36,9611993/94 35.9% 13.4% 18.3% 16,6891994/95 21.7% 15.2% 14.3% 11,2361995/96 10.8% 11.7% 13.4% 15,432

2-3 15

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十月號

市民對各項施政的評價People’s Opinion on Selected Policy Issues

　　整體黎講，你認為四年前港督抵港履新時所提既承諾，有無兌現？　　On the whole, do you think the Governor has kept his promises made four years ago?

調查日期有一半半無唔知/難講唔知港督有乜承諾過 Date of survey Yes Half-half No Don't know/Hard to say Don’t know what he promised 2/10/96 8.5% 45.6% 22.7% 12.9% 10.3% 8/10/96 6.2% 48.2% 21.1% 14.1% 10.4%

　　你同唔同意港督話現時既香港政府比四年前佢黎既時侯更加公開同負責？　　Do you agree with the Governor that the government has become more open and responsible than four years ago?

調查日期同意一半半唔同意唔知/難講唔知施政報告講過乜野 Date of survey Agreed Half-half Disagreed Don't know/Hard to say Don’t know what he said 2/10/96 34.4% 13.9% 30.8% 16.9% 4.0% 8/10/96 33.9% 20.5% 30.5% 11.9% 3.1% 　　你同唔同意港督係施政報告中對臨時立法會既言論同態度？　　Do you agree with the Governor’s stand and attitudes towards the Provisional Legislative Council ?

調查日期同意一半半唔同意唔知/難講唔知施政報告講過乜野 Date of survey Agreed Half-half Disagree Don't know/Hard to say Don’t know what he said 2/10/96 11.9% 4.0% 11.3% 20.3% 52.4% 8/10/96 22.1% 8.1% 24.0% 33.7% 11.9%

　　你覺得港督今年施政報告會使中港關係好些定差些(十月八日數據) ?　　Do you think the Governor’s Policy Address this year will improve or worsen the relationship between Hong Kong and China　　 (data of 8 Oct 1996)?

　會好些 Improve 11.4% 會差些 Worsen 38.4% 　冇影響 No effect 16.8% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 33.5%

在港督發表施政報告當日（十月二日）及十月八日，本研究小組亦分別就其他相關的問題測試市民的看法，並要求市民評價四年來的發展。

在四年前港督抵港履新時所提出的承諾有否兌現的問題上，超過四成半的被訪者認為一半半，表示承諾有兌現的不足一成，而表示沒有兌現的超過兩成。至於現時政府是否比四年前更公開及負責？有三成四被訪者同意現時政府比四年前開放及負責，不同意者三成一，表示一半半的約有成半至兩成。

在港督對臨時立法會的態度方面，同意與不同意的比率，在兩次調查都是相約。在十月二日的調查，其中有五成以上表示不了解港督的建議，故其中只分別各有一成左右同意及不同意港督在施政報告中對臨

On the day when the policy address was released (2 October), and on 8 October, the POP Team surveyed the general public’s opinion on some policy-related issues.

On the question of whether the Governor had kept his promises made four years ago, over 45% of the respondents said ‘half-half’, 6% to 9% said the promises had materialized, over 20% thought his promises were not kept. On the other hand, 34% agreed that the government has become more open and responsible compared with four years ago, but 31% disagreed.

On whether the respondents approved of the Governor’s stand towards the Provisional Legislative Council, there was an equal split in opinion in the two surveys. In the first survey, the split was about 10% each way, while for the second survey, the split was over

16 2-16

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十月號20% each.

16 2-17


時立法會的立埸。但在六天後（即十月八日）進行的調查則顯示，被訪者中表示同意及不同意港督言論的各有二成左右。最後，在十月八日的調查中，被訪者亦被問及港督今年的施政報告會否改善中港關係時，三成八被訪者認為施政報告會令中港關係轉壞，而認為轉好的則有一成一，一成七認為沒有

影響。 Finally, the respondents were also asked whether they thought this year’s policy address would improve or worsen the relationship between Hong Kong and China. Thirty-eight percent thought the situation would get worse, 11% said it would improve, while 17% believed there would not be any effect.

澳門選舉模式不合香港政情*Macau’s Election Model Not Suitable For Hong Kong*

第六屆澳門立法會直選在各方大力宣傳及動員下，投票率達百分之六十四，為歷屆之冠。澳門選民的政治參與和對選舉認識確比四年前提高了。本研究小組於投票當日進行的票站調查測試了投票人士對選舉制度的認識。結果，八成七被訪者能正確說出投票年齡是十八歲，七成說對了本屆立法會選舉共有十二個參選組別，但只有五成二人知道有八個直選議席數目。

投票率高的另一個原因是選民對前途有信心。票站調查發現，八成四被訪者認為立法會能順利過渡九九年主權移交，八成三對澳門的平穩過渡有信心，七成八對澳門前途有信心，對一國兩制、澳人治

澳有信心的亦有七成一。After tremendous publicity and mobilization, the

direct elections of the 6th Macau Legislative Assembly was completed with a record 64% voter turn-out rate. Over a four-year period, Macau electors have increased their enthusiasm and knowledge about the electoral system. According to exit polls conducted by the POP Team on the election day, 87% of the actual voters knew that the voting age was 18, 70% knew there were 12 groups competing in the direct election. However, only 52% knew there were 8 direct-elected seats.

One reason which contributed to the high turn-out rate was voters’ confidence in the future of Macau. Exit poll results show that 84% of the respondents believed that the newly elected Legislative Assembly could straddle 1999, 83% showed confidence in the smooth transition of Macau, 78% said they were confident in the future of Macau, and 71% had faith in the “one country, two systems” and “Macau people ruling Macau” notions.

答對 Right 答錯Wrong 唔知 Don’t know

你知唔知今次 (直選) 有幾多個組？ 69.5% 14.8% 15.7%Do you know how many groups there are competing for the direct elected seats?

你知唔知今次要選出幾多個直選議員？ 52.1% 10.2% 37.7%Do you know how many direct-elected members are to be elected?

你知唔知幾多歲先可以出黎投票？ 87.2% 6.4% 6.3%Do you know what the voting age is?

2-18 17

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十月號但據澳門傳媒披露，他們不斷接到市民投訴有

參選組別公然以錢買票，選民証的「公價」為五百元一張，選民投票前先收二百，投票後若組別勝出便再收三百尾數云云。此等傳言雖未經當局深入調查證實，但市民的投訴卻反映了民間的不滿情緒，和政府對選舉的監察不足。

此外，當日明顯可見澳門大街小巷都有插著不同顏色標記的專車接載選民到各票站投票，票站調查亦顯示有一成半被訪者承認是被專車接到票站。而各參選組別於宣傳期間大派禮物、歌舞連場如嘉年華會般的活動更反映了各參選組別傾向以大灑金錢的方式來大量動員，可見金錢角力的劇烈。

投票結果是提倡經濟發展的新興力量高票當選，不少上屆成功當選的民主派人士卻未如理想。但票站調查顯示，除了三成半沒有意見及二成六贊成保持現狀，要求增加直選議席或贊成全部直選的被訪選民佔三成一，要求取消委任議席的佔五個百分點；反觀要求減少直選、全部委任或全部間選的只有不足二個百分點。此結果反影澳門選民雖然有一定的民主訴求，但其求變之心並不強烈。

However, according to stories carried in some local media, bribery was still a serious problem. Complaints were received by the media that many election groups openly bought votes. The alleged price was $500 per voter registration card. Some voters allegedly received $200 before voting, and the balance upon the group winning the election. Even though these were rumours without hard proof, they demonstrated dissatisfaction on the part of the electorate, and insufficient control on the part of the government.

On the election day, fleets of vehicles with different colour labels were seen chauffeuring voters to polling stations. According to exit poll results, 17% of the voters admitted that they were chauffeured to the stations. On the other hand, money pouring was also evident in the never-ending campaign carnivals hosted by election groups, where free gifts and entertainment were generousely provided.

The election results show that new political forces emphasizing economic development have enjoyed a considerable success, while a number of incumbent legislators from the democratic camp failed to be re-elected. Nevertheless, exit poll results show that even though 53% of the respondents were satisfied with the present distribution of the different types of seats in the

你估計今屆既立法會能否順利過渡九九年主權移交？Do you think the new Legislative Assembly will straddle 1999?

能夠 Yes 83.5% 唔能夠 No 2.8% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 13.6%

你對澳門既平穩過渡有冇信心？Do you have confidence in the smooth transition of Macau?

有信心 Yes 83.0% 冇信心 No 6.0% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 11.0%

你對一國兩制、澳人治澳有冇信心？Do you have confidence in “one country, two systems” and “Macau people ruling Macau”?


你對澳門前途有冇信心？Do you have confidence in the future of Macau?


你今日點樣黎到票站？How did you come to the polling station today?

行黎 46.4% 自行乘車黎 37.1% 有人車黎 16.5%On foot By public transport Someone drove me

18 2-6


18 2-6


四年前有意見謂香港選舉要向澳門學習。現時澳門的選舉制度鼓勵小組參選，大黨不能多取議席。加上直選議席只佔澳門立法會的三分之一，另三分之一維持委任制度，該制度明顯是以平穩至上，維護既得利益者，這當然與澳門本土歷史及社會文化有關。若把此制度移植香港，配之以選舉期間的金權政治，相信會為本地的政治體制和文化帶來不少衝擊，不利本港的民主發展。

楊針岩 Yeung Chin-arm Patrick

*此乃刊於星島日報（九六年十月十一日）原文之撮要

Abstract from a Chinese article in the Sing Tao Daily on 11 October 1996.

Legislative Assembly, where the ideal distribution was concerned, 31% hoped for an increase in direct-elected seats. This demonstrated a moderate demand among Macau voters for stepping up the pace of democracy, although most were satisfied with the status quo.

Four years ago, there were suggestions that Hong Kong should learn from Macau’s electoral experience. The Macau model of proportional representation, with its revised D’Hont counting system, in fact favoured small election groups. Coupled with the fact that only about one-third of the seats are direct-elected, another one-third being appointed, the Macau system clearly aims at maintaining stability and protecting the status quo. This, of course, is related to Macau’s unique historical and social development. In case this system is to be transplanted in Hong Kong, together with its electoral culture, the impact on Hong Kong could be vital, and would not benefit Hong Kong’s democratic development in the long run.

你覺得逐個人黎選好些定係逐個組別選好些？Do you prefer voting for individuals or for groups?

選人 Individuals 37.5% 一樣、無所謂 Same/Doesn’t matter 11.6%選組 Groups 44.5% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 6.5%

整體黎講，你滿唔滿意今次既選舉安排？On the whole, are you satisfied with the electoral arrangement?

滿意 Satisfied 68.6% 中立 Neutral 13.5%不滿 Dissatisfied 13.5% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 4.4%

澳門立法會而家有三分一直選，三分一間選，及三分一委任議員，你滿唔滿意呢個比例？The Macau Legislative Assembly is composed of one-third direct-elected, one-third indirect-elected, and one-third appointed members. Are you satisfied with this ratio?

滿意 Satisfied 52.5% 中立 Neutral 10.0%不滿 Dissatisfied 20.5% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 17.0%

你心目中既理想比例係點？What is your ideal seat ratio?

保持現時比例 25.6% 全部直選 12.8%Existing ratio All seats become direct-elected減少直選議席 1.3% 增加直選議席 18.4%Reduce ratio of direct-elected seats Increase ratio of direct-elected seats全部間選 0.1% 取消委任 5.2%All seats become indirect-elected Abolish appointed seats全部委任 0.1% 取消間選 1.9%All seats become appointed Abolish indirect-elected seats唔識 34.6%Don’t know

2-7 19

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十月號市民對『一國兩制』及香港前途的信心

Confidence in “One Country, Two Systems” and Hong Kong’s Future

本研究小組由九三年六月及九四年一月分別開始測試港人對『一國兩制』和對香港前途的信心。

對於九七年後本港實行『一國兩制』，三年多來港人的信心變化不大，整體趨勢大至上升，有信心的比率介乎三成至五成之間。除了九六年三月有信心的被訪者有五成一外，其餘時間都不足五成被訪者對『一國兩制』有信心。

相對之下，市民對香港整體前途的信心比對『一國兩制』的信心高。由九四年五月的最低只有四成九被訪者有信心至本年九月達歷年最高的七成被訪者對本港前途有信心。

Since June 1993 and January 1994, the POP Team has been tracking Hong Kong people’s confidence in “one country, two systems” and the future of Hong Kong respectively. Results show that people’s confidence in the implementation of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong has remained between 30% to 50%, fluctuated somewhat but generally with an upward trend. So far, it has remained below 50%, except for March 1996 when it rose to 51%.

In comparison, people were more confident in Hong Kong’s overall future than in the notion of “one country, two systems”. The confidence level rose from the 49% low in May 1994 to 70% in September 1996, the highest level ever recorded.

20 2-8

《民意快訊》編輯委員會 E DITORIAL COMMITTEE OF POP EXPRESS 主編 Chief Editor : 鍾庭耀 Chung Ting-yiu Robert副編 Editors : 陳夢施 Chan Mung-sze Natalie，楊針岩 Yeung Chin-arm Patrick電話 Telephone : 2859 2988, 2859 2989傳真 Fax : 2517 6951地址 Address : 香港薄扶林道, 香港大學黃子明樓 8 樓, 社會科學研究中心

Social Sciences Research Centre, 8/F, Wong Chue Meng Building, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong.

一九九六年十月號民意快訊 POP EXPRESS

市民對中、英、港、台政府的信任程度Trust in Chinese, British, Hong Kong and Taiwanese Governments

本中心早於九二年十二月已開始連續測試港人對中國、英國及香港政府的信任程度，對台灣政府的信任程度則於九三年六月開始。除了對台灣政府的信任程度是每兩個月測試一次外，其餘對中國、英國及香港政府信任程度的調查均每月進行。

若把市民對中國及台灣政府的信任程度作一比較，可見於九四年十一月前，港人對台灣政府的平均信任程度比對中國政府的高。之後，由九四年尾至九五年尾一段期間內，平均而言，市民對台灣政府的信任程度則下跌至低於中國政府。隨著台灣總統選舉，市民對台灣政府的信任卻又回升。但港人對台灣政府的信任於九六年之前卻不斷下跌，

再看市民對香港及英國政府的信任程度。很明顯市民對港府最信任，無論在任何一個時期，對香港政府的信任程度都比對其餘三地政府的為高。對英國政府的信任則介乎九三年八月最高的三成三至九四年十月的一成七之間。

Tracking surveys on the trust in the Chinese, British, and Hong Kong governments started as early as December 1992. Survey on the people’s trust in the Taiwanese government began in June 1993.

Except for the survey on people’s trust in the Taiwanese government, which was conducted once every two months, the surveys on people’s trust in the Chinese, British and Hong Kong governments were conducted on a monthly basis. Comparing people’s trust in the Chinese and Taiwanese governments, it could be noted the before November 1994, Hong Kong people on average had more trust in the Taiwanese than Chinese government. However, from the end of 1994 till the end of 1995, the trend was reversed. With the election of the Taiwanese president, increased trust in the Taiwnese government was evident, after which it dropped again.

Regarding people’s trust in the Hong Kong and British governments, it is evident that regardless of time, people trusted the Hong Kong government much more than any other governments. Trust in the British government fluctuated between 17% and 33%.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

12/92 3/93 6/93 9/93 12/93 3/94 6/94 9/94 12/94 3/95 6/95 9/95 12/95 3/96 6/96 9/96

Trust Chinese Goverment « H¥ ô¤ ¤° ê¬ F© ² Trust Taiwanese Government « H¥ ô¥ xÆW¬ F© ²

9


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

12/92

3/93 6/93 9/93 12/93

3/94 6/94 9/94 12/94

3/95 6/95 9/95 12/95

3/96 6/96 9/96

Trust Hong Kong Government « H¥ ô » ä¬ F© ² Trust British Government « H¥ ô ° ê¬ F© ²

十大香港特別行政區籌備委員會委員最新評分Latest Ratings of the Top Ten Preparatory Committee Members for the HKSAR

Date of surveyFirst Stage (Naming)

第一階段訪問日期（提名）:12-16/9/96

Result from the survey in September 1996 Accumulated results (5 surveys)

九六年九月份調查結果累積五次調查結果Second Stage (Rating)

第二階段訪問日期（評分）:25/9/96

SupportStandard

errorTotal sample Raters Recognition

No. of time onthe list

Average supportrating

Average rate ofrecongition

支持度標準誤差總人數評分人數認知度上榜次數平均支持度平均認知度

Tung Chee-hwa 董建華 60.4 1.2 534 289 54.1% 1 60.4 56.4%Fung Kin-kee 馮檢基 60.3 0.9 534 362 67.8% 3 59.9 70.7%Tam Yiu-chung 譚耀宗 57.1 1.0 534 342 64.0% 5 56.8 65.4%Lee Ka-shing 李嘉誠 56.5 1.2 534 372 69.7% 5 57.0 72.1%Jasper Tsang 曾鈺成 54.1 1.1 534 350 65.5% 5 52.6 63.5%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 53.6 1.0 534 415 77.7% 5 55.1 77.4%Fok Ying-tung 霍英東 53.6 1.1 534 336 62.9% 5 51.8 62.5%Xu Ximan 徐四民 53.1 1.5 534 246 46.1% 1 53.1 48.0%Tam Wai-chu 譚惠珠 52.0 1.2 534 352 65.9% 4 50.9 69.2%Lo Tak-shing 羅德承 40.2 1.6 534 277 51.9% 4 43.4 48.0%Top 5 average 首五名平均分 57.7 64.2%Top 10 average 首十名平均分 54.1 62.6%

2-9 21


特區行政長官人選跟進調查Follow-up Survey on the Potential Candidiates for the Chief Executive of HKSAR

承接上期報道之調查，本中心於十月八日再次跟進調查市民對五位被傳媒廣泛報道之特區行政長官人選的評分。發現董建華與楊鐵樑不分伯仲。楊鐵樑在知名度佔先，而董健華則在支持度僅勝。吳光正與二人尚有距離，而其他兩名人士則遠遠落後。

As a follow-up to our in-depth survey reported last time, our latest rating survey found that among the five possible candidates widely reported, Tung Chee-wah is topping the list in terms of support rating, but Yang Ti-liang is leading in terms of recognition rate. Peter Woo is lagging behind the two with a distance, while the other two candidates are left way behind.

Date of survey 調查日期: 8/10/96 Total sample 總樣本: 521

合適程度評分 Rating of suitability

行政長官人選平均分數有效評分人數認知率Candidate Average mark No. of valid raters Recognition rate1. 董建華 Tung Chee-hwa 62.7 390 74.9%

2. 楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 61.8 415 79.7%

3. 吳光正 Peter Woo 54.7 330 63.3%

4. 賈施雅 Garcia Arthur 41.4 189 36.3%

5. 羅德丞 Lo Tak-shing 36.8 353 67.8%

被訪者是否介意由某些人選出任行政長官 Whether the respondents mind certain candidates becoming Chief Executive

行政長官人選Candidate

不介意的比率Percentage expressing “do not mind”

介意的比率Percentage saying they “mind”楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 83.9% 9.2%

董建華 Tung Chee-wah 80.6% 7.9%

吳光正 Peter Woo 64.8% 18.0%

羅德丞 Lo Tak-shing 45.0% 43.4%

賈施雅 Garcia Arthur 37.8% 22.8%

九六年九月份社研定期調查之樣本數據 Contact information for POP tracking polls conducted in September 1996第一次調查 First poll 第二次調查 Second poll

日期 Date of surveys 12-16/9/96 25/9/96

訪問對象 Target population 十八歲或以上之香港市民 Hong Kong population aged 18 or above調查方法 Survey method 電話訪問 Telephone survey抽樣方法 Sampling method 從住宅電話簿中隨機抽出號碼，再用電腦配套另一部份．當成功接觸目標住戶後，再用出生日期抽取其中

一名被訪者接受訪問． Telephone numbers were selected randomly from telephone directories and additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.



2-11 23



2-11 23


各項評分調查之補充資料 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON RATING SURVEYS

本刊上期向讀者介紹有關各項評分調查的設計方法，並刊出各項評分的近期結果。由於所刊之調查日期並不包括第一階段的提名調查，本刊在此加以補充。In the last issue, we explained the methodology of our POP rating surveys as well as provided dates of our latest surveys. Those were in fact dates for Stage 2 surveys, which were concerned with ratings only. To supplement our information provided, we hereby give the dates for Stage 1 surveys (for unprompted mentions) as well.

First stage (naming) 第一階段(提名) Second stage (rating) 第二階段(評分)Top Ten Legco Members 十大立法局議員 26/7/96 6/8/96

Top Ten Political Figures 十大政治人物 26/7/96 6/8/96

Top Five Political Groups 五大政治團體 6/8/96 28-29/8/96

Top Ten HKSAR Preparatory Committee Members 十大香港特別行政區籌備委員會委員January 96 九六年一月 4-5/1/96 17-18/1/96

March 96 九六年三月 13-15/3/96 25-27/3/96

May 96 九六年五月 5-6/5/96 22-23/5/96

July 96 九六年七月 10/7/96 26/7/96

下期提要 IN THE NEXT ISSUE

一項由香港醫學會委託本研究小組，在一九九六年九月進行的有關「脊骨神經科醫生」是否屬於「西醫」的調查發現，從大眾角度而言，大部份被訪者均對「醫生」、「西醫」、「脊骨神經科醫生」、「脊醫」、「骨科醫生」、「神經科醫生」等稱號有所混淆。調查亦顯示一般市民會認為「脊骨神經科醫生」是「西醫」中的專科醫生，但就算該等專業人士被稱為「脊醫」，大部份被訪者仍然認為他們是「西醫」中的專醫科生。本刊在下期將會有更詳細的分析。A POP survey commissioned by the Hong Kong Medical Association in early September 1996 to study whether, in the public’s view, “the title dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang (脊骨神經科醫生, meaning chiropractor) means a sai ji (西醫)...” has found that there was general confusion among respondents over the meaning of ji sang (醫生), sai ji (西醫), dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang (脊骨神經科醫生 ), dzek ji (脊醫), gwat fo ji sang (骨科醫生 ), and san ging fo ji sang (神經科醫生 ). The survey has confirmed that the general public had the impression that dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang are sai ji. However, this confusion could apparently not be resolved by simply restricting chiropractors to use the title dzek ji, as most respondents also considered dzek ji a specialist in sai ji. More details next time.

鳴謝 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

電視廣播有限公司 Television Broadcasts Ltd. ( 贊助施政報告市民即時反應調查 for sponsoring the instant poll on the policy address)東方基金會, 澳門基金會及信德集團有限公司 Fundacao Oriente, Foundacao Macau and Shun Tak Holdings Ltd. (贊助澳門選舉

研究 for sponsoring the Macau election survey)香港醫學會 Hong Kong Medical Association (贊助有關「脊骨神經科醫生」稱號民意調查 for sponsoring opinion survey on

people’s perception of the title dzek gwat san ging for ji sang [脊骨神經科醫生, meaning chiropractor])

索閱表格（歡迎加印）Request Form (Please make your own copies)

本人欲定期索閱《民意快訊》及民意研究計劃其他刊物：□ 中文版 Chinese versionI would like to receive POP Express periodically & other POP publications ：□ 英文版 English version

姓名 Name: 電話 Tel.no: 傳真 Fax no.:

24 2-12

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十月號機構 Organization: 職位 Position:

地址 Address:

24 2-13



編者的話 From the Editor

第一任特區行政長官的推選工作已進入白熱化階段，社會輿論此起彼落，對民意數據的渴求亦驟然增加，形形種種的民意收集方法開始在坊間流行，其中包括極低成本的音頻互動錄音電話訪問方法，早前常見的觀眾讀者來電投票方法，國際網頁傳送問卷方法，及隨意街頭或電話訪問方法。

筆者並不懷疑進行該等調查的動機，但須指出該等調查方法缺乏科學基礎，充其量只可用作粗略參考，不能當作代表一般市民的意見。只要調查機構如實報道調查的方法，及樣本的基本資料，則仍不失為推動民意機制的有效工具。

當然，就算是以最科學化方法取得的民意數據也只能反映市民大眾在特定時空下基於某種認知下發表的意見，不能神化為主導社會發展的唯一規條。有關特首推選的民意調查如是，有關今期刊錄民協成員應否加入臨時立法會的民意調查亦如是。

鑑於特首推選對香港未來發展影響深遠，本中心自九四年底便開始展開有關的民意調查，今年十月起更每星期進行及發表一次，直至推選結束。由於篇幅所限，《民意快訊》只能刊載部份資料。本研究小組將在推選結束後把歷次報告結集成書，供讀者參考讀者如欲索閱已發表的報告，歡迎致電《民意快訊》各位編輯。

　鍾庭耀

The selection process for the First SAR Chief Executive has reached a critical stage, the crave for public opinion data was never greater. With this unprecedented demand for opinion data, a number of cheap but unscientific methods of data collection has become popular, including the so-called interactive tone-dial recorded telephone interviews, phone-in polls, electronic interviews using the World Wide Web, and casual street and telephone polls.

Such unscientific methods of data collection might have developed out of good-will, but because of their casual nature, they could at best be taken as very rough forms of opinion expression. Provided that the researchers reported their method and contact information in detail, they can still be treated as useful forerunners of proper polling practices.

On the other hand one must also not mythicize public opinion surveys. Even the best surveys reflect people’s opinion at specific points in time, they are not the only criterion for policy development. Surveys on the selection of the SAR Chief Executive, as well as whether ADPL members should join the Provisional Legislature reported in this issue, should be viewed in this light.

Because the selection of the SAR Chief Executive is vital to the future development of Hong Kong, our POP Team has been conducting surveys on this topic since 1994. Since October this year, the frequency has been increased to once every week. We will be putting all our reports together under one cover immediately after the selection. Readers who would like to obtain early copies are welcome to contact any of our editors.

　Chung Ting-yiu Robert


調查日期 Date of Survey 支持度 Support Rating 按月平均分 Monthly Average

九月份第一次調查 1st survey in September 12-16/9/96 55.9 56.5

九月份第二次調查 2nd survey in September 25/9/96 57.1 (九月 September)十月份第一次調查 1st survey in October 2/10/96 56.4 57.7

十月份第二次調查 2nd survey in October 8/10/96 58.1 (十月 October)

十月份第三次調查 3rd survey in October 23-24/10/96 58.5

九六年十一月號民意快訊合訂本第一冊特區行政長官民意調查

Survey on the Chief Executive of HKSAR

1. 市民對推委提名行政長官候選人的意見 People’s opinion on the nomination of the Chief Executive candidates by the Selection Committee

調查日期：一九九六年十一月十八至十九日 Date of survey: 18-19 November 1996

你對推選委員會日前提名行政長官既投票結果滿唔滿意呢？ Are you satisfied with the result of the nomination voting by the Selection Committee?

　滿意 Satisfied 41.1% 一半半 Half-half 14.7% 不滿意 Dissatisfied 26.1%　唔清楚結果 Don’t know the result 6.3% 唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 11.8%

　你對推選委員會日前提名行政長官既過程滿唔滿意呢？ Are you satisfied with the nomination process itself?

　滿意 Satisfied 32.8% 一半半 Half-half 12.0% 不滿意 Dissatisfied 30.9%　唔清楚過程 Don’t know the process 14.4% 唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 10.0%

　推選委員會既投票結果有冇影嚮你對各個候選人既支持度？ Has your support towards different candidates been influenced by the result of the voting?

　冇影嚮 No effect 82.1% 減少支持楊鐵樑 Support Yang Ti-liang less 0.8%

　更加支持董建華 Support Tung Chee-hwa more 3.4% 減少支持董建華 Support Tung Chee-hwa less 0.6%

　更加支持楊鐵樑 Support Yang Ti-liang more 2.3% 減少支持吳光正 Support Peter Woo less 0.4%

　更加支持吳光正 Support Peter Woo more 0.0% 唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 10.5%

　

3-2 16

九六年十一月號民意快訊合訂本第一冊

在最新一次行政長官民意調查中，本研究小組嘗試測試市民對十一月十五日剛完成的推選委員會（推委）提名行政長官候選人的過程及結果是否滿意，在五百三十一位被訪者中，有四成一表示對提名的結果滿意，表示一半半的有一成半，而表示不滿的亦有兩成六，至於表示不了解提名結果及沒有肯定答案的則分別有六個及十二個百分比。

在提名過程方面，滿意的比率比對提名結果的滿意程度為少，只有三成三的被訪者表示對提名過程滿意，表示不滿的亦有三成一，表示一半半的有一成二，而表示不理解提名過程及沒有肯定答案的分別佔一成四及一成。顯然，被訪者對推委的提名過程較為不滿，而對提名結果則尚算滿意。

本調查的另一條問題測試推委提名結果對被訪者支持各候選人的態度有否轉變，結果發現有八成二的被訪者表示此結果對他們的選擇沒有影響，表示有影響的佔八個百分比，三個百分比表示會更加支持董建華，兩個百分比表示會更加支持楊鐵樑，表示會減少支持董建華或楊鐵樑者各佔一個百分比，一成一被訪者則沒有肯定答案。此反映只有少數被訪者受推委提名的結果影響。

In our latest survey of 531 respondents, 41% of the respondents were satisfied with the result of the nomination of the Chief Executive candidates by the Selection Committee on 15 November, 15% indicated half-half, 26% expressed dissatisfaction, 6% did not know the result, and another 12% gave no definite answer.

As for the nomination process, the satisfaction rate was lower. Only 33% were satisfied, 31% indicated dissatisfaction, 12% replied half-half, and those who indicated ignorance of the nomination process or could not give definite answers constituted 14% and 10% respectively. Apparently the subjects were more satisfied with the result than the process.

Another question tested the effect of the nomination on respondents' attitudes towards the candidates. A total of 82% claimed there was no effect, only 8% said their attitudes had changed. Three percent said they began to support Tung Chee-hwa more, while 2% said they began to give more support to Yang Ti-liang. Only 1% said they would support Tung less, another 1% said they would support Yang less. Eleven percent did not give definite answers.

3-2 2

November 1996　　　　　　　　　　　 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE

2. 行政長官候選人評分 Candidate Ratings認知程度 Recognition rate

認知率 Recognition rate (%) 人選＼調查日期 Candidate ＼ Date of survey

29-31/8 8/10 23-24/10 5-6/11 11/11 18-19/11

楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 60.7 79.7 78.9 77.4 86.8 90.6

董建華 Tung Chee-hwa 47.5 74.9 77.2 74.7 86.1 90.6 吳光正 Peter Woo ／ 63.3 70.7 69.0 79.3 85.7

適合程度 Suitability rating問題： 0 分代表絕對不適合出任行政長官, 100分代表絕對適合, 50分代表一半半，你會俾幾多分 XXX 呢?Question: 0 means absolutely unsuitable for the post of Chief Executive, 100 means absolutely suitable, 50 represents half-half. How would you rate XXX?

人選所獲平均分數 Average mark of the candidates 調查日期 Date of survey

29-31/8 8/10 23-24/10 5-6/11 11/11 18-19/11

人選 Candidates

分數Mark

評分人數No. of raters

分數Mark


分數Mark


分數Mark


分數Mark


分數Mark


楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang

60.8 318 61.8 415 61.4 415 67.2 404 66.5 500 67.3 481

董建華 Tung Chee-hwa

62.4 249 62.7 390 65.7 406 66.1 390 66.8 496 66.0 481

吳光正 Peter Woo

／／ 54.7 330 56.2 372 55.6 360 51.8 457 49.3 455

3. 對行政長官候選人的抗拒程度 Whether respondents mind certain candidates becoming the Chief Exectuive

問題：你會唔會介意XXX出任行政長官？Question: Would you mind XXX taking up the post of the Chief Executive?

不介意的比率 Percentage expressing “do not mind” 人選　　　　＼　調查日期 Candidate 　＼ Date of survey

29-31/8 8/10 23-24/10 5-6/11 11/11 18-19/11

楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 65.0 83.9 84.7 86.1 90.9 87.7 董建華 Tung Chee-hwa 59.5 80.6 83.6 86.5 85.1 87.1

吳光正 Peter Woo ／ 64.8 66.5 66.2 58.3 52.9

4. 選那一位？ Choose which candidate?

問題：如果聽日俾你投票選舉行政長官，而參選者包括XXX，XXX．．．，你會選邊個？Question: If you are given the chance to elect the Chief Executive tomorrow, and the candidates include XXX, XXX, ...... ,which candidate would you choose to take up the post?

人選　　　　＼　　　調查日期Candidate 　＼　Date of survey

23-24/10百分比　%5-6/11百分比　%

11/11百分比　%18-19/11

頻數 Frequency 百分比 %

楊鐵樑 Tung Chee-hwa 27.5 33.5 42.6 216 40.7

董建華 Yang Ti-liang 30.2 32.4 32.9 213 40.1

吳光正 Peter Woo 8.7 4.1 4.0 21 4.0

李福善 Li Fook-sean 3.3 2.1 1.1 ／／區玉麟 Au Yuk-lun ／ 0.4 0.2 ／／杜森 To-sum ／ 0 0.3 ／／蔡正矩 Choi Ching-kui ／ 0 0 ／／3-3 27


余漢彪 Yu Hon-bui ／ 0 0 ／／棄權/個個都唔選Abstain/None 16.7 14.3 12.5 52 9.8

唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 13.7 13.2 6.5 29 5.5

合計 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 531 100.0

3-3 27

一九九六年十一月號　　　　　　　　民意快訊合訂本第一冊行政長官民意調查綜合分析 Combined Analysis of Chief Executive Surveys

本研究小組曾多次進行特首民意調查，現總結十至十一月內進行的九六年第二至第五次調查，以供讀者參考*。

香港特別行政區第一任行政長官的推選方法乃按照基本法及有關的人大決議執行，屬過渡期重要事項。根據最近本研究小組進行的民意調查顯示，八成三被訪者認為該項工作對本港未來發展「頗為」或「非常」重要，五成三則認為對被訪者本人「頗為」或「非常」重要。

不過調查亦顯示，六成市民不知道特首人選須在四十歲以上，而四分三不知道有八名人士符合特首參選資格，顯示市民雖然覺得特首推選工作非常重要，但對產生過程只是一知半解。再觀乎個別人選的知名度，在未進入第一輪篩選(即候選人需獲五十名推委提名)階段前，調查發現市民對半數被甄別為合資格的人選毫無認識，而對另四名廣受傳媒報導的參選人士，認識程度一般都是由六成起步，再經過三至四個星期的短暫催谷而升至八成左右，顯示市民對各個人選都沒有深入的認識，推選委員會適宜加強市民與該等人士的溝通。否則，民意調查的結果便難以反映市民的成熟意見。

在起初八名合資格參選人中，撇開四名鮮為人知的參選人士後，餘下四位大致可分成兩組：董建華及楊鐵樑在過去數次調查的評分榜上不分伯仲，屬六十五分以上高位分數，而吳光正及李福善則得分偏低，由於董楊二人得分接近，民意傾向不宜從單一選擇的題目作出結論，因為該等題目傾向極化被訪者的選擇，使強者愈強，弱者愈弱，未必能全面反映民意。此等調查適宜在推選工作後期進行，以便模仿表決機制。

較諸其他人士，董建華與楊鐵樑的民意優勢極可能是基於他們較早宣佈有意角逐特首，而吸引傳媒及市民注意所致。民意調查顯示，董建華的支持者一般是喜歡他的個人形象，至於楊鐵樑的支持者，則多因他的司法背景。兩人的優勢明顯不同。調查同時發現市民關注參選人士對社會民生問題的取向遠多於他們的政治立場及經濟政策。不過，當二者在民生問題的取向分別不大時，政治及其他立場的分別亦可成分辨高低的因素。

特區行政長官的推選雖只屬於四百人的份內工作，但要取信於民，候選人應直接面對群眾，爭取市民支持。推選委員會成員則應該先參考市民的意見，然後作出無私的選擇。倘若選舉結果跟民意背道而馳，則適宜向市民解釋選擇的原因。基本法既然確認了特首推選中「代表性」和「民主程序」的重要性（基本法第四十五條），推選委員會就應認真考慮民意，落實民主精神。

*此乃刊於星島日報(九六年十一月廿日)原文撮要。上文所談及的各項調查結果，已於較早前向各界公佈，讀者如欲索取有關報告，可致電本中心查詢。

Our POP Team has been tracking public opinion on the Chief Executive selection for a very long time. The following is a summary of our recent surveys in October and November 1996.*

The selection of the first Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an important event in Hong Kong’s transition, our latest survey found that 83% of the respondents considered the event “very/quite important” to the future of Hong Kong, while 53% considered it “very/quite important” to themselves.

However, the surveys also revealed that the general public was quite ignorant of the selection process, as 60% did not know that candidates had to be over 40 years old, and three-quarter did not know there were eight qualified candidates. If we look at people’s knowledge of the individual candidates, people practically knew nothing about four of the eight candidates. As for the four more popular candidates, their recognition rate generally started at around 60% to about 80% after three to four weeks’ campaign. The Selection Committee should therefore work harder to improve the communication between the candidates and the general public. Otherwise, opinion surveys would not be able to reflect people’s mature thought.

For the four more popular candidates, Tung Chee-hwa and Yang Ti-liang were very close in terms of popularity ratings, while Peter Woo and Li Fook-sean lagged behind with a distance. Because Tung and Yang were very close, it would not be wise to draw any conclusion simply from opinion questions which asked for hypothetical votes, because such questions tend to polarize the results. Such questions are more appropriate at the final stage of the campaign, when people are more knowledgeable, and voting could be simulated.

The lead that Tung and Yang had in opinion surveys was probably due to their earlier exposure to the press. Tung’s supporters chose him mainly because of his personal image, while Yang’s judicial background attracted his supporters. Although our surveys show that people were more concerned with their social rather than political platforms, their different political outlook may nevertheless be critical if they are indistinguishable otherwise.

Even though the selection of the Chief Executive is the responsibility of only 400 people, it is important that it has the blessing of the general public. The candidates themselves should directly face the public, while the Selection Committee members should consider public opinion seriously. If their decision is far different from

28 3-4

一九九六年十一月號　　　　　　　　民意快訊合訂本第一冊the public wish, they should explain it to the Hong Kong people, in order to honour the spirit of democracy encapsulated in the Basic Law.

*Abstract from a Chinese article in Sing Tao Daily on 20 Nov 1996. All the survey results mentioned have been released in our survey reports. Readers interested in getting them please contact us.

28 3-4

November 1996 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE

民協成員應否加入臨時立法會之選民意見調查Opinion Survey on Whether ADPL Members Should Join the Provisional Legislative Council

香港民主民生協進會委託本研究小組進行調查，了解市民對臨時立法會接受程度及民協成員應否加入臨立會。調查集中訪問居於九龍西及九龍中兩個選區內選民，因此所得結論亦只能反映該等選民的意見。

調查發現，被訪者對成立臨立會持負面態度居多，兩個選區均只有約兩成半被訪者贊成設立臨立會，三成反對。但對馮檢基加入臨立會卻贊成居多(四成二)，主要希望他能在臨立會反映基層意見。對廖成利應否加入則分歧較大，贊成反對各佔二成，贊成者亦主要希望他能在臨立會反映基層的意見。若馮廖二人真的加入臨立會，分別有六成九及四成九被訪者認為可以接受。

評分方面，馮檢基則有 64.5分及 84.9%的認知率，選民對他的評價有四成是基於其在民生方面的取向，其政治取向只佔百分之六。廖成利評分是 60.6，認知率為 60.1%，四成七選民沒有特別基準來評價廖成利。若兩人加入臨立會，雖然支持者較反對者略多，但被訪者對二人評分均同時下降，馮檢基下跌 2.4分；廖成利下跌 4.0分，顯示反對者略少但意見強烈。

綜合而言，馮檢基加入臨立會，九龍西選民應會支持他的決定。但對一向不支持馮的選民，加入臨立會則產生負面影響。至於廖成利，在選民心目中形象不突出，民協背景及個人形象可能同時影響其個人聲望。若廖加入臨立會，可能對支持者產生分化作用，

利弊參半。The POP team was recently commissioned by the

Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (ADPL) to survey registered voters in Kowloon West and Kowloon Central on their attitude towards the Provisional Legislative Council (PL), as well as whether they agreed to ADPL members’ joining it.

The survey found that about 30% of respondents objected to the establishment of the PL, while about 25% supported it. However, 42% believed that Frederick Fung should join the PL in order to represent the interest of the grass-roots. When it came to Bruce Liu, opinion was equally split about 20% both ways. Nevertheless, if Fung and Liu were to join the PL, 69% and 49% of voters in their respective constituencies would accept it.

In terms of ratings, Fung received a support rating of 64.5 marks, mainly because of his concern on livelihood issues. Liu received 60.6 marks, but the rationale for his score was less obvious. If they joined the PL, their ratings would both decline. Fung’s average score would decrease by 2.4, while Liu’s would decrease by 4.0, in spite of more respondents saying that they would increase, rather than decrease, their support. This was because those who disagreed to such moves tended to object with greater intensity.

In conclusion, if Fung were to join the PL, voters in Kowloon West would generally support his decision, but those who never supported him would dislike him more. As for Liu, his supporters might probably be split by such a move, the advantages and disadvantages might simply cancel each other.

調查日期: 一九九六年十月廿九日至十一月二日 Date of survey: 29 October-2 November 1996 樣本數目: 九龍西選區 515個成功個案 Sample size: 515 successful cases in Kowloon West

九龍中選區 526個成功個案 526 successful cases in Kowloon Central

你贊唔贊成XXX加入臨時立法會? Do you agree to Frederick Fung/Bruce Liu joining the Provisional Legislative Council?贊成 Agree 中立 Neutral 唔贊成 Disagree 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say

馮檢基 Frederick Fung 41.8% 23.3% 18.7% 16.3% 廖成利 Bruce Liu 20.1% 20.9% 20.3% 38.7%

如果 XXX 真係加入臨時立法會, 你認為可否接受? If XXX really joined the Provisional Legislative Council, would you accept it?可以 Yes 唔可以 No 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say

馮檢基 Frederick Fung 69.0% 10.7% 20.3% 廖成利 Bruce Liu 49.0% 11.6% 39.3%

如果 XXX 決定加入臨時立法會, 你會增加定減少對佢既支持? Suppose XXX was to join the Provisional Legislative Council, would you increase or decrease your support for him?增加減少冇變從來唔支持佢唔知/難講

Increase Decrease No change Never supported him Don’t know/Hard to say 馮檢基 Frederick Fung 29.0% 12.3% 37.2% 3.5% 18.0% 廖成利 Bruce Liu 　 16.4% 11.4% 33.7% 5.8% 32.7%

馮檢基及廖成利評分 Ratings of Frederick Fung and Bruce Liu

3-5 2

November 1996 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE

現時 Present 假設加入臨立會 If they joined PL 馮檢基 Frederick Fung 廖成利 Bruce Liu 馮檢基 Frederick Fung 廖成利 Bruce Liu 評分 Rating(認知率 Recog.rate) 64.5(84.9%) 60.6(60.1%) 62.1(77.1%) 56.6(57.6%)

3-5 3

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十一月號市民對脊骨神經科醫生稱號的意見

People’s Perception of the Title Dzek Gwat San Ging Fo Ji Sang

今年九月，本研究小組受香港醫學會委託，探討市民對「脊醫」及「西醫」之稱號有否混淆。調查由九六年九月三十日至十月一日進行，成功訪問了一千零八位十八歲以上的香港居民，回應率為百分之五十三。（一）對醫生及西醫兩個稱號的看法

調查發現，如果有人自稱自己為「某某醫生」，有四成四的被訪者會直覺上覺得該人就是「西醫」，亦有二成九的被訪者認為不是，二成七則沒有肯定答案。此外，若有朋友告訴被訪者他／她昨天看過「醫生」，有七成五的被訪者會認為該位朋友去看的是「西醫」，八個百分比認為不是。由於此問題包含被訪者對朋友在行為上的估計，加上「西醫」在整個醫護系統中比其他種類的醫生人數多，故即使「醫生」並不等同「西醫」更多被訪者估計其朋友所看的是「西醫」並非不合理。（二）對稱號的混淆

就「西醫」與其他稱號的關係，有六成九的被訪者認為「脊骨神經科醫生」是「西醫」中的專科醫生。調查亦同時發現，有五成六的被訪者認為「脊醫」是「西醫」中的專科醫生，兩成認為不是。另外兩條相關的問題則顯示，有六成七的被訪者認為「骨科醫生」是「西醫」之中的專科醫生。其次，八成一的被訪者認為「神經科醫生」是「西醫」中之專科醫生。以上結果反映被訪者基本上認為「醫生」、「西醫」、「脊骨神經科醫生」、「脊醫」、「骨科醫生」及「神經科醫生」均是西醫。

調查有另一個有趣的發現，被訪者本人或家人在過去曾看過該等專業醫護人士者較一般被訪者更加傾向認為該等醫護人士是「西醫」中的專科醫生。另外在被訪前有聽過「脊骨神經科醫生」及「脊醫」的被訪者會更認為此兩類人士是「西醫」。同時，被訪者即使對「脊骨神經科醫生」及「脊醫」兩個名稱本身亦有混淆。舉例而言，在整體樣本中，有八十五名被訪者認為「脊骨神經科醫生」是「西醫」但「脊醫」卻不是，又另有二十九名被訪者認為「脊醫」是「西醫」但「脊骨神經科醫生」卻不是。

總括而言，調查發現市民對「西醫」、「脊骨神經科醫生」、「脊醫」、「骨科醫生」及「神經科醫生」的名稱均有混淆。調查亦同時證明一般市民的確以為「脊骨神經科醫生」是「西醫」；然而，此誤解並不能單靠規限此行業用「脊醫」之名，因為不少被訪者亦同樣誤解

「脊醫」是「西醫」。In September 1996, the Hong Kong Medical

Association commissioned the POP Team to conduct a survey to find out whether there was any confusion in people’s usage of the Chinese titles for chiropractors and western doctors. The suvey, capturing 1008 Hong Kong residents aged 18 years or above, was conducted between September 30 and October 1, with a response rate of 53%.

(1) General impression of ji sang and sai jiAccording to findings of this survey, the

association between ji sang and sai ji was not very strong. When someone called oneself “so-and-so ji sang”, 44% of the respondents felt that person must have been a sai ji, 29% thought that person was not a sai ji, while 27% could not be sure. On the other hand, 75% interpreted their friend “having visited ji sang” as having in fact visited a sai ji, only 8% had the impression that the consultation was not with a sai ji. Since this question involved a certain guessing on the behaviour of the respondents’ friend, and given that sai ji were more abundant in the medical care system than other ji sang, it would not be unreasonable for some respondents to guess that a friend having visited ji sang in fact visited a sai ji.

(2) Confusion between different titlesConcerning the association of different titles with

sai ji, 69% felt that dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang was in fact specialists of sai ji, 56% believed dzek ji was in fact sai ji, 67% believed that gwat fo ji sang was specialists of sai ji, while 81% believed that san ging fo ji sang was sai ji. These results reflect that most respondents considered ji sang, sai ji, dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang, dzek ji, gwat fo ji sang and san ging fo ji sang are all sai ji.

The association of the titles with sai ji was generally stronger among patients than non-patients, and for those who had heard the titles before. Moreover, there was also considerable confusion in the use of the terms dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang and dzek ji. For example, among the overall sample, 85 considered dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang being sai ji but dzek ji not sai ji, another 29 considered dzek ji being sai ji, but dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang not sai ji.

On the whole, the survey has found that there was general confusion among respondents over the meaning of sai ji, dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang, dzek ji, gwat fo ji sang, and san ging fo ji sang. The survey has confirmed the general public had the impression that dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang were sai ji. However, this confusion could not be resolved by simply restricting chiropractors

30 3-6

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十一月號to use the title dzek ji, as most respondents also considered dzek ji as sai ji.

30 3-6

November 1996　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE

如果有人自稱係‘乜乜乜醫生’，你直覺上覺得佢係唔係西醫?When someone called oneself ‘so and so ji sang’, do you think that person is a sai ji?

係 Yes 43.9% 唔係 No 29.1% 唔清楚 Not sure 27.0%

如果你既朋友話佢昨日去睇過醫生，你直覺上係唔係認為佢睇既係西醫呢?If your friend told you that he/she had visited a ji sang yesterday, do you think that he/she had visited a sai ji?


你認為‘骨科醫生’呢個名稱係唔係指西醫之中既專科醫生?Do you think a gwat fo ji sang is a sai ji specialist?


你或者你既屋企有冇睇過‘骨科醫生’?Have you or your family visited any gwat fo ji sang before?

有 Yes 37.8% 冇 No 60.7% 唔清楚 Not sure 1.5%

你認為‘神經科醫生’呢個名稱係唔係指西醫之中既專科醫生?Do you think san ging fo ji sang is a sai ji specialist?


你或者你既屋企人有冇睇過‘神經科醫生? Have you or your family visited any san ging fo ji sang before?


你認為‘脊骨神經科醫生’呢個名稱係唔係指西醫之中既專科醫生? Do you think dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang is a sai ji specialist?


你或者你既屋企人有冇睇過‘脊骨神經科醫生’呢? Have you or your family visited any dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang before?


你認為‘脊骨神經科醫生’同‘骨科醫生’既治療方法有無分別呢?Do you think the medical treatment of dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang is the same as that of gwat fo ji sang?


係今日之前，你有冇聽過‘脊骨神經科醫生’呢個名稱? Have you ever heard of dzek gwat san ging fo ji sang before today?


你認為‘脊醫’係唔係西醫之中既專科醫生? Do you think dzek ji is a sai ji specialist?


你或者你既屋企人有冇睇過‘脊醫’呢?Have you or your family visited any dzek ji before ?


係今日之前，你有冇聽過‘脊醫’呢個名稱? Have you ever heard of dzek ji before today?


3-7 31

November 1996　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE

3-7 31

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　一九九六年十一月號　市民對基本法的認識

People’s Knowledge of the Basic Law

32 3-8

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　一九九六年十一月號　

香港律師公會在十月初委託本研究小組調查香港市民對基本法的認識。是項調查，訪問了五百四十六位十八歲或以上的本港居民。回應率為百分之五十五。(1) 對基本法之認識

是次調查發現，只有百分之三的被訪者曾經看過基本法全部內容，一成九看過部份，七成一卻完全沒有看過。至於有關介紹基本法的活動，六成二被訪者表示並未參與過，三成一只從傳媒報導中得知有關活動，只有百分之七曾經有參與過。

大部份被訪者對基本法並不熟識。只有一個百分點被訪者認為自己對基本法的認識是「幾多」。假如將有「一般/普通」認識的百分比包括在內，累積百分比則上升至一成一。對基本法很少認識的佔四成九，完全不認識亦有三成八。

在被問及對基本法的內容是否滿意時（不包括對基本法毫無認識的被訪者），有四分三的被訪者沒有肯定答案。在餘下被訪者中，對內容滿意與不滿意的比率約五比二。(2) 對認識基本法的興趣

撇開被訪者對基本法的認識，四成三的被訪者表示有興趣認識基本法，主要是認為基本法與自身的權益有關，及關心香港的未來發展。至於表示沒有興趣的被訪者（五成四），主要因他們認為基本法與他們日常生活無關，及對法律條文沒有興趣。

大比數（七成三）的被訪者認為過往所獲有關基本法的資訊不足夠，此反映仍有許多在宣傳或教育上可以改善的地方。當問及誰該負責向市民清楚解釋基本法內容及細則時，認為應由香港政府負責的佔四成，認為中方機構需要負責的約一成，認為應由傳媒負責的佔六個百分點。

至於那種方法最能引起市民對認識基本法的興趣？三成九被訪者認為電子傳媒的節目最有效，百分之九建議透過文字傳媒來提高市民的興趣，建議以刊物如小冊子、雜誌、書本方式宣傳的有百分之七。

總括而言，很多人對基本法的認識既不多，亦無興趣作進一步認識。不足一成的被訪者曾參與過有關介紹基本法的活動。至於那些對基本法有認識（至少一部份）的，他們對內容的整體印象仍是較傾向於正面多於負面。雖然很多人不認為基本法與他們日常生活有關係

The Law Society of Hong Kong commissioned the POP Team to conduct a survey in October to study Hong Kong’s people knowledge of the Basic Law (BL). A total of 546 residents aged 18 or above were surveyed with a response rate of 55%.

(1) Knowledge of the Basic LawThe survey found that only 3% of the respondents

have read the BL in full, 19% have read part of it, while 71% have never read any part of it. Some 62% had never participated in activities relating to the introduction of the BL, 31% was only aware of such activities through the mass media, and only 7% had actually participated in such activities.

Most respondents were unfamiliar with the document. Only 1% understood ‘fairly much’ about it, the accumulative percentage went up to 11% if we included ‘average understanding’ as well. A total of 49% knew very little about it, while 38% knew nothing at all.

Excluding those who knew nothing about the BL, three-quarter of the respondents did not know whether they were satisfied with its content. For the remaining respondents, those who felt satisfied out-numbered those who were dissatisfied by about 5:2.

(2) Interest in knowing more about the Basic LawIrrespective of respondents’ knowledge about the

BL, 43% expressed interest in knowing more, mainly because they thought the BL has spelled out their civil rights, and because they cared about the future development. For those who were not interested (54%), they thought that the BL was not related to their daily life. Besides, they did not like reading legal documents.

A significant percentage of the respondents, 73%, felt that the information they had so far received about the BL was not sufficient, this shows ample ground for improvement. Asked who should be responsible for explaining the BL to the general public, 40% mentioned the Hong Kong Government, while demand for action from pro-China organizations was 10%, which was only slightly more than the media’s 6%.

As to what activities would best arouse people’s interest in the BL, 39% suggested programmes produced by the electronic media, 9% suggested using the printed media, 7% suggested publications such as pamphlets, magazines, and books.

To conclude, most people knew very little about the BL, and were not very interested in it either. Less than 10% had participated in activities relating to its introduction. For those who knew (at least some part of) the BL, their general impression was more favourable than unfavourable. Although many people did not think the BL

32 3-8


，然而他們都認為直至目前為止，所獲得的有關基本法的資訊並不足夠。故此，有關機構仍有相當多的改善工作需要進行。

was relevant to their daily life, they nevertheless considered the information they had so far received to be insufficient. There is, therefore, ample ground for further improvement.

請問你有冇睇過基本法部份或者全部內容？Have you ever read any part of the Basic Law?

有：全部起碼睇過一次Yes, in full detail 2.8% 有：部份條文Yes, some part of it 18.9%

冇：包括只聽過有關討論No (but may have heard about it) 71.2% 唔清楚/唔記得Not sure/Forgotten 7.1%

請問你有冇聽過或者接觸過(包括參觀展覽)有關基本法既討論或者介紹？Have you ever participated in any activities relating to the introduction of the Basic Law (including exhibitions)?

有：只係從傳媒報導中得知Only through media coverage 31.0% 唔清楚/唔記得Not sure/Forgotten 0.7%

有：針對部份內容既討論或者介紹Yes, but on specific provisions only 5.0% 冇 No 61.5%

有：全面性既討論或者介紹Yes, comprehensive introduction/discussions 1.8%

你覺得你對基本法認識多唔多？How much do you understand the Basic Law?

好多Very much 0% 幾多 Fairly much 1.3% 一般/普通Average 10.1%

唔係幾多/好少Not much 49.1% 完全唔認識Not at all 38.4% 唔知/難講 Don’know/Hard to say 1.1%

（只問對基本法有一定認識者）你對基本法既內容滿唔滿意？ (For those with some knowledge of the Basic Law) Are you satisfied with the content of the Basic Law?

非常滿意Very satisfied 1.5% 頗滿意Quite satisfied 16.0% 一半半/一般/普通Half-half 17.8% 頗不滿意Quite dissatisfied 6.3% 非常不滿意Very dissat. 1.2% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 57.2%

有冇興趣知多口的有關基本法既野？Are you interested in knowing more about the Basic Law?

有Yes 42.9% 冇 No 54.2% 難講 Hard to say　　2.9%

（只問有興趣者）點解有興趣呢？(For those interested) Why are you interested?

覺得基本法同自已權益有關 The Basic Law is related to my own rights 45.3% 盡公民既責任 It is our civic responsibility 12.4%

想了解多些香港日後發展既方向 To know more about HK’s future development 31.2% 其他原因Other reasons 11.1%

（只問沒有興趣者）點解冇興趣呢？(For those not interested) Why not?

覺得基本法對自已唔重要/唔關我事The BL is not important to me / not my business

23.9% 對落實基本法冇信心Not confident in its implemention

7.3%

對法律條文無興趣Not interested in legal documents 18.0% 其他原因Other reasons 50.9%

你覺得邊種方法最能令你更加了解基本法既內容，或者更有興趣認識基本法？Which do you think is the best way to arouse people’s interest in the Basic Law?

電子傳媒既節目 Programmes broadcast by the electronic media 38.5% 攤位/有獎遊戲 Bazaars/Games 1.6%

文字傳媒(如報章專欄)Printed media (e.g. newspaper column) 8.6% 展覽 Exhibitions 1.5%

其他刊物，如小冊子、雜誌、書本 Other publications eg.pamphlets, magazines, books 6.6% 其他方法Other means 3.1%

研討會/論壇/講座 Seminars/Forums/Talks 4.2% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 32.5%

宣傳單張 Brochures 3.3%

你覺得你過往所獲得有關基本法的資訊是否足夠？Do you think the information you have got concerning Basic Law was sufficient?

足夠 Sufficient 9.9% 不足夠 Not sufficient 73.4% 難講 Hard to say 16.6%

你覺得邊個最有責任向市民清楚解釋基本法既內容及細則？Who do you think is most responsible for explaining the details of the Basic Law to the people of Hong Kong?

香港政府 HK Government 40.3% 香港特別行政區籌備委員會HKSAR Preparatory Committee

4.1% 法律界人士 Legal profession 1.3%

中國政府 Chinese Government 6.1% 政黨/政治團體 Political parties/groups 2.6% 其他Others 3.5%

媒介Media 5.7% 教育界人士 Education sector 1.6% 唔知/難講 Not sure /Hard to say 34.9%

3-9 33


3-9 33

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十一月號五大中國領導人評分

Ratings of the Top Five Chinese Leaders

本研究小組自九五年七月開始，每兩個月進行一次中國領導人評分調查。每次調查均要求被訪者評價最為港人熟識的數位中國大陸高層官員。評價以本研究小組一向採用的 0-100分評分方式，每次選出五位得分最高的中國領導人及計算其相對認知及支持程度。

綜觀九次調查，以鄧小平、江澤民、魯平及李鵬上榜次數最多，但分數各異。其中鄧小平於九次調查中有六次以最高分數位列榜首，最近一次九六年十一月得分則與錢其琛同樣獲得 57.6分共列首位。錢其琛因為認知度較低，所以上榜次數不多，然而每次上榜所得評價均較高，在九六年三月和七月分別以 56.8及58.6分超越鄧小平而居首位。趙紫陽雖然只一次榜上有名，得分卻屬該次調查中最高，有 60.2分，但認知度則較其餘各人低，只有 70.0%。至於江澤民，無論在評分或認知率方面相對其餘各人均屬中等，評分除了九五年十一月得 48.0分外，其餘各次調查都有 50分以上李鵬則每次調查均位榜末，分數介乎 38.3至 45.0之間。

魯平與周南雖然不屬國家中央領導層，但卻是港人熟識的中國官員。多年來一直參與中國對香港事務的魯平，於九次調查中有六次得分均低於 50分，介乎44.9至 48.8之間，最近一次十一月的調查分數則回升至 51.8分，為歷來最高。反而近年直接在香港處理事務的周南在九次調查中只有三次上榜，得分和認知度均偏低，三次上榜認知度都是最低，得分則介乎 42.6

至 46.2分。Since July 1995, the POP Team has conducted

rating surveys on the Chinese leaders once every two months, using the 0-100 marks rating scale. The ratings of the Top Five Leaders each time are being tabulated here.

From the nine surveys conducted so far, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Lu Ping and Li Peng have been on the list most frequently. Deng Xiaoping topped the list six times. In our latest survey in November 1996, he shared the top position with Qian Qichen with a rating of 57.6 marks. Qian Qichen, however, was not often on the list due to his lower recognition rate, but whenever he does, his ratings were relatively high. In fact, he was on top ahead of Deng Xiaoping in the March and July surveys in 1996. Even though Zhao Ziyang was only on the list once, his rating of 60.2 marks was the highest ratings in that exercise. Jiang Zemin has been in the middle rank both in terms of recognition and support rating, while Li Peng was consistently at the end of the list in all surveys.

Although Lu Ping and Zhou Nan were not officials in the central government, they have been widely recognized by the Hong Kong people. Lu Ping received less than 50 marks in six out of the nine surveys, but in November, his ratings reached 51.8 marks. Zhou Nan, on the other hand, was on the list only three times, with relatively low ratings.

調查日期:第一階段;第二階段 Date of survey:1st stage; 2nd stage評分調查樣本數目 Sample size in rating sample

鄧小平Deng

Xiaoping

錢其琛Qian

Qichen

江澤民Jiang

Zemin

魯平Lu

Ping

周南ZhouNan

趙紫陽Zhao

Ziyang

李鵬Li

Peng23-24/10/96;5-6/11/96 支持度 Support 57.6 57.6 54.2 51.8 - - 41.9

樣本數目 Sample size: 522 認知度 Recognition 65.1% 62.5% 64.8% 68.4% - - 68.6%25/9/96;30/9/96 支持度 Support 60.9 59.7 56.2 51.6 - - 45.0


樣本數目 Sample size: 530 認知度 Recognition 70.8% 64.9% 71.5% 74.5% - - 74.9%29-30/4/96;5-6/5/96 支持度 Support 53.5 - 51.7 45.8 44.6 - 38.3

樣本數目 Sample size: 579 認知度 Recognition 67.0% - 67.7% 72.5% 65.8% - 71.8%26-29/2/96;13-15/3/96 支持度 Support 57.4 58.6 52.9 51.4 - - 43.5

樣本數目 Sample size: 613 認知度 Recognition 63.6% 64.4% 72.9% 70.8% - - 74.6%28/12/95;4-5/1/96 支持度 Support 54.4 - 50.6 48.5 - - 39.0

樣本數目 Sample size: 543 認知度 Recognition 73.1% - 75.7% 76.1% - - 74.6%24-25/10/95;6-7/11/95 支持度 Support 54.4 - 48.0 44.9 42.6 - 39.3

樣本數目 Sample size: 550 認知度 Recognition 69.1% - 70.5% 67.1% 63.5% - 71.1%25/8/95;30/9-2/10/95 支持度 Support 56.0 - 50.6 48.5 - 60.2 40.9

34 3-10

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十一月號樣本數目 Sample size: 516 認知度 Recognition 80.8% - 71.5% 75.6% - 70.0% 81.8%27-28/6/95;14-17/7/95 支持度 Support 55.2 - 52.7 48.8 46.2 - 39.8

樣本數目 Sample size: 559 認知度 Recognition 79.4% - 73.2% 76.4% 69.1% - 81.8%

34 3-10


Date of surveyFirst stage (naming)第一階段訪問日期（提

名）:8/10/96

Result from the survey in October 1996九六年十月份調查結果 Accumulated results in the past 12 months(6 surveys)累積過去十二個月(六次)調查結果

Second stage (rating)第二階段訪問日期（評分）:

23-24/10/96

Support

支持度Standard


sample總人數No. of raters評分人數

Recognition

認知率No. of time on

the list上榜次數Average

support rating平均支持度 Average rate of

recognition平均認知度

DP 民主黨 58.8 1.0 526 378 71.9% 6 59.0 70.0%FTU 工聯會 58.0 1.0 526 322 61.2% 6 57.6 57.0%ADPL 民協 56.3 1.2 526 319 60.6% 6 53.2 50.7%LP 自由黨 54.2 1.2 526 358 68.1% 6 51.1 61.4%DABHK 民建聯 52.3 1.0 526 295 56.1% 6 53.5 58.6%Top 5 average首五名平均分 55.9 63.6%

ADPL = Hong Kong Association for Democracy & People's Livelihood 香港民主民生協進會DABHK = Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong 民主建港聯盟DP = Democratic Party 民主黨FTU = Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 香港工會聯合會LP = Liberal Party 自由黨



名）:25/9/96

Result from the survey in October 1996九六年十月份調查結果 Accumulated results in the past 12 months(6 surveys) 累積過去十二個月(六次)調查結果


8/10/96

Support

支持度Standard



Recognition

認知率No. of time on the list上榜次數

Average support rating平均支持度

Average rate of recognition平均認知度

Lau Chin-shek 劉千石 67.9 0.7 521 434 83.3% 6 63.6 78.3%Emily Lau 劉慧卿 66.3 0.9 521 426 81.8% 6 64.3 76.3%Martin Lee 李柱銘 65.2 0.8 521 447 85.8% 6 60.1 81.5%Christine Loh 陸恭蕙 65.1 0.8 521 415 79.7% 6 62.8 74.9%Lee Cheuk-yan 李卓人 64.8 0.9 521 383 73.5% 5 62.0 71.4%Szeto Wah 司徒華 63.9 0.8 521 449 86.2% 6 59.7 81.7%Tsang Kin-shing 曾健成 63.2 0.9 521 384 73.7% 1 63.2 73.7%Andrew Wong 黃宏發 59.5 0.8 521 359 68.9% 5 56.9 67.1%

3-11 35

Selina Chow 周梁淑怡 55.8 1.0 521 347 66.6% 4 55.9 70.2%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 54.1 0.9 521 394 75.6% 6 53.7 74.3%Top 5 average首五名平均分 65.9 80.8%

Top 10 average首十名平均分 62.6 77.5%

3-11 35

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十一月號

市民對中、英、港政府信任程度Trust in Chinese, British and Hong Kong Governments

調查日期 Date of survey: 8/10/96問題: 整體黎講, 你信唔信任XX政府呢? Question: On the whole, do you trust the XX government?

中國Chinese

英國British

香港Hong Kong

九月份調查 Survey in September 32.1% 28.3% 60.9%

十月份調查 Survey in October 23.0% 27.3% 60.4%

九六年十月份社研定期調查之樣本數據 Contact information for POP tracking polls conducted in October 1996第一次調查 First poll 第二次調查 Second poll

日期 Date of survey 8/10/96 23-24/10/96

訪問對象 Target population 十八歲或以上之香港市民 Hong Kong population aged 18 or above調查方法 Survey method 電話訪問 Telephone survey抽樣方法 Sampling method 從住宅電話簿中隨機抽出號碼，再用電腦配套另一部份．當成功接觸目標住戶後，再用出生日期抽取其中

一名被訪者接受訪問． Telephone numbers were selected randomly from telephone directories and additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.




民意研究計劃最新調查報告 LATEST POP REPORTS AVAILABLE

鳴謝 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

《市民對基本法認識調查報告》 Survey Report on People’s Knowledge of the Basic Law

英文版 English version: 每本 HK$60 per copy

香港民主民生協進會(贊助民協成員應否加入臨時立法會民意調查）

Hong Kong Assoication for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (for sponsoring the survey on whether ADPL

members should join the Provisional Legislature)

《民協成員應否加入臨時立法會民意調查報告》Survey Report on Whether ADPL Members Should

Join the Provisional Legislature

香港律師會(贊助市民對基本法認識的民意調查）

The Law Society of Hong Kong (for sponsoring the survey on people’s

knowledge of the Basic Law)中文版 Chinese version: 每本 HK$50 per copy

《民意快訊》編輯委員會 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OF POP EXPRESS 主編 Chief Editor : 鍾庭耀 Chung Ting-yiu Robert副編 Editors : 陳夢施 Chan Mung-sze Natalie，楊針岩 Yeung Chin-arm Patrick電話 Telephone : 2859 2988, 2859 2989傳真 Fax : 2517 6951地址 Address : 香港薄扶林道, 香港大學黃子明樓 8 樓, 社會科學研究中心

Social Sciences Research Centre, 8/F, Wong Chue Meng Building, The

36 3-12

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十一月號

University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong.

36 3-12

December 1996 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE



編者的話From the Editor

還有二百多天，香港便正式成為中國的特別行政區。在今期《民意快訊》報導的各項調查之中，不難發現市民開始以樂觀態度面對主權回歸。董建華當選特區行政長官後得到七十分的支持度；三分二市民對平穩過渡表示信心；接近四成市民估計香港明年的發展會更好；連頗具爭議性的臨立會也漸被市民接受…。這些數據，相信都為不少期待回歸的人士打下強心針。

對回歸持保留態度的人士可能認為這些數字不能反映香港人的憂慮，他們可能會著意港人對中國政府的低信任度（二成半），或董建華的得分不及陳方安生，或十大籌委的平均分低於合格分數，甚至質疑數字是否反映市民的理性選擇…。

對筆者而言，這些是非褒眨都毫不重要。筆者重視的，只是調查方法的科學性、數據的真確性、代表性、和分析的全面性。沒有單一的民意調查能夠全面分析各項事物，亦沒有單一的研究能夠提供終極的答案。數據的演譯有賴研究者的功力。數字的運用，全靠從政者的價值取向。

特首推選前後，坊間出現了大量意見調查。正面的發展，是不同的學術機構經已掌握了民意調查的技術而開始向傳媒市場投產，一如筆者兩年前在《香港另類年報》中預測，學術機構將漸次成為香港民意調查機制的骨幹，為該等調查的質素提供起碼的保證。負面的發展，是大量不合乎規格的意見調查在九五年下旬開始萌芽，九六年中大量湧現，特首推選前後更成行成市，而一般傳媒或統計學者都沒有對該等不科學的調查進行批判，使該等噱頭式的調查結果能夠被反覆引用，魚目混珠，大有集非成是的趨勢。這點是所有社會科學研究者共同的憂慮。希望該等現象能盡快變成過去，否則便有損民意調查的公信力，不利日後發展。

　鍾庭耀 Chung Ting-yiu Robert

In less than 200 days, Hong Kong will become a Special Administrative Region under China. According to surveys reported in this POP Express, people have become more optimistic about the transition. Tung Chee-hwa has gained a record popularity of 70.1 marks upon his selection to become the Chief Executive, 66% of the respondents in our recent poll demonstrated confidence in a smooth transition, 37% in our year-end poll believed that Hong Kong will become better in 1997, even the problematic Provisional Legislative Council appears to be gaining public acceptance... All these findings are, no doubt, a boost to those who waited heartily for the return of Hong Kong to the motherland.

Those with reservations about the change of sovereignty might pick on polls which demonstrated people’s lack of faith in the Chinese government (at 25%), Anson Chan’s higher popularity than Tung Chee-hwa, and perhaps the below-passing popularity ratings of the Top Ten HKSAR Preparatory Committee members.

To us, these are all pseudo-questions. As social scientists, we are only concerned with the validity of the research design, the accuracy and representativeness of the research data, and the comprehensiveness of the interpretations. No single piece of research can answer all questions. It would be up to policy-makers to put research data to their proper use.

The crave for data before and after the selection of the Chief Executive has stimulated the appearance of many opinion surveys. On the professional level, a number of academic institutions have become key producers of opinion data, as predicted by the editor two years ago in The Other Hong Kong Report 1994. Such organisations will, in the long run, become core units of opinion research in Hong Kong, setting their own standards. On the non-professional level, many sub-standard surveys have also appeared and escaped the criticism of media scholars and statisticians. These so-called surveys made their first appearance in the latter

4-1 37


half of 1995, and flourished in 1996. The selection of the Chief Executive was a catalyst for their further growth. This is a most worrying phenomenon for all serious researchers, and the sooner they go away, the better.

4-1 37

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十二月號

一九九六年回顧調查1996 Year-end Survey

每年年尾，本研究小組都會進行一次全年總結的調查，以瞭解市民對過去一年的整體滿意程度及對未來一年的展望。今年的調查發現，市民於九六年基本上生活快樂（佔六成九被訪者，不快樂的只有一成一）及滿意九六年的發展（佔五成四被訪者，不滿意的有二成三）。九七年對香港是重要的一年，港人對未來一年的看法又如何？就香港整體發展而言，調查結果顯示，有三成七的被訪者認為香港在九七年的發展會比今年好，差不多的有二成一，認為會較今年差的有二成二，另有二成一不肯定。個人發展方面，三成半的被訪者認為九七年的發展會比今年的好，差不多的有三成一，一

At the end of every year since 1992, the POP team conducts a year-end review survey to find out people’s overall satisfaction with the year past as well as their expectations for the coming year. Our survey this year found that the general public was basically happy (69%) and satisfied (54%) with Hong Kong’s development in 1996. Expectation for 1997 also seems optimistic, as 37% thought that Hong Kong would be better in 1997 than in 1996, and 35% believed that they would personally be better off, greatly out-numbering those with negative views.

調查日期 Date of survey: 22-23/12/92 28/12/93 21-28/12/94 28-29/12/95 9/12/96

樣本數目 Sample size: 606 600 529 509 563

回應率 Response rate: 65.9% 48.0% 53.0% 50.3% 50.3%

整體黎講,你滿唔滿意香港係九X年既發展？On the whole, are you satisfied with Hong Kong’s development in 199X?百分率百分率百分率百分率百分率非常滿意Very satisfied 4.6 ) - 1.3 ) 1.1 ) 3.2 )

(一般) 滿意(Just) satisfied 44.2 ) 48.8 - 51.8 ) 53.1 29.3 ) 30.4 50.6 ) 53.8

中立Neutral 19.8 - 14.4 18.0 17.8

(一般) 不滿(Just) dissatisfied 24.3 ) - 24.5 ) 40.5 ) 21.2 )

非常不滿 Very dissatisfied 2.5 ) 26.8 - 3.6 ) 28.1 8.8 ) 49.3 2.0 ) 23.2

不肯定 Not sure 4.6 - 4.4 2.2 5.2

回顧１９９X年，你生活得快樂嗎？ Were you happy in 199X?

非常快樂Very happy 5.3 ) - 7.0 ) 4.6 ) 6.8 )

(一般)快樂(Just) happy 55.8 ) 61.1 - 58.8 ) 65.8 51.1 ) 55.7 61.9 ) 68.7

冇乜點 Nothing special 24.3 - 19.4 26.1 18.8

(一般)不快樂(Just) unhappy 12.0 ) - 12.3 ) 15.8 ) 9.2 )

非常不快樂Very unhappy 2.1 ) 14.1 - 1.5 ) 13.8 1.3 ) 17.1 1.9 ) 11.1

唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 0.5 - 1.0 1.2 1.4

你估計香港係明年既發展會比今年較好定係較差？Do you think Hong Kong will become better or worse next year?

較好 Better - - 30.4 19.8 37.1

差不多 Same - - 22.6 20.0 20.8

較差 Worse - - 33.4 51.7 21.6

不肯定 Not sure - - 13.6 8.6 20.6

你估你係明年既個人發展會比今年好些定差些呢？ Do you think your personal development will become better or worse next year?

好些 Better - 46.9 40.5 30.4 35.4

38 4-2

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十二月號差不多 Same - 19.0 29.3 32.0 30.7

差些 Worse - 20.8 13.7 24.2 14.1

唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say - 13.3 16.6 13.4 19.8

38 4-2


成四認為會比今年差，沒有意見的佔二成。此結果反映市民普遍對香港及個人在未來一年的發展持樂觀態度，此樂觀情緒在兩年前下降後已開始回升。比較個人與香港整體發展，認為香港來年會有較好發展的比率則較認為個人會有更好發展的略多。

對比往年總結的相同問題，九六年是比較令人滿意的一年，尤其與九五年相比，市民似乎已回復樂觀的情緒。九五年有四成九人不滿意香港的整體發展，只有

Compared with results from past years, our latest result clearly shows that people’s optimism has returned, from a fall registered two years ago. At the end of 1995, 49% were not happy with the Hong Kong’s development in that year, as against 30% satisfied. Similar trends could be observed from other opinion questions. In 1996, 69% indicated they had a happy life during the year,

你覺得香港政府係明年最需要處理乜野問題？What do you think is the most important problem the government should tackle next year? 九二年百分率九三年百分率九四年百分率九五年百分率九六年百分率房屋 Housing - - 11.8 ) 7.3 ) 21.0 )

福利Welfare - - 9.6 ) 5.4 ) 6.9 )

治安 Law and order - - 6.1 ) 1.2 ) 6.2 )

教育 Education - - 1.6 ) 0.4 ) 2.0 )

貪污 Corruption - - 0.7 ) 0.2 ) 1.3 )

醫療／衛生Medical/Health - - 0.7 ) 0.2 ) 0.7 )

社區設施 Community facilities - - 0.9 ) 0.8 ) 0.7 )

交通 Traffic - - 6.3 ) 2.4 ) 0.6 )

環境 Environment - - 1.2 ) 38.9 - ) 17.9 - ) 39.4

經濟 Economics related - - 12.8 ) 50.8 ) 19.3 )

通漲 Inflation - - 3.3 ) 16.1 1.5 ) 52.3 1.4 ) 20.7

政制 Constitutional development - - 24.0 4.6 12.3

其他 Others - - 6.5 16.7 7.3

唔知／難講 Don't know/Hard to say - - 14.4 8.5 20.1

你最想香港變成點樣既社會呢？ What kind of society would you most like Hong Kong to become?

繁榮既社會A prosperous society - 33.6 36.5 38.8 40.4

公平既社會A fair society - 21.0 22.1 19.2 23.7

自由既社會A free society - 23.7 24.4 20.4 21.3

福利社會 A welfare society - 11.2 4.7 9.1 6.0

乾淨既社會A clean society - 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.2

唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say - 8.7 10.9 11.1 7.4

新年就快到啦,請問你對明年有乜願望呢？ Do you have any new year wish?

個人 --- 健康、心境Health 6.9 ) - 9.1 ) 10.0 ) 11.4 )

個人 --- 事業、學業 Career, studies 3.1 ) - 9.9 ) 13.6 ) 7.7 )

個人 --- 財富Wealth 3.0 ) - 6.0 ) 6.1 ) 5.2 )

個人 --- 家庭 Family related 2.0 ) - 3.9 ) 4.9 ) 4.1 )

個人 --- 愛情、婚姻 Love, marriage - - 0.2 ) 0.8 ) 0.5 )

個人 --- 朋友 Friendship - - 0.2 ) 0.2 ) 0.2 )

個人 --- 其他 Other personal items 1.5 ) 16.5 - 1.8 ) 31.1 1.7 ) 37.3 1.7 ) 30.8

社會 --- 政治 Political items 30.4 ) - 13.1 ) 4.5 ) 14.1 )

社會 --- 經濟 Economic items 12.5 ) - 10.9 ) 22.3 ) 13.7 )

社會 --- 民生 People’s livelihood 11.4 ) - 7.4 ) 8.0 ) 10.4 )

社會 --- 其他 Other community items 3.7 ) 58.0 - 7.1 ) 38.5 8.4 ) 43.2 6.1 ) 44.3

國家民族 National items 0.2 - 1.8 - 0.5

4-3 39


世界（和平、友愛）World peace 10.1 - 12.8 9.3 7.0

其他 Others 0.3 - 0.8 2.7 1.1

沒有願望 No special wish 15.0 - 15.2 7.7 16.4

4-3 39

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十二月號三成被訪者滿意。從其他問題的比較亦能得到同樣的結論。在生活方面，覺得過去一年生活得快樂的比例，除了九三年沒有數據，只有九五年下跌，今年則有六成九的被訪者認為生活得快樂。市民對香港發展的估計，今年是過去三年來最樂觀的，首次較多被訪者認為來年香港發展比是年佳。對個人在未來一年發展的估計，被訪市民則普遍比較有信心，過去四年認為個人明年會有較好發展的比例都多於認為較差的。

再看市民認為政府在九七年最需要處理的問題。大體而言，民生問題是最多被訪者認為要首先處理的，佔三成九。民生以外，是整體經濟問題，佔二成一被訪者。最後是政制，有一成二被訪者認為是港府在九七年最需要處理的問題。就個別項目來說，房屋及經濟兩項是最多被訪者認為港府要在九七年處理的問題，分別佔二成一及一成九。至於整體社會發展的方向，被訪者最希望香港變成一個繁榮的社會（四成），其次是公平的社會（二成四）和自由的社會（二成一）。

與過去三年比較，今年市民對政府的訴求和九四年相同，都是民生問題佔先，經濟次之；但九五年卻有五成二的被訪者認為政府需要在九六年先處理經濟問題。社會發展方面則明顯地看出市民對繁榮社會的訴求有增加的趨勢，由九三年的三成四升至九六年的四成。

最後，調查亦問及被訪者對九七年的願望。結果顯示，為社會許願的被訪者較為個人許願者多，四成四被訪者的願望是關乎社會，包括政治（一成四）、經濟（一成四）、民生（一成）和其他關於社會的願望（六個百分點）。個人方面的願望則有一成一希望健康、事業佔八個百分點、財富佔五個百分點等。市民對未來一年的願望在過去幾年都是關乎社會的比對個人願望為多，顯示大部份市民都是關心社會的。

whereas on their expectations of Hong Kong’s future development, people in 1996 gave the most positive prediction since 1994. In fact, this is the first time that more people believed Hong Kong would become better than worse. On the whole, people are consistently more optimistic about their personal development than that of the society in the past few years.

For the year 1997, improving people’s livelihood was cited as the most pressing problem for the Hong Kong government (39%), followed by economic (21%) and then political problems (12%). This appears to be a reversion to the 1994 situation, after economic development topped the list in 1995. In terms of individual issues, housing (21%) and economic development (19%) were the two most often cited problems. As for the direction of Hong Kong’s development, 40% wished for a prosperous society, 24% wished for a fair society, and 21% a free society. The number wishing for a prosperous society has been on the rise since 1993.

When asked for new year wishes, 44% gave their wish for an improvement in different areas, which included politics(14%), economics (14%), livelihood (10%) and other social issues (6%), while 31% wished it for their own development. This shows that many people cared for the development of Hong Kong on top of their own well-being.

特區行政長官民意調查系列Series of Surveys on the Chief Executive of HKSAR

1. 行政長官人選評分 Candidate Ratings

認知程度 Recognition rate

認知率 Recognition rate (%)

人選 Candidates\調查日期Date of survey 18-19/11 25-26/11 2/12 9/12

董建華 Tung Chee-hwa 90.6 88.1 87.4 80.6

40 4-4

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十二月號楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 90.6 89.0 86.4 79.8

吳光正 Peter Woo 85.7 82.3 83.7 75.7

40 4-4


適合程度 Suitability rating

問題： 0 分代表絕對不適合出任行政長官, 100分代表絕對適合, 50分代表一半半你會俾幾多分XXX 呢?Question: 0 means absolutely unsuitable for the post of Chief Executive, 100 means absolutely suitable, 50 represents half-half. How would you rate XXX?

人選所獲平均分數 Average mark of the candidates 調查日期 Date of survey 18-19/11 25-26/11 2/12 9/12

人選 Candidate

分數Mark


分數Mark


分數Mark


分數Mark


董建華 Tung Chee-hwa 67.3 481 69.4 720 67.1 494 65.0 454

楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 66.0 481 68.5 727 63.7 488 62.7 449

吳光正 Peter Woo 49.3 455 50.6 672 50.6 473 49.0 426

2. 對行政長官人選的抗拒及接受程度 Whether respondents mind certain candidates becoming the Chief Executive

問題：你會唔會介意XXX 出任行政長官？Question: Would you mind XXX taking up the post of the Chief Executive?

不介意的比率 Percentage expressing “do not mind” 人選 Candidate \調查日期Date of survey 18-19/11 25-26/11

楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 87.7 89.0

董建華 Tung Chee-hwa 87.1 87.9

吳光正 Peter Woo 52.9 52.0

問題：如果最後推選委員會選出XXX 出任行政長官，你可唔可以接受到？Question: Would you accept XXX as the Chief Executive if the Selection Committee eventually selected him?接受的比率 Acceptance Percentage 人選 Candidate \調查日期Date of survey 25-26/11 9/12

董建華 Tung Chee-hwa 89.7 87.1

楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 88.4 82.9

吳光正 Peter Woo 48.6 47.6

3. 選那一位？ Choose which candidate?

問題：如果聽日俾你投票選舉行政長官，而參選者包括 XXX，XXX，．．．，你會選邊個？Question: If you are given the chance to elect the Chief Executive tomorrow, and candidates include XXX, XXX, ..... ,　　 which candidate would you choose to take up the post?

人選＼調查日期Candidate＼Date of survey

18-19/11 25-26/11 2/12 9/12頻數 Frequency 百分比 %

董建華 Tung Chee-hwa 40.1 42.3 46.7 243 43.4

楊鐵樑 Yang Ti-liang 40.7 36.8 28.8 156 27.9

吳光正 Peter Woo 4.0 3.4 5.2 29 5.1

註：欲了解本研究組於十一月十八日之前的調查數據請參閱第一至第三期《民意快訊》Note: Results prior to 18 November 1996 has been reported in POP Express No.1 to No.3.

4-5 41

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十二月號首屆特區行政長官當選後即晚民意調查

Instant Poll on the Selection of the First Chief Executive of HKSAR

本研究小組於推選行政長官即晚進行的民意調查發現，在市民對董建華的最新評分方面，明顯因為其當選特首而有所提升，董建華獲最新評分為七十點一分，是歷次評分中最高分的一次，顯示市民基本上接受董的勝出，及對他近期表現滿意。

在要求被訪者評價董建華當選行政長官會否影響他們對香港前途及平穩過渡的信心時，其中大部份被訪者（七至八成）均表示沒有影響，有九個百分比及一成二分別表示會增加其對平穩過渡及香港前途的信心，四至五個百分比表示會減少信心，顯示市民對董建華的未來表現普遍存觀望態度。

至於對整個推選過程的評價，三成九被訪者表示對整個推選特區行政長官的過程滿意，三成一表示不滿，一成半則表示一半半，其餘一成半則沒有肯定答案。換言之，對整個推選過程的滿意及不滿的比率頗為接近，但滿意程度則較高。

On the day when the SAR Chief Executive designate was selected, the POP team conducted an instant opinion survey in the evening to test people’s reception of the selection. Tung Chee-hwa’s success has apparently pushed his popularity rating to a record high of 70.1 marks. This reflects the public’s general acceptance of the result, as well as approval of Tung’s recent performance.

However, when respondents were asked whether Tung’s appointment as the Chief Executive would affect their confidence in the smooth transition and the future of Hong Kong, the majority denied any effect. This shows that most people were adopting a “wait-and-see” attitude towards Tung’s future performance.

As on the overall selection process, 39% of the respondents said they were satisfied, 31% said no, 15% indicated half-half, and 15% had no definite answer. In other words, opinion was fairly divided, with slightly more respondents being satisfied.

調查日期 Date of survey: 11/12/96 樣本數目 Sample size: 1301 回應率 Response rate: 65.3%

1. 市民對特首董建華支持度評分(100分滿分)：70.1分 Support rating for Tung Chee-hwa as SARCE (Full mark 100) ：70.1 marks [ 評分人數 No. of valid raters: 1068 ]

2. 董建華當選行政長官有無改變你對香港前途既信心？ Has Tung’s winning affected your confidence in the future of Hong Kong?頻數 Frequency 百分率　 % 信心增加 Confidence increased 159 12.2 信心減少 Confidence decreased 50 3.8 無影響 No effect 949 72.9 唔知／難講 Don't know/Hard to say 143 11.0 合計　Total　　　　　　 1301 100.0 3. 董建華當選行政長官有無影響你對平穩過渡既信心？ Has Tung’s winning affected your confidence in the smooth transition of Hong Kong?頻數 Frequency 百分率　% 信心增加 Confidence increased 118 9.1 信心減少 Confidence decreased 59 4.5 無影響 No effect 1046 80.4 唔知／難講 Don't know/Hard to say 77 5.9 合計 Total　 1301 100.0 4. 你對整個推選特區行政長官既過程滿唔滿意？ Are you satisfied with the selection process of the first SARCE?頻數 Frequency 百分率　% 非常滿意 Very satisfied 65 5.0) 幾滿意 Quite satisfied 444 34.4) 39.4 一半半 Half-half 190 14.7 幾唔滿意 Quite dissatisfied 268 20.8) 非常唔滿意 Very dissatisfied 134 10.4) 31.2 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 189 14.7 合計　Total　 1290 100.0

42 4-6


特首適宜繼續爭取民意*Keep Up the Rally for Public Support*

隨著董建華在推選委員會中以八成得票率高票當選特首，推選委員會實際上已完成了香港過渡安排最重要的任務。推委意向與近期民意調查結果不謀而合，那怕是巧合，還是吻合，此刻都不太重要。當然，部份推委成員公開舉辦收集民意活動，包括模擬投票、問卷調查等，確實把民意訴求有限度地引入推選過程內，這是可喜的現象，但大部份推委對怎樣看待民意數據始終仍是守口如瓶。

董在推委會中獲得的八成得票率，與本研究小組進行的民意調查中其獲得的四成支持率相比，差距甚遠。不過，根據選前兩天進行的民意調查顯示，一般市民早已預計這個差距。雖然只有接近四成半市民支持董出任特首，但超過八成被訪者卻能預計董的勝出。經深入分析，發現只有略多於四成被訪者相信自己支持的候選人會勝出。從正面角度看，顯示過半市民所給的答案並沒有受推委傾向影響。但從負面角度看，則推委明顯不能代表全體市民的心聲。故縱使董先生已贏得特首，其民意基礎仍屬薄弱，適宜在短期內努力爭取民心。

因此，董先生適宜繼續他的（假想）競選工程，走訪群眾，探問街坊，組織諮詢大會，與市民直接對話。遇上重大社會問題時，應邀請群眾參與討論，聽取市民意見，切勿閉門造車。

其次，董先生亦應深入了解市民的憂慮。市民的六四情意結、對親中人士的不信任，其實都有其歷史原因及社會現實。作為特區之首，總不能視而不見。相反，董先生適宜與各方人士多作溝通，以港人利益為本位，盡量化解不同界別及持不同政見人士之間的矛盾。對於中央意願與特區民情的差距，董先生適宜多作研究，以務實和包容的態度化解困憂。

民生問題是市民極其關注的事項。董建華出身商界，對民間疾苦所知有限，適宜多落區考察，與基層團體會面，集思廣益，不要因為經濟主導而忽略民間訴求。在公務員信心方面，特區班子、行政會議籌組等工作，相信董建華心裡有數，但董先生仍應爭取時間先作諮詢後始作決定。

殖民地後期的香港，社會基本上容許不同的反對聲音，這是一種進步，是任何社會邁向開放的必然階段。香港如是，未來中國社會如是。特區首長一定要珍惜在法治下的開放精神，容許及鼓勵不同意見，否則便有違一國兩制的精神。

鍾庭耀*此乃刊於星島日報(九六年十二月十二日)原文撮要。文中提及的各項調查結果，已於較早前各向界公佈，讀者如欲索取

有關報告，可致電本中心查詢。With Tung Chee-hwa’s major victory in the run for

the Chief Executive, the Selection Committee has basically completed its most important mission for the transition of Hong Kong. It is perhaps no longer important to ask why there was a discrepancy between Tung’s voteshare in the Selection Committee and his public support. Selection Committee members have remained tight-lipped on the issue.

According to surveys conducted by the POP Team, such a discrepancy has in fact been expected by the public, only 40% believed that their favourite candidate could win. Hence, in terms of public recognition, Tung is still on shallow water, and should better keep up his rally for public support, like attending public forums, paying home visits, and having direct dialogues with the people.

Mr. Tung should also pay special attention to people’s anxiety. The June 4th Complex and people’s distrust in pro-Chinese elements all have their historical background and are part of the social reality. Mr Tung should take time to study them, and resolve them with an open and pragmatic attitude.

Livelihood issues are, of course, people’s major concern. Coming from a business family, Mr Tung might need time to grasp the crux of the matter. More consultation with the grassroots is advisable. As for the civil service and major appointments under his SAR government, Mr Tung probably needs more time to streamline his own ideas.

In the final episode of Hong Kong’s colonial history, society has become quite tolerant of different ideas. The Chief Executive must cherish this open spirit, and truly respect the rule of law, in order to honour the “one country two systems” formulation, and to bring Hong Kong and China to the forefront of civilized society.

Chung Ting-yiu Robert

*Abstract from a Chinese article in Sing Tao Daily published on 12 December 1996. All survey results mentioned have been released in our survey reports. Readers interested in getting them please contact us.

4-7 43


4-7 43

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十二月號有關臨時立法會民意調查結果

Results of Opinion Surveys on the Provisional Legislative Council

臨時立法會將會在本月二十二日選出，但過往各界對於其應否成立及應運作多久曾有過不少爭論。有鑑於此，本研究小組亦就上述兩個問題進行調查，以了解市民的看法。在是否贊成成立臨時立法會的問題上，本研究小組分別進行三次調查，結果發現贊成成立臨時立法會的被訪者隨時間遞增，在十月底十一月初，本研究小組在兩個九龍選區（九龍中及九龍西）進行的調查顯示，表示不贊成（包括不大贊成及非常不贊成）的被訪者有三成至三成二，表示贊成（包括非常贊成及幾贊成）的有二成四至二成六，不贊成比贊成者多；到十二月初的全港抽樣調查則發現，贊成者有三成七，不贊成者跌至二成半，換言之，到十二期間，贊成成立臨時立法會的比率已增至三成七，此可能反映一般市民已開始接受成立臨時立法會的既定事實。

有關臨時立法會運作時間方面，調查發現，認為臨時立法會運作期愈短愈好的被訪者有一成三，三成六則認為臨時立法會應最多運作一年，只有一成一的被訪者希望臨時立法會運作超過一年，至於其餘三成七則沒有肯定答案或因不贊成成立臨時立法會而不願作答。

The prospective establishment of the Provisional Legislative Council has caused much controversy. Three surveys conducted by the POP team on this topic have found that people’s receptiveness of the Provisional Legislative Council has increased with time. A survey conducted at the beginning of November found that about 30% of the voters in two constituencies in Kowloon objected to the concept, and about 25% agreed. However, in the December survey of the general public, the proportion of respondents who agreed rose to 37%, while those disagreed fell to 25%. This shows that the general public has gradually accepted the fact.

As on the duration of operation, 13% said the shorter the better, 36% hoped it could operate for less than a year, only 11% would like it to exist for more than a year, while 37% gave no definite answer.

　1. 請問你贊唔贊成成立臨時立法會呢？ Do you agree to the setting up of the Provisional Legislative Council?

　　調查日期 Date of survey 　 29/10-2/11 18-19/11 9/12　　樣本數目 Sample size　　　　　　　九龍西 KLW

509九龍中KLC

524 527 557

　　非常贊成 Strongly agree 8.1% 4.6% 7.5% 5.4%　　幾贊成 (Just) Agree 17.9% 19.5% 28.4% 31.7%　　中立／無所謂 Neutral 18.5% 20.2% 11.3% 12.2%　　唔係幾贊成 (Just) Disagree 14.9% 20.6% 21.1% 16.6%　　非常唔贊成 Strongly disagree 15.5% 11.1% 14.7% 8.3%　　唔知／難講 Don't know/Hard to say 25.1% 24.0% 17.1% 25.8%　　合計 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

　2. 你認為臨時立法會最多應該運作幾耐？ How long do you think the Provisional Legislative Council should operate?

調查日期 Date of survey: 9/12/96 樣本數目 Sample size : 563

頻數 Frequency 百分率 % 愈短愈好 The shorter, the better 74 13.3　　一至六個月 One to six months 76 13.6 ) 七至十二個月 Seven to twelve months 125 22.4 ) 36.0 十二個月以上 More than twelve months 63 11.3　　其他答案 Other answers 13 2.3　　不願作答/唔知/難講 Refused to answer/Don’t know/Hard to say 207 37.1

44 4-8

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十二月號　　合計 Total 556 100.0

44 4-8


市民對平穩過渡的信心Confidence in a Smooth Transition

在主權回歸前二百餘天（十二月十二日），本研究小組一如過往，在每倒數一百天之際，進行民意調查，以測試市民在不同時期對平穩過渡的信心。在回歸前二百餘天的調查發現，一般市民對過渡期頗有信心，其中有六成六被訪者表示有信心，表示信心一半半的有一成六，而表示沒有信心的則只有一成的被訪者。

綜合過去本研究小組進行的九次類似調查，回歸前二百天的信心指數可謂達至高峰，在回歸前一千日，表示有信心的被訪者只有三成半，回歸前六百日，亦只有四成四被訪者表示有信心，超過六成被訪者表示有信心的還屬首次。換句話說，愈接近主權回歸，市民對平穩過渡信心愈增。相反，表示沒有信心的比率則隨距離回歸日子愈少而逐漸下降，在倒數一千日時，有二成五表示對過渡期沒有信心，到回歸前六百天，表示沒有信心者為二成一，到最新調查（回歸前二百餘天）則發現，表示沒有信心的被訪者已跌至一成，相信是基於社會持續安定及沒有出現經濟不景有關。

Every 100 days before the transfer of sovereignty,

the POP team conducts a survey to measure people’s confidence in a smooth transition of Hong Kong. Our latest survey conducted slightly more than 200 days before the handover found that a record 66% of the respondents indicated confidence, as against 10% without confidence, and 16% half-half.

From all the nine surveys conducted since the countdown from 1000 days before the transition, confidence was generally on the rise. At the beginning of the series, only 35% of the respondents expressed confidence. Confidence grew to 44% on the 600th day, and then to the latest 66% registered shortly before the 200th day. In other words, the closer the handover, the more confident people became of a smooth transition for Hong Kong. This was probably the result of prolonged social stability and the absence of any sign of economic recession.

4-9 45

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十二月號市民在不同時期對平穩過渡的信心

Confidence in a Smooth Transition at Different Periods of TimeX days before handover回歸前Ｘ日 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200

Date of survey調查日期 5/10/94 9-12/1/95 18-19/4/95 27-28/6/95 6-7/11/95 15-16/2/96 8-9/5/96 28-29/8/96 11/12/96

Successful case成功樣本 1,716 554 640 990 550 560 538 515 1031

Response rate回應率 75.5% 63.5% 51.8% 57.8% 53.6% 65.3% 50.8% 52.7% 65.3%

Confident有信心 34.9% 45.2% 42.7% 41.1% 43.6% 44.4% 55.0% 58.4% 66.0%

Half - half一半半 25.0% 32.5% 24.3% 19.8% 25.3% 22.4% 19.9% 17.6% 16.3%

Not confident冇信心 24.7% 14.5% 22.8% 17.8% 21.3% 21.2% 15.3% 18.2% 10.2%

Don't know/Hard to say唔知/難講

15.4% 7.8% 10.2% 21.2% 9.9% 12.0% 9.7% 5.8% 7.6%

Total 合計 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

九六年十一月份社研定期調查之樣本數據Contact Information for POP Tracking Polls conducted in November 1996

第一次調查 First poll 第二次調查 Second poll日期 Date of survey 5-6/11/96 18-19/11/96

訪問對象 Target population 十八歲或以上之香港市民 Hong Kong population aged 18 or above調查方法 Survey method 電話訪問 Telephone survey抽樣方法 Sampling method 從住宅電話簿中隨機抽出號碼，再用電腦配套另一部份。當成功接觸目標住戶後，

再用出生日期抽取其中一名被訪者接受訪問。 Telephone numbers were selected randomly from telephone directories and additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.



抽樣誤差 Standard error 2.2 2.2


Date of Survey 調查日期 Support Rating 支持度 Monthly Average 按月平均分

十月份第一次調查 1st survey in October 2/10/96 56.4 57.7

十月份第二次調查 2nd survey in October 8/10/96 58.1 (October 十月)十月份第三次調查 3rd survey in October 23-24/10/96 58.5

46 4-10

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九六年十二月號十一月份第一次調查 1st survey in November 5-6/11/96 59.2 58.4

十一月份第二次調查 2nd survey in November 18-19/11/96 57.5 (November 十一月)

46 4-10


市民對中、英、港政府信任程度Trust in Chinese, British and Hong Kong Governments

調查日期 Date of survey: 8/10/96, 5-6/11/96問題: 整體黎講, 你信唔信任XX政府呢? Question: On the whole, do you trust the XX government?

中國Chinese

英國British

香港Hong Kong

Survey in October 十月份調查 23.0% 27.3% 60.4%

Survey in November 十一月份調查 24.5% 33.1% 67.3%


Date of surveyFirst stage (naming)

Result from the survey in November 1996 Accumulated results in this year(6 surveys)十一月第一階段訪問日期（提名）:

5-6/11/96 九六年十一月份調查結果累積今年(六次)調查結果

Second stage (rating)Support Standard

errorTotal

sampleNo. of raters

Recognition No. of time on the

list

Average support rating

Average rate of recongition

十一月第二階段訪問日期（評分）: 18-19/11/96

支持度標準誤差總人數評分人數認知度上榜次數平均支持度平均認知度

Tung Chee-hwa 董建華 61.4 0.9 531 411 77.4% 2 60.9 65.8%Rita Fan 范徐麗泰 52.3 1.2 531 342 64.4% 4 55.8 69.3%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 50.2 1.1 531 374 70.4% 6 54.3 75.6%Lee Ka-shing 李嘉誠 49.9 1.2 531 349 65.7% 6 55.8 70.6%Henry Fok 霍英東 48.4 1.3 531 329 62.0% 6 51.9 62.0%Jasper Tsang 曾鈺成 47.1 1.2 531 328 61.8% 6 51.7 62.7%Maria Tam 譚惠珠 47.1 1.2 531 359 67.6% 5 50.1 68.3%Peter Woo 吳光正 45.5 1.0 531 381 71.8% 1 45.5 71.8%Liza Wong 汪明荃 42.1 1.3 531 367 69.1% 3 44.3 73.1%Li Fook-sean 李福善 37.7 1.1 531 356 67.0% 1 37.7 67.0%Top 5 average 首五名平均分 52.5 68.0%Top 10 average 首十名平均分 48.2 67.7%

最新一輪的十大籌委評分顯示，候任特區行政長官董建華雖然只在最近兩次上榜，但卻以六十一分遙遙領先其他籌委，排榜首位置。排名第二位的范徐麗泰及第三位李鵬飛均只得略高於五十分的合格分數，至於其餘七位甚為市民所熟悉的籌委成員，皆取得不合格的分數，顯示市民對籌委成員普遍沒有好感。

The latest ratings of the Top Ten Preparatory Committee (PC) members have revealed that even though the First Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa only made the list in the last two surveys, he topped the list with a high score of 61 marks, with Rita Fan and Allen Lee trailing

4-11 47


behind at a distance. All other PC members received less than 50 marks, which reflected that the public generally had unfavourable impressions about PC members.

4-11 47


Date of surveyFirst stage (naming)第一階段訪問日期(提名):

18-19/11/96

Result from the survey in December 1996

九六年十二月份調查結果Accumulated results in the past 12

months (3 surveys) 累積過去十二個月(三次)調查結果

Second stage (rating)第二階段訪問日期(評分):3-4/12/96

Support

支持度Standard


sample總人數No. of raters

評分人數

Recognition



Average rate of

recognition 平均認知度Anson Chan 陳方安生 72.7 0.7 555 463 83.4% 3 70.3 84.1%Tung Chee-hwa

董建華 65.3 0.9 555 407 73.3% 1 65.3 73.3%

Yang Ti-liang 楊鐵樑 64.8 0.8 555 439 79.1% 1 64.8 79.1%Emily Lau 劉慧卿 63.8 1.0 555 417 75.1% 3 65.4 75.8%Christine Loh 陸恭蕙 62.7 0.9 555 406 73.2% 3 62.8 74.6%Lau Chin-shek 劉千石 62.5 0.9 555 432 77.8% 3 61.9 76.9%Martin Lee 李柱銘 61.8 1.0 555 445 80.2% 3 61.4 81.3%Lee Cheuk-yan 李卓人 61.1 1.0 555 399 71.9% 3 61.3 72.6%Szeto Wah 司徒華 57.0 1.1 555 444 80.0% 3 59.2 81.5%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 55.9 0.9 555 409 73.7% 3 55.0 75.7%

Top 5 average 首五名平均分 65.8 76.8%

Top 10 average 首十名平均分 62.7 76.8%

民意研究計劃最新調查報告 LATEST POP REPORTS AVAILABLE


《市民對行政長官候選人意見調查系列綜合報告》電視廣播有限公司　Television Broadcasts Ltd.Combined Report on a Series of Opinion Surveys on

HKSAR Chief Executive Candidates (贊助市民對平穩過渡信心調查系列及特區行政長官當選後即晚民意調查)

(for sponsoring opinion surveys on the confidence in中文版 Chinese version: a smooth transition of Hong Kong and the instant poll

每本 $100 per copy on the Selection of the first Chief Executive of HKSAR)

《民意快訊》編輯委員會 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OF POP EXPRESS 主編 Chief Editor : 鍾庭耀 Chung Ting-yiu Robert副編 Editors : 陳夢施 Chan Mung-sze Natalie，楊針岩 Yeung Chin-arm Patrick電話 Telephone : 2859 2988, 2859 2989傳真 Fax : 2517 6951地址 Address : 香港薄扶林道, 香港大學黃子明樓 8 樓, 社會科學研究中心


January 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE



港人對鄧小平的看法People’s Feeling about Deng Xiaoping

調查日期Date of survey:16-17/12/1996 樣本數目 Sample size:584 回應率 Response rate:46.2%

¦ pª G¾ H¤ p¥ ¤ £© ³ u¥ @¡ A§ A» {¬ °· |¹ ï » ä/¤ ¤° ê¬ Jµ o® i¦ n³ B¦ h© wÃ a³ B¦ h¡ HIf Deng Xiaoping dies, do you think it would be good or bad to the development of Hong Kong/China?

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0

¦ n³ B¦ h ¤ @¥ b¥ b Ã a³ B¦ h øª ¾/Ã øÁ ¿

» äHong Kong ¤ ¤° êChina

Good Neither Bad Don't know/Hard to say

14.1%

26.1%

36.0%

24.2% 25.5% 25.9% 24.5% 23.8%

自九五年二月起，本研究小組開始就有關香港市民對中國領導人鄧小平的看法進行民意調查，以測試市民對鄧的評價及其一旦逝世後的影響。在本研究小組九六年十二月十六至十七日的最新調查顯示，在被問及若鄧不幸逝世，會對香港及中國的影響好處多抑或壞處多時，有二成六被訪者（總樣本為 584個）認為鄧逝世對香港發展壞處多，三成六表示一半半，一成四則認為好處多。至於對中國的影響，則認為好處多及壞處多的各佔二成六，認為一半半的有二成四。換句話說，在港人心目中，鄧小平在對香港的發展而言，有較良性的影響，這可能與鄧過往提出的「一國兩制」原則有關，故較多市民認為鄧逝世對本港而言是壞處多於好處。至於對中國影響方面，港人則認為會好壞參半。

(下接第三頁)

Since February 1995, our POP team has been conducting surveys to test people’s feeling about Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. Our most recent survey completed on 17 December 1996 found that 26% of the respondents considered Deng’s death a bad thing to the development of Hong Kong, 14% considered it a good thing, while 36% said neither. In respect to China’s development, 26% each way considered Deng’s death a good or bad thing, while 24% said neither. In other words, Hong Kong people tended to consider Deng’s contribution to the development of Hong Kong a positive one, probably because of his formulation of the “one country, two systems” formula.

(Continued on p.3)

5-1 49

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年一月號編者的話

From the Editor

踏進九七，香港已成為當代世界的焦點，由國內製作的大型紀錄片《鄧小平》，在全國及香港公映，相信是要為一國兩制的構思及鄧小平的功績進行歷史定位。

與此同時，香港立法局對前人民入境事務處處長梁銘彥辭職事件進行聆訊，為行政立法之間的關係揭開新的一頁。雖則是本地內部事情，但對公務員過渡及未來特區運作都起著重要作用。

本中心的民意研究小組自九五年二月起，便不斷測試市民對鄧小平及其他領導人的評價。踏入九七，我們決定把這些研究數據逐步公佈，為關注民族前途的學者朋友提供參考資料。

至於梁銘彥事件，鑑於聆訊仍在進行中，民意對各方面的評價可能隨時逆轉，使用該等數據的讀者適宜審慎為之。

鍾庭耀

The year of 1997 would certainly be The Year of Hong Kong. Already, China’s large-scale production Deng Xiaoping: The Great Documentary has been screened in Hong Kong, and across the whole nation. Deng’s contribution was officially confirmed.

Back in Hong Kong, the Legco hearing on the controversial resignation of Laurence Leung from the Directorship of Immigration is still going on, the relationship between the legislature and the executive arm of the government is being brought into question.

Perhaps we should also hear what people have to say.

In this issue, we released, for the first time, results from our China research series which tested people’s feeling about Deng Xiaoping since 1995, as well as people’s reaction towards the Laurence Leung hearings. Needless to say, opinion changes, and readers should take extra care to use timely opinion data.


五大中國領導人評分Ratings of the Top Five Chinese Leaders

調查日期:第一階段;第二階段 Date of survey:1st stage; 2nd stage評分調查樣本數目 Sample size in rating sample

鄧小平Deng

Xiaoping

錢其琛Qian

Qichen

江澤民Jiang

Zemin

魯平Lu

Ping

周南ZhouNan

趙紫陽Zhao

Ziyang

李鵬Li

Peng16-17/12/96;7-8/1/97 支持度 Support 60.0 58.4 54.0 51.2 - - 41.4

樣本數目 Sample size: 599 認知度 Recognition 74.0% 74.3% 78.8% 77.8% - - 78.0%23-24/10/96;5-6/11/96 支持度 Support 57.6 57.6 54.2 51.8 - - 41.9



樣本數目 Sample size: 530 認知度 Recognition 70.8% 64.9% 71.5% 74.5% - - 74.9%29-30/4/96;5-6/5/96 支持度 Support 53.5 - 51.7 45.8 44.6 - 38.3

樣本數目 Sample size: 579 認知度 Recognition 67.0% - 67.7% 72.5% 65.8% - 71.8%26-29/2/96;13-15/3/96 支持度 Support 57.4 58.6 52.9 51.4 - - 43.5

樣本數目 Sample size: 613 認知度 Recognition 63.6% 64.4% 72.9% 70.8% - - 74.6%28/12/95;4-5/1/96 支持度 Support 54.4 - 50.6 48.5 - - 39.0

樣本數目 Sample size: 543 認知度 Recognition 73.1% - 75.7% 76.1% - - 74.6%24-25/10/95;6-7/11/95 支持度 Support 54.4 - 48.0 44.9 42.6 - 39.3

樣本數目 Sample size: 550 認知度 Recognition 69.1% - 70.5% 67.1% 63.5% - 71.1%25/8/95;30/9-2/10/95 支持度 Support 56.0 - 50.6 48.5 - 60.2 40.9

樣本數目 Sample size: 516 認知度 Recognition 80.8% - 71.5% 75.6% - 70.0% 81.8%27-28/6/95;14-17/7/95 支持度 Support 55.2 - 52.7 48.8 46.2 - 39.8

50 5-2

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年一月號樣本數目 Sample size: 559 認知度 Recognition 79.4% - 73.2% 76.4% 69.1% - 81.8%

50 5-2


九五年上半年總結Average for first half

of 1995

九五年下半年總結Average for second

half of 1995

九六年上半年總結Average for first half

of 1996

九六年下半年總結Average for second half

of 1996

如果鄧小平不幸逝世，你認為會對香港既發展好處多定壞處多？ If Deng Xiaoping dies, do you think it would be good or bad to the development of Hong Kong?

好處多Good 21.7% 19.8% 16.1% 15.2%

一半半Neither 27.7% 26.4% 27.3% 31.0%

壞處多Bad 25.8% 27.8% 28.5% 26.6%

唔知/難講Don’t know/Hard to say 24.8% 26.0% 28.1% 27.2%

如果鄧小平不幸逝世，你認為會對中國既發展好處多定壞處多？ If Deng Xiaoping dies, do you think it would be good or bad to the development of China?

好處多Good 32.0% 29.8% 24.1% 27.2%

一半半Neither 20.2% 20.2% 20.6% 21.9%

壞處多Bad 23.3% 26.8% 26.9% 26.3%


你擔唔擔心佢死會令中國出現動亂？ Are you worried that there would be turmoil in China after Deng’s death?

擔心Worried 34.4% 37.3% 34.7% 31.5%

唔擔心Not worried 56.9% 54.6% 57.0% 60.6%


你認為鄧小平對中國既發展功多定過多？ Would you say Deng Xiaoping has accrued more merit or demerits in the development of China?

功(績)多More merit 58.2% 59.4% 56.1% 56.8%

一半半Half-half 18.9% 21.9% 23.3% 23.0%

過(錯)多More demerits 7.0% 6.1% 6.4% 5.4%


(上接第一頁)

調查的另外一條問題要求被訪者評論鄧對中國發展的功過。在十二月的調查顯示，六成一被訪者認為鄧對中國發展功多於過，認為功過一半半的亦有二成一，認為過多於功的則只有五個百分比，其餘被訪者則沒有肯定答案。整體而言，一般被訪者均認同鄧對中國發展的貢獻。

至於鄧一旦逝世，會否令中國出現動亂？在同一次調查發現，五成九被訪者表示對此不擔心，表示擔心的有三成三，沒有肯定答案的有八個百分比。普遍來說，本港市民並未憂慮鄧死後會為中國帶來動亂。

(Continued from p.1)

Another question in the survey asked respondents to evaluate Deng’s contribution to the development of China. Result shows that 61% found more merit than faults in Deng, while 21% said half-half. It seems that respondents have generally rated him favourably.

“Are you worried there would be turmoil in China after Deng’s death?” was another question surveyed. A total of 59% of the respondents were not worried; however, 33% indicated anxiety.

5-3 51


有關香港特別行政區臨時立法會之民意調查Opinion Survey on the HKSAR Provisional Legislative Council


你接唔接受臨時立法會既存在？Do you accept the existence of the Provisional Legislative Council (PL)?

接受：原本贊成成立臨立會 Accept from the very beginning

28.8% 不接受Do not accept

26.9%

接受：原本不贊成成立臨立會, 但接受現實 Accept, but disagreed before

17.3% 唔知 / 難講Don’t know/Hard to say

27.0%

你認為香港政府應否與臨時立法會合作？Do you think that the Hong Kong government should cooperate with the PL?

應該 Yes 74.1% 不應該 No 8.0%

不知道 Don’t know 17.9%

你認為臨立會議員係九七年七月之前應該得到幾多議員津貼？Should PL members be paid any allowance before July 1997?

冇津貼 No allowance

21.6% 同現職立法局議員一樣Same as what Legislative Councillors receive now

39.7%

多過現職立法局議員 More than what Legislative Councillors receive now

2.3% 少過現職立法局議員 Less than what Legislative Councillors receive now

13.7%

唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 22.7%

研究小組於九六年十二月進行臨時立法會的調查發現，有四成六被訪者接受成立臨時立法會，當中二成九本來亦贊成成立臨立會，一成七原來不贊成，但基於接受現實而接受了臨立會，而堅持不接受成立臨立會及沒有意見的各有二成七。對於港府應否與臨立會合作的問題，主流意見是應該合作，佔七成四被訪者。認為港府不應與臨立會合作的只有百分之八。

主席人選方面，五成八認為特首不應該兼任臨立會主席，至於多位常被傳媒提及的臨立會主席人選，調查發現范徐麗泰得分最高，但黃宏發所得認知率則排列榜首。

至於臨立會議員在九七年七月前應獲多少津貼，二成二認為應該沒有津貼，四成被訪者認為應與現職立法局議員一樣，一成四認為津貼應少於現時立法局議員，認為應多於現時立法局議員的只有百分之二。

The lastest survey conducted by the POP team on the Provisional Legislative Council December 1996 shows that 46% of the respondents accepted the setting up of the PL. Among them 29% agreed with the idea from the very beginning, while 17% objected the idea at first but accepted reality; 27% continued to reject the idea, another 27% had no opinion. On the question of whether the Hong Kong government should cooperate with the PL, 74% said yes, 8% said no.

Regarding the presidentship of PL, Rita Fan was rated to be the most suitable candidate, even though Andrew Wong was the most well-known.

On whether PL members should be paid any allowance before July 1997, 22% said no, 40% said they should be paid the same amount as that of current Legislative Councillors, 14% said they should be paid less, only 2.3% said they should receive more.

調查日期 Date of survey: 7-8/1/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 599 回應率 Response rate: 44.7%

你認為特區行政長官應唔應該兼任臨時立法會主席? Do you think the Chief Executive should become the President of the PL?

應該 Yes 26.3% 唔應該 No 58.1% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 15.6%

請你用0至10分評價一下XXX 是否適合做臨時立法會主席, 0 分代表絕對不適合, 10 分代表絕對適合, 5分代表一半半, 你俾幾多分XXX 呢? Please use 0-10 to rate the following persons for their suitability for becoming the PL president, 0 indicating absolutely not suitable, 10 indicating absolutely suitable, and 5 indicating half-half.

范徐麗泰 Rita Fan

梁振英 Leung Chung-ying

譚耀宗 Tam Yiu-chung

譚惠珠 Maria Tam

黃宏發 Andrew Wong

平均分數 Average mark 5.5 5.3 5.2 4.6 4.4

52 5-4


認知率 Recognition rate 77.8% 66.1% 73.6% 76.8% 82.0%

評分人數 No. of valid raters 466 396 441 460 491

52 5-4


有關梁銘彥事件之民意調查Opinion Survey on the Incident of Laurence Leung

調查日期 Date of survey:20-21/1/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 549 回應比率 Response rate: 46.9%

你認為最近既梁銘彥事件有冇增加或者減少政府既公信力?Do you think the incident of Laurence Leung has increased/decreased the credibility of the Government?

增加公信力 Increased 1.3% 冇影響 No effect 32.9%

減少公信力Decreased 49.1% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 16.7%

你擔唔擔心今次梁銘彥既事件會影響公務員隊伍既士氣?Are you worried that the incident of Laurence Leung would affect the morale of the civil servants?

擔心Worried 41.0% 唔擔心 Not worried 46.4% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 12.6%

你滿唔滿意梁銘彥/林煥光係聆訊期間既表現？Are you satisfied with the performance of Laurence Leung/Lam Woon-kwong in the Select Committee hearing?

梁銘彥 Laurence Leung 林煥光 Lam Woon-kwong

滿意 Satisfied 35.9% 33.6%

唔滿意 Dissatisfied 23.2% 31.9%

唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 17.6% 14.7%

唔清楚佢既表現 Don’t know his performance 23.4% 19.7%

你相唔相佢既說話Do you believe him? 梁銘彥 Laurence Leung 林煥光 Lam Woon-kwong

相信 Yes 22.3% 16.3%

唔相信 No 16.0% 23.0%

半信半疑/唔知/難講 Half-half/Don’t know/Hard to say 45.4% 45.0%

唔清楚佢講乜 Don’t know what he said 16.2% 15.7%

咁你又滿唔滿意立法局議員係聆訊期間既表現？Are you satisfied with the performance of Legislative Councillors in the Select Committee hearing?

滿意 Satisfied 53.5% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 12.3%

唔滿意 Dissatisifed 14.4% 唔清楚佢既表現Don’t know their performance 19.9%

你認為立法局議員有冇需要傳召布政司陳方安生/彭定康作證？Do you think it is necessary for the Legislative Councillors to summon Anson Chan/Chris Patten as witnesses in the hearing?

陳方安生 Anson Chan 彭定康 Chris Patten

有需要 Necessary 64.1% 54.3%

冇需要 Not necessary 19.7% 29.6%


請問你接唔接受政府以公眾利益為理由唔肯公開有關梁銘彥既廉署調查報告同品格審查報告？Do you accept the Government’s using the reason of ‘public interest’ to keep the ICAC and police integrity-check reports confidential?

5-5 53


接受 Accept 25.1% 唔接受 Do not accept 60.8% 唔知/難講 Don’t know 14.2%

5-5 53

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年一月號市民對九七回歸的意見調查

Survey on People’s Feeling on the 1997 Transition

調查日期 Date of survey: 31/12/96 樣本數目 Sample size: 520 回應率 Response rate : 52.5%

你會用乜野形容詞黎形容你對香港九七主權回歸既心情?Please describe your feelings about the 1997 transition in a single word?開心 Happy 7.4% 無奈 Helpless 4.0% 矛盾

Contradictory3.3% 冇乜感覺 No special

feeling 17.2%

期待 Expecting 7.4% 害怕 Afraid 3.3% 複雜 Complicated

2.1% 平常 Plain 10.0%

樂觀 Optimistic 6.6% 憂慮 Anxious 3.1% 平淡 Nothing particular 7.3%

興奮 Excited 4.5% 悲觀 Pessimistic 1.7%

其他正面形容詞Other positive words

4.1% 其他負面形容詞Other negative words

2.9% 其他混合形容詞Other ambivalent words

1.4% 其他中性形容詞Other neutral words

3.7%

小計 Sub-total 30.0% 小計 Sub-total 15.0% 小計 Sub-total 6.8% 小計 Sub-total 38.2%

不知道Don’t know 10.2%

如果你有一大筆多餘既錢，你會首先選擇 If you have a large sum of money, you will ：長線投資香港 Make long-term investments in Hong Kong 40.0% 駛左佢 Spend it all 2.9%

擺係銀行或作其他短線投資 Put it in the bank or make short-term investments

27.3% 不知道 Don’t know 7.1%

投資海外 Invest it overseas 9.7% 其他答案 Other answers 5.8%

投資國內 Invest it in China 7.2%

如果有得選擇，你會寧願 If you have a choice, would you：留係香港 Stay in Hong Kong 79.6% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 3.3%

離開香港呢 Leave Hong Kong 17.1%

尚有半年香港主權便回歸中國，研究小組最近的調查顯示香港市民多以平常心面對回歸，其餘則以正面態度面對的居多。此外，大多數被訪者都選擇留在香港，及願把資金用於香港作長線投資。

調查於九六年十二月三十一日進行，共訪問五百二十人，回應率百分之五十三。調查先要求被訪者以一個形容詞描述其對香港主權回歸的心情。結果最多被訪者回答的是「冇乜感覺」，佔一成七，其次有一成以「平常」形容，不知道的亦有一成。若把形容分為正面、負面混合及中性四類，被訪者提及的同樣以「平常」、「平淡」等中性形容詞最多，有三成八。其次是「開心」、「期待」等正面詞語，有三成人提及。以負面詞形容回歸心情的只有一成五，可見樂觀者比悲觀者多。

被問及若有大筆多餘錢會如何使用時，四成被訪者選擇長線投資香港，二成七會把金錢放在銀行或作其短線投資。雖然回歸後香港將為中國一部份，但選擇投資國內的卻只有百分之七。調查最後問及被訪者喜歡留港還是離開，結果發現八成人選擇留在香港，選擇離開的只有一成七。

這組題目的結果顯示港人大都以香港為本位，面對主權回歸沒有太多不安，並願留在香港發展。

With less than six months before the change of sovereignty for Hong Kong, the POP team’s latest survey shows that Hong Kong people were generally calm and indifferent. Most would choose to stay even if they could leave, and many were willing to make long-term investments in Hong Kong.

The POP Team surveyed 520 people on 31 December 1996. The most frequent phrase used to describe their feeling towards the transition was “no special feeling” (17%). If the expressions were categorized under headings of positive, negative, mixed, and neutral feeling, the most frequently-cited descriptions were neutral ones, which constituted 38% of the responses. A total of 30% used “happy”, “expecting”, and other positive words, while only 15% described their feelings in negative terms. We could thus say that people were generally more optimistic than pessimistic.

Asked what they would do if they had a large sum of money, 40% chose long-term investments in Hong Kong, 27% chose short-term investments. Asked whether they would choose to stay or leave Hong Kong given a free

54 5-6

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年一月號choice, 80% chose to stay, while 17% said they would leave. This showed that many Hong Kong people still regarded Hong Kong as their home, and did not have too much anxiety towards the transferral of sovereignty.

54 5-6


從黃大仙區議會（新蒲崗選區）補選看民主黨的生存空間*The Future of the Democratic Party as Reflected in the

Wong Tai Sin (San Po Kong) District Board By-election*

調查日期 Date of survey: 5/1/1997 樣本數目 Sample size:300 回應率 Response rate:71.8%

請問你今次點解黎投票呢? Main reason for voting

盡公民責任 Civic responsibility 56.0% 親友、鄰居呼籲 Called on by friends/relatives 2.7%

改善社會、社區、民生 To improve livelihood 17.3% 順應潮流、襯熱鬧、沒有其他事做.......

Just follow trends/no special reason

2.3%

慣性、次次都投票 Voting habit 7.7% 促進民主發展 Democratic development 1.7%

要支持某某候選人 To support a candidate 6.0% 要支持某某政治團體 To support a political group 1.3%

其他 Others 5.0%

點解你選佢?請舉出最主要原因. Main reason for choosing a candidate

候選人過往表現 Past performance 25.1% 親友支持 Supported by friends 3.0%

所屬政黨/獨立人士支持 Party affiliation 24.4% 候選人外表 Appearance 2.0%

政綱、政見 Platform/Political view 17.4% 候選人宣傳品/活動吸引 Campaign performance 1.3%

候選人性格或人品吸引 Personality 5.7% 候選人知名度 Popularity 0.3%

同住一區/街坊 Same locality 5.4% 某公眾人士支持 Supported by public figures 0.3%

候選人職業/教育背景 Occupation/Education background

4.7% 沒有其他更佳選擇 No better choice 5.7%

其他 Others 4.7%

影響選民投票的因素 Factors affecting candidate choice 因素 Factor 好大影響

Considerable influence

有些影響Some influence

冇乜影響Not much influence

完全冇影響No influence

at all

唔知/難講Don’t know/Hard to say

政治背景 Party background 25.3% 17.0% 18.7% 37.3% 1.7%

過往表現 Past performance 22.7% 31.3% 24.0% 20.0% 2.0%

競選表現 Campaign performance 6.0% 26.0% 37.0% 29.0% 2.0%

街坊組職支持 Support of grassroots organizations 5.0% 19.3% 26.7% 47.3% 1.7%

政治明星拉票 Political celebrities 1.7% 8.3% 28.0% 59.7% 2.3%

陳金龍自殺事件 Suicide of Joseph Chan 1.0% 7.0% 24.0% 62.0% 6.0%

九七年解散區議會 Dismantling DB after 97 2.7% 7.7% 26.8% 56.5% 6.4%

因素 Factor 李達仁支持者 Supporters for Lee Tat-yan

麥海華支持者Supporters for Mak Hoi-wah

表示有很大或有些影響者的比率% admitting some or

considerable influence

表示有很大或有些影響者的比率% admitting some or

considerable influence政治背景 Party background 25.9% 61.9%

過往表現 Past performance 46.7% 59.0%

競選表現 Campaign performance 31.9% 35.1%

街坊組職支持 Support of grassroots organizations 34.1% 14.9%

政治明星拉票 Political celebrities 5.2% 15.7%

陳金龍自殺事件 Suicide of Joseph Chan 7.5% 9.7%

5-7 55


九七年解散區議會 Dismantling DB after 97 5.2% 15.0%

5-7 55

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年一月號

本區前任區議員陳金龍事件有冇增加或減少你對一般區議員既信任程度?Has the Josephs Chan incident increased/decreased your confidence in the District Board members?

增加 Increased 1.3% 不變 No effect 66.0% 減少 Decreased 19.3%

唔知/難講 Don’t know 6.7% 對事件不清楚 Not clear about the issue 6.7%

你贊唔贊成九七年解散區議會? Do you agree to the dismantling of the District Boards in 1997?

贊成 Agree 8.7% 中立/無所謂 Neutral 13.3%

反對 Disagree 62.7% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 15.3%

整體黎講, 你滿唔滿意特首同臨時立法會既推選結果?Are you satisfied with the selection of the Chief Executive and the Provisional Legislative Council?

非常滿意 Very satisfied 8.4% 幾滿意 Quite satisfied 27.8% 一半半 Half-half 14.4%

幾唔滿意 Quite dissatisfied

15.1% 非常唔滿意 Very dissatisfied 9.0% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 25.4%

你滿唔滿意李達仁作為推選委員既表現?Are you satisfied with the performance of Lee Tat-yan as a Selection Committee member?

非常滿意 Very satisfied 3.7% 幾滿意 Quite satisfied 22.7% 一半半 Half-half 5.7%

幾唔滿意 Quite dissatisfied

5.7% 非常唔滿意 Very dissatisfied 5.3% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 57.0%

一月五日進行的黃大仙區議會新蒲崗選區的補選經已塵埃落定，屬於民主黨二線人物的麥海華以二十九票之微負於街坊派的李達仁。民主黨繼港島東區區議會錦屏選區的補選後再次敗北，使人懷疑民主黨在九七年後的生存空間。本文嘗試以筆者們在選舉當日進行的觀察及票站調查的結果分析民主黨的得失。街坊派歷來的壟斷

新蒲崗選區屬唐樓舊區，過往由八二年區議會有直選議席開始，這區已由街坊勢力壟斷：八二年陳平以無黨派身份參選取得議席，到八五年再以「香港公民協會」成員身份參選勝出；八八年，陳平退下火線由另一公民協會代表接班，該人為陳金龍，陳金龍同樣在有對手的情況下嬴得八八年區議會選舉。其後兩屆的區議會選舉，陳金龍均在無對手的情況下順利取得直選議席，

陳金龍的議席，因其自殺事件懸空而要進行補選，接替陳金龍參選的是東九龍居民委員會主席李達仁。新蒲崗區議會議席一直由街坊派佔據，由陳平到陳金龍，由陳金龍至李達仁，脈絡清晰可見。在此脈絡之中，另一特點是由八二年至九四年的歷次區議會選舉，民主派均無在此區域派人參選，故麥海華參加是次補選大可視為民主黨首次在新蒲崗這個舊選區進行試票。

兩派票源的變化及選民支持候選人的原因在選舉當日的票站調查顯示，在支持李達仁的被Successive defeats of the Democratic Party in recent

District Board by-elections gave a clear signal that the party’s future beyond 1997 will not be an easy one. On 5 January 1997, Democratic Party’s core member Mak Hoi-wah was defeated by a pro-China candidate Lee Tat-yan in the Wong Tai Sin (San Po Kong) District Board By-election.

Nevertheless, it must be noted that the constituency of San Po Kong has always been dominated by kaifong (or local organization) candidates. In 1982, when the district board was set up, the seat was grasped by Chan Ping, who remained in office until 1988, when he was succeeded by Josephs Chan, who remained in office until his suicide in late 1996. Both Chans shared common political alignments, which was continued by Lee Tat-yan, who won the January by-election. Against this background, the participation of the Democratic Party this time could be seen as a pilot test of strength in the area.

According to the by-election exit poll, 47% of Lee’s supporters considered past performance a significant factor affecting their choice of candidates, 34% said kaifong’s support was important. Mak’s supporters, on the contrary, gave very different explanations. A total of 62% considered Mak’s political background an important factor, while 59% said his past performance was important. In

56 5-8

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年一月號other words, locality was the critical factor of Lee’s victory, against Mak’s political votes.

56 5-8


訪者當中，有四成七表示李氏的過往表現對投票意向有影響。另外，三成四表示街坊組織的支持亦影響了他們的投票意向。至於在麥海華的支持者中，有六成二表示麥的政治背景是影響他們投票意向的重要因素，支持者中有五成九亦認為麥的過往表現會影響他們的選擇。

九五年立法局九龍東選區是陳婉嫻與麥海華的對撼，當時麥以少量票數落敗。將今次兩位候選人的票源與上次立法局選舉陳與麥之票源作一比較發現，在今次補選中支持麥的可定為民主黨的鐵票，因為在是次補選中投票而又在九五年選舉中支持麥的選民中，有九成半表示在今次補選再投麥一票，只有五個百分比轉投李達仁；反觀在九五年支持陳又在是次補選中有投票者，只有六成九表示支持有親中背景的候選人李達仁，有三成一卻表示投了麥一票。換句話說，支持陳者並不一定在往後選舉中支持有親中背景的候選人。從這角度看，民主黨在區內是有固定票源。兩派的選舉策略

論組織動員方面，兩派當然互有優勢。選舉當日，李達仁在動員方面採用人海戰術，務求選舉團以人多取勝。李氏除了顯示自己具中方名銜外，亦獲得到工聯會、街坊組織及民建聯的協助，在動員上就明顯比麥的助選團人數多出三、四倍。此外，李氏的助選團又分配人手在區內各樓宇的梯間站崗，緊守每座樓宇的正門，配合主要通道上的宣傳點及茶樓食肆外的拉票營地，形成一個密密麻麻的人海網絡，牢不可破的街頭堡壘。

另一邊廂的麥海華，動員方面就顯得非常遜色，相信麥海華所能佔優的，是其政黨效應及民主黨內政治明星的拉票，民主黨中的立法局議員均紛紛出動；不過，在此方面，作為推委的李達仁亦不甘示弱，得到陳婉嫻及譚耀宗拉票，雙方均可謂明星盡出！

選舉的最後結果，麥海華以不足兩個百分比的得票率僅敗於李達仁，在從來沒有民主派參選的新蒲崗選區贏取八百多票，可謂試票成功，進一步確定民主黨的穩定票源。但麥海華屬民主黨核心成員，知名度遠較李高，都敵不過李達仁，顯示民主黨面臨的劣勢。民主黨在關係網絡密集的小選區很難發揮其政黨效應。

民主黨以至任何政治團體，要贏取地區議會席位，必然要植根社區。但要取得大選區及高層議會的席位，則要政治立場清晰，這是民主黨面臨的兩難決擇，亦直接影響民主黨在九七年後的生存空間。

鍾庭耀、陳夢施*此乃刊於明報九七年一月二十一日原文撮要。文中提及的各項調查結果，已於較早前向各界公佈，讀者如欲索取有關報告，可致電本中心查詢。

In the Legislative Council election of 1995, when San Po Kong was part of the Kowloon East constituency, it was a struggle between Mak Hoi-wah and another pro-China candidate Chan Yuen-han. Mak also lost. Exit poll results showed that 95% of those who voted for Mak last time, and who bothered to vote again this time, also voted for Mak. However, only 69% of those who voted for Chan last time voted for Lee this time. We could therefore conclude that Mak’s voters were fairly loyal to him because of his political outlook.

In terms of mobilization, Lee’s camp was definitely more superior. Drawing on support from the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, and kaifong organizations, Lee’s campaign workers out-numbered Mak’s by about three to four times. Because of their advantage in sheer number, Lee’s group was able to blockade all entrances to buildings and restaurants with campaign workers who, on the one hand, distributed Lee’s campaign leaflets, and on the other hand, debarred Mak’s supporters from entering private premises.

Under such circumstances, Mak’s campaign workers could only draw on support from Democratic Party heavy-weights like Martin Lee, Szeto Wah, Lau Chin-shek, and practically all Democratic Party Legco members to call for support on the street. Lee, on the other hand, also had Chan Yuen-han, Tam Yiu-chung, and Jasper Tsang supporting him on the street.

The result of the election was that Lee defeated Mak by a narrow margin of 29 votes, or less than 2% of the final vote. On one hand, one can say that the Democratic Party has enjoyed considerable success in their pilot test, but on the other hand, because Mak was a much more well known figure than Lee, both in the area and Hong Kong wide, the lesson for the Democratic Party was that it could no longer rely on its political platform to win elections on the grassroots level. The cultivation of network ties in local communities appeared to be more important. Exactly how one space only the Democratic Party could cope with these two apparently contradictory demands would determine its success after 1997.

Chung Ting-yiu Robert, Chan Mung-sze Natalie

5-9 57


*Abstract from a Chinese article published in Ming Pao on 21 January 1997. All survey results mentioned have been released

in our survey reports. Readers interested in getting them please contact us.

5-9 57


九六年十二月份社研調查之樣本數據 Contact information for POP polls conducted in December 1996第一次 First poll 第二次 Second poll 第三次 Third poll

日期 Date of surveys 3-4/12/96 9/12/96 16-17/12/96

訪問對象 Target population 十八歲或以上之香港市民 Hong Kong population aged 18 or above調查方法 Survey method 電話訪問 Telephone survey抽樣方法 Sampling method 從住宅電話簿中隨機抽出號碼，再用電腦配套另一部份．當成功接觸目標住戶後，再用出生

日期抽取其中一名被訪者接受訪問． Telephone numbers were selected randomly from telephone directories and additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.

樣本數目 Sample size 555 563 584

回應率 Response rate 45.5% 50.3% 46.2%

抽樣誤差 Standard error 2.1% 2.1% 2.0%

市民對港督最新評分 Latest Ratings of Governor Chris Patten

調查日期 Date of Survey 支持度 Support Rating 按月平均分 Monthly Average

十一月份第一次調查 1st survey in November 5-6/11/96 59.2 58.4

十一月份第二次調查 2nd survey in November 18-19/11/96 57.5 (November 十一月)十二月份第一次調查 1st survey in December 3-4/12/96 58.1

十二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in December 9/12/96 58.4 58.5十二月份第三次調查 3rd survey in December 16-17/12/96 58.7 (December 十二月)十二月份第四次調查 4th survey in December 30/12/96 58.7

市民對中、英、港及台灣政府的信任程度People’s Trust in Chinese, British, Hong Kong & Taiwan Governments

調查日期 Date of survey: 5-6/11/96, 3-4/12/96, 16-17/12/96問題: 整體黎講, 你信唔信任XX政府呢? Question: On the whole, do you trust the XX government?

中國Chinese

英國British

香港HK

台灣Taiwan

十一月份調查 Survey in November

24.5% 33.1% 67.3% -

十二月份第一次調查 1st survey in December

30.4% 32.9% 60.9% -

十二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in December

- - - 20.4%

市民對「一國兩制」及香港前途的信心People’s Confidence in “One Country, Two Systems” & Hong Kong’s Future

調查日期 Date of survey: 5-6/11/96, 3-4/12/96, 30/12/96整體黎講, 你對一國兩制/香港前途有冇信心 On the whole, do you have confidence in ‘one-country, two systems’/HK’s future?

一國兩制 One country, two systems 香港前途 Hong Kong’s future十一月份調查 November 46.4% 64.6%

58 5-10

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年一月號十二月份第一次調查 1st survey in December 42.2% 60.5%

十二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in December - 77.9%

58 5-10


市民對董建華最新評分Latest Ratings of Tung Chee-hwa

行政長官推選前 Before the selection of the Chief ExecutiveDate of Survey 調查日期 Support Rating

支持度 Monthly Average 按月平均分九月份調查 September 29-31/8/96 62.4 62.4

十月份第一次調查 1st survey in October 8/10/96 62.7 64.2

十月份第二次調查 2nd survey in October 23-24/10/96 65.7 (October 十月)十一月份第一次調查 1st survey in November 5-6/11/96 66.1

十一月份第二次調查 2nd survey in November 11/11/96 66.8 67.0

十一月份第三次調查 3rd survey in November 18-19/11/96 66.0 (November 十一月)十一月份第四次調查 4th survey in November 25-26/11/96 69.4

十二月份第一次調查 1st survey in December 3-4/12/96 67.1 66.1

十二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in December 9/12/96 65.0 (December 十二月)

行政長官推選後After the selection of the Chief ExecutiveDate of Survey 調查日期 Support Rating 支持度 Monthly Average 按月平均分

十二月份第三次調查 3rd survey in December 11/12/96 70.1 66.3

十二月份第四次調查 4th survey in December 16-17/12/96 64.0 (December 十二月)十二月份第五次調查 5th survey in December 30/12/96 64.9



名）:3-4/12/96

Result from the survey in December 96九六年十二月份調查結果 Accumulated results in the past 12 months(6 surveys)累積過去十二個月( 六次)調查結果


16-17/12/96

Support

支持數Standard


sample總人數Raters

評分人數Recognition

認知率No. of time on

the list上榜次數Average

support rating平均支持度 Average rate of

recognition平均認知度

FTU 工聯會 58.0 0.9 584 382 65.4% 6 58.0 58.4%

DP 民主黨 56.7 1.0 584 466 79.8% 6 59.0 71.7%

DABHK 民建聯 53.8 0.8 584 381 65.2% 6 54.3 59.5%

ADPL 民協 52.7 0.9 584 317 54.3% 6 53.8 50.8%

LP 自由黨 50.9 1.0 584 395 67.6% 6 51.7 62.4%

Top 5 average首五名平均分 54.4 66.5%

5-11 59


ADPL = Hong Kong Association for Democracy & People's Livelihood 香港民主民生協進會DABHK = Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong 民主建港聯盟DP = Democratic Party 民主黨FTU = Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 香港工會聯合會LP = Liberal Party 自由黨

5-11 59


十大立法局議員評分 Ratings of the Top Ten Legco Members


名）:18-19/11/96

Result from the survey in December 96九六年十二月份調查結果 Accumulated results in the past 12 months(6 surveys) 累積過去十二個月(六次)調查結果


3-4/12/96

Support

支持數Standard


sample總人數Raters

評分人數Recognitio

n

認知率

No. of time on the list上榜次數

Average support rating平均支持度

Average rate of recognition平均認知度

Emily Lau 劉慧卿 63.8 1.0 555 417 75.1% 6 64.3 75.7%Christine Loh 陸恭蕙 62.7 0.9 555 406 73.2% 6 62.9 74.2%Lau Chin-shek 劉千石 62.5 0.9 555 432 77.8% 6 63.4 77.7%Martin Lee 李柱銘 61.8 1.0 555 445 80.2% 6 60.7 80.8%Lee Cheuk-yan 李卓人 61.1 1.0 555 399 71.9% 5 61.8 71.4%Yeung Sum 楊森 59.8 1.1 555 347 62.5% 3 60.2 63.3%Andrew Wong 黃宏發 57.1 0.9 555 377 67.9% 5 57.5 67.0%Selina Chow 周梁淑怡 57.1 0.9 555 381 68.6% 4 56.7 68.9%Szeto Wah 司徒華 57.0 1.1 555 444 80.0% 6 59.6 80.9%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 55.9 0.9 555 409 73.7% 6 54.4 73.6%Top 5 average首五名平均分 62.4 75.6%

Top 10 average首十名平均分 59.9 73.1%

《民意快訊》編輯委員會 Editorial Committee of POP Express 主編 Editor : 鍾庭耀 Chung Ting-yiu Robert副編 Sub-editors : 陳夢施 Chan Mung-sze Natalie，楊針岩 Yeung Chin-arm Patrick編務助理 Editorial Assistant : 李德成 Lee Tak-shing Patrick電話 Telephone : 2859 2988, 2859 2989傳真 Fax : 2517 6951地址 Address : 香港薄扶林道, 香港大學黃子明樓 8 樓, 社會科學研究中心

Social Sciences Research Centre, 8/F, Wong Chue Meng Building, the University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong.


亞洲電視有限公司　Asia Television Limited

(贊助市民對九七回歸心情，臨時立法會，及梁銘彥事件的各項民意調查) (for sponsoring opinion surveys on People’s Feeling on the 1997 Transition, the Provisional Legislative Council,

and the Incident of Laurence Leung)

60 5-12


60 5-12

February 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL

ISSUE



首次公佈數字 PREMIERE RELEASE

市民對鄧小平的評價 1-5 People’s Evaluation of Deng Xiaoping

市民對鄧小平功過評價示意圖 1 Schematic Presentation of People’s Evaluation of Deng Xiaoping

鄧小平的功過 3 Deng Xiaoping’s Achievement

鄧小平逝世後對香港及中國發展的影響 4 Effect of Deng’s Death on the Development of Hong Kong and China

市民對近代中國領導人的功過評價 5 People’s Feeling about Contemporary Chinese Leaders

鄧小平逝世對港人信心的影響 5 Effect of Deng’s Death on People’s Confidence

十大香港特別行政區臨時立法會議員評分6 Ratings of the Top Ten HKSAR Provisional Legislative

Council Members

董建華與彭定康評分比較 7-8 Comparing the Popularity Ratings of Tung Chee-hwa & Chris Patten

Schematic Presentation of People’s Evaluation of Deng Xiaoping市民對鄧小平功過評價示意圖計算方法：功過比例乃根據市民對鄧小平功績評分運算，而功績與過失的內部比重則根據兩條獨立問題組合得來。有關數據已詳列於第三頁中。Computation method: The ratio between Deng’s merit and demerit was based on people’s rating of his achievements, while the splits

in each sector was based on findings from two independent questions. Please refer to p.3 for relevant figures.


中國已故領導人鄧小平的悼念活動剛剛結束，中共會否調整其內外政策仍是未知之數，但從本地及國內民意民情的角度看，未來數月肯定是一個充滿回顧及前瞻的觀望期。

香港大學社會科學研究中心的民意研究小組自九五年二月起，已不斷測試香港市民對鄧小平及其他現任或已故領導人的評價，與及一些國家民族的問題，目的是為未來一國兩制下的民情研究舖路。九七主權回歸以後，香港與中國的發展將更形密切，香港人的 6-1 61

February 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL

ISSUE視野理應擴闊至整個國家民族，甚至整個東西方社會上。《民意快訊》在上月總結了兩年多來市民對鄧小平的評價，及對鄧後發展的憂慮，目的是為鄧後時代的民情研究作出準備。事有湊巧，鄧小平亦在本月與世長辭。本刊今期於是發表一系列的補充資料，包括鄧小平辭世當日（當時消息尚未公佈）、翌日、及五天後的民情總結，為與當代國情有關的民情研究寫下一個段落。哀傷過後，總要重新振作。個人如是，國家如是。一代領導人的功過，總要以冷靜、理性、客觀和科學的態度不偏不倚地闡述出來。本刊今期發表的民意資料，雖只是鳳毛麟角，及集中在本港市民的一點情意反射，但對於日後研究鄧小平的功過，及中國國運的發展，或多或少會有一定的作用。

鍾庭耀With the conclusion of memorial services for the

late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, people in Hong Kong and China are carefully watching for signs of political

change.

Since the beginning of 1995, we have been mapping people’s perception of Deng Xiaoping and other national figures. We believe it important for Hong Kong people to widen their horizon, especially after 1997, when Hong Kong would no longer be an isolated city on the South China coast.

In the last issue of POP Express, we summarized our two years’ findings on people’s perception of Deng Xiaoping, as well as their concern over post-Deng development. We now release the latest update of our opinion data, some of which were collected on the night when Deng died, some on the night after his death, and some collected five days later.

We believe it important, at this point in time, to release our data so that people can evaluate Deng rationally and objectively. If our survey data only reflects some very superficial reaction of the Hong Kong people, which only forms one tiny speck of evidence pertinent to the evaluation of the great Chinese leader, it would nevertheless be an important piece of information which historians would find useful, at some point in time.


市民對鄧小平的評價People’s Evaluation of Deng Xiaoping

本刊上期總結了市民於九五至九六年間對鄧小平的看法，及估計其一旦逝世所產生的影響。九七年一至二月期間，本研究組再就有關問題進行四次調查，其中兩次更分別在鄧氏去世翌日及五天後進行。綜合此等調查發現，市民並不憂慮鄧後中國會出現動亂，而當中國公佈鄧小平逝世後並未即時出現動亂或經濟不穩時，市民對鄧氏的逝世已明顯減少憂慮，擔心產生壞影響的市民明顯減少。對香港前途、平穩過渡、及一國兩制的信心都無大影響。論及鄧小平的功過，一般都認為功多過少。以一百分滿分，鄧氏對中國的功績平均得七十三分，對香港的功績則為六十九，可謂功過七三開。七分功績中五分半是因為經濟改革開放，一分因解決港澳主權問題，而三分過失中二分因為六四事件，一分屬於其他過錯。可以這樣說：鄧小平因改革致富而得民心，因處理六四而蒙受污點，實在是反映當代領導人治國之難。

In our last issue, we summarized people’s feeling about Deng Xiaoping in 1995 and 1996. In 1997, the POP Team conducted four more surveys on the same topic, the last two of which were completed after Deng’s death.

From these surveys, it was found that people’s worry over a possible turmoil in China after Deng’s death has subsided, especially when things remained calm immediately after his death. Deng’s death has very little effect on people’s confidence in both the immediate and long-term future of Hong Kong.

People have generally evaluated Deng’s achievement positively. On a scale of 0-100, Deng scored 73 over his achievement for China, and 69 over his achievement for Hong Kong. He was rated positively for his economic reform policies, but rather negatively for his handling of the June 4th Incident. This dilemma between economic reform and political conservatism is probably the most difficult problem faced by all Chinese leaders.

6-1 61

February 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE

論功過，調查發現，鄧小平與周恩來同屬一級，而毛澤東與蔣介石則並列次等。至於六四事件日後的評價有何影響，則還需拭目以待。

Compared with other contemporary Chinese leaders, both Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai were rated very positively by Hong Kong people, while Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek were not.

鄧小平的功過Deng Xiaoping’s Achievements

調查日期 Date of survey: 20/2/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 548 回應率 Response rate : 52.5%問題 : 你認為鄧小平既主要功績係咩呢?Question: What do you think is Deng’s most significant achievement?經濟民生功績 Economical 民族功績 Patriotic 政治功績 Political經濟改革／發展Economic reform

66.5% 解決香港及澳門主權問題Resolved HK/Macau problem

9.5% 打倒四人幫Wiped out the Gang of Four

0.5%

改善人民生活Improved people’s livelihood

2.5% 解放大陸Liberated China

1.1% 外交上的成就Diplomatic achievement

0.5%

其他經濟民生功績Other economic

achievements

1.3% 其他民族功績Other patriotic achievements

0.4% 其他政治功績Other political

achievements

0.9%

小計 Sub-total 70.3% 小計 Sub-total 11.0% 小計 Sub-total 1.9%其他 Others 2.6% 難講 Hard to say 14.1%

問題 : 你認為鄧小平既主要過失又係咩呢?Question: What do you think is Deng’s gravest mistake?政治過失 Political 經濟民生過失 Economical 其他過失 Others處理六四事件Treatment of the June 4th Incident

51.3% 貪污／官倒嚴重Corruption

0.7% 民族過失Patriotic issues

0.2%

政治保守Conservatism

6.9% 貧窮落後Proverty

0.7% 其他 Others 3.5%

接班安排Succession problems

0.2% 其他經濟民生過失Other economic mistakes

0.5% 難講 Hard to say 32.4%

其他政治過失Other political mistakes

1.9% 無 None 1.6%

小計 Sub-total 60.3% 小計 Sub-total 1.9%

問題: 你認為鄧小平需唔需要對六四事件負責？Question: Do you think Deng Xiaoping was responsible for the June 4th Crackdown?需要 Yes 61.7% 唔需要 No 16.2% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 22.1%

鄧小平對中國/香港功績的評分 Ratings on Deng’s Achievements for China and Hong Kong

0=絕無功績 no achievement at all; 100=絕大功績 perfect achievement平均分數

Average mark評分人數

No. of valid raters認知率

Recognition rate對中國功績Achievements for China 72.9 526 96.0%對香港功績Achievements for Hong Kong 69.4 474 86.5%

6-3 63


6-3 63

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年二月號

鄧小平逝世後對香港及中國發展的影響Effect of Deng’s Death on the Development of Hong Kong and China

調查日期 Date of survey 26/1/97 18-19/2/97 20/2/97

樣本數目 Sample size 532 534 548

1. 如果鄧小平不幸逝世，你認為會對香港既發展好處多定壞處多？ If Deng Xiaoping dies, do you think it would be good or bad to the development of Hong Kong?


好處多 Good 18.5% 13.1% 19.6% 一半半 Neither 32.5% 34.6% 46.7% 壞處多 Bad 29.6% 28.3% 6.1% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 19.4% 24.0% 27.7%

2. 如果鄧小平不幸逝世，你認為會對中國既發展好處多定壞處多？ If Deng Xiaoping dies, do you think it would be good or bad to the development of China?


好處多 Good 30.6% 24.0% 29.0% 一半半 Neither 25.0% 25.5% 37.0% 壞處多 Bad 27.1% 26.7% 11.4% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 17.3% 23.8% 22.6%

3. 你擔唔擔心佢死會令中國出現動亂？ Are you worried that there would be turmoil in China after Deng’s death?


擔心 Worried 30.6% 28.8% 13.4% 唔擔心 Not worried 66.6% 66.8% 81.8% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 2.8% 4.4% 4.8%

4. 你認為鄧小平對中國既發展功多定過多？ Would you say Deng Xiaoping has accrued more merit or demerit in the development of China?


功(績)多 More merit 66.9% 70.0% 72.8% 一半半 Half-half 17.3% 15.6% 19.3% 過(錯)多 More demerit 8.9% 3.0% 2.7% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 7.0% 11.4% 5.2%

註: 有關九七年以前的調查數據, 請參閱九七年一月號的《民意快訊》Note: For previous survey results, please refer to our POP Express No. 5

64 6-4


市民對近代中國領導人的功過評價People's Feeling about Contemporary Chinese Leaders

九五年總結 Average of 1995功(績)多一半半過(錯)多唔知／難講

More merit Half half More demerit Don’t know/Hard to say鄧小平 Deng Xiaoping 58.8% 20.4% 6.6% 14.2%

周恩來 Zhou Enlai 56.6% 9.6% 3.4% 30.5%

毛澤東 Mao Zedong 27.0% 18.7% 28.5% 25.8%

蔣介石 Chiang Kai-shek 22.2% 16.4% 12.7% 48.7%

九六年總結 Average of 1996功(績)多一半半過(錯)多唔知／難講

More merit Half half More demerit Don’t know/Hard to say周恩來 Zhou Enlai 57.4% 9.6% 3.1% 31.3%

鄧小平 Deng Xiaoping 56.4% 23.1% 5.9% 14.5%

毛澤東 Mao Zedong 25.7% 20.5% 28.0% 25.8%


九七年初總結 Average of early 1997 調查日期 Date of survey : 17-20/1/97, 18-19/2/97, 20/2/97功(績)多一半半過(錯)多唔知／難講

More merit Half half More demerit Don’t know/Hard to say鄧小平 Deng Xiaoping 69.9% 17.4% 4.9% 7.9%

周恩來 Zhou Enlai 25.6% 19.8% 33.2% 21.4%


毛澤東 Mao Zedong 23.3% 14.9% 16.5% 45.4%

鄧小平逝世對港人信心的影響Effect of Deng’s Death on People’s Confidence

鄧小平逝世後, 有冇增加/減少你對香港前途/一國兩制/平穩過渡既信心?Have Deng’s death increased/decreased your confidence in......

香港前途Hong Kong’s future

一國兩制One country, two systems

平穩過渡A smooth transition

調查日期Date of survey 20/2/97 24/2/97 20/2/97 24/2/97 20/2/97

增加 Increased 4.1% 2.0% 4.2% 3.1% 2.9%

不變 No change 87.7% 87.7% 83.1% 84.7% 87.1%

減少 Decreased 5.5% 6.7% 9.3% 5.8% 7.2%

唔知/難講 Hard to say 2.8% 3.6% 3.5% 6.4% 2.8%

你對香港前途/一國兩制/平穩過渡有冇信心呢？Do you have confidence in ......

香港前途Hong Kong’s future

一國兩制One country, two systems

平穩過渡A smooth transition

調查日期Date of survey 3-4/2/97 20/2/97 24/2/97 3-4/2/97 20/2/97 24/2/97 20/2/97

有信心 Yes 67.0% 82.7% 79.7% 51.4% 69.9% 67.4% 83.5%

6-5 65


冇信心 No 18.7% 8.3% 9.3% 33.7% 17.8% 15.8% 8.7%

唔知/難講 Hard to say 14.3% 9.1% 11.1% 14.9% 12.4% 16.7% 7.7%

6-5 65


十大香港特別行政區臨時立法會議員評分Ratings of the Top Ten HKSAR Provisional Legislative Council Members

Date of survey First stage (naming)

Result from survey in January 1997

第一階段調查日期（提名）: 7-8/1/97 九七年一月份調查結果Second stage (rating) Support Standard error Total sample No. of raters Recognition第二階段調查日期（評分）: 17-20/1/97 支持度標準誤差總人數評分人數認知度

Elsie Tu 杜葉鍚恩 58.6 1.1 532 385 72.4%Selina Chow 周梁淑怡 57.8 0.9 532 402 75.6%Cheng Kai-nam 程介南 56.8 1.0 532 363 68.2%Rita Fan 范徐麗泰 55.1 1.1 532 379 71.2%Tam Yiu-chung 譚耀宗 54.0 1.0 532 361 67.9%Frederick Fung 馮檢基 54.0 1.0 532 369 69.4%Jasper Tsang 曾鈺成 52.8 1.1 532 357 67.1%MariaTam 譚惠珠 50.8 1.1 532 375 70.5%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 50.6 1.0 532 378 71.1%Andrew Wong 黃宏發 47.5 1.1 532 389 73.1%Top 5 average 首五名平均分 56.5 71.1%Top 10 average 首十名平均分 53.8 70.7%

自臨時立法會成立以來，外間有不少關於臨時立法會如何運作、立法局議員身份衝突及工作時間能否配合的問題。研究小組一直有就市民對立法局議員的認識程度及評分進行調查，在九七年一月開始，本中心亦同時測試市民對臨立會議員的看法。

最新調查顯示，在十名被訪者最熟悉的臨立會議員中，以杜葉錫恩所得的支持度最高，其所得平均分數為五十八點六分；獲支持最低的是黃宏發，得四十七點五分，屬不合格分。最多市民願意給予評分的臨立會議員是周梁淑怡，在五百三十二名被訪者中，有七成六願意對周梁淑怡給予評分，顯示其頗為被訪者所認識，而其所獲平均得分為五十七點八分，排列榜中的第二名。

若將臨立會議員所得分數與本中心一貫進行的立法局議員評分比較，不難發現被訪者明顯對立法局議員的評價較臨立會議員高。在立法局議員評分中，首十名議員所得平均分為五十九點九分，而臨立會議員首十名得平均分則只有五十三點八分，相差六分。另外，從該些在兩榜均有出現的議員得分中，亦可看出市民對立法局議員有較大的認同感。以李鵬飛及黃宏發為例，前者在十二月的十大立法局議員評分榜中得五十五點九分，但在一月十大臨立會議員評分榜中就只得五十點六分；而後者黃宏發，在上月十大立法局

議員調查中得五十七點一分，至本月臨立會議員調查中則只獲得四十七點五的分數。

Amidst a number of controversies surrounding the newly set up Provisional Legislative Council, our POP Team has started to monitor the popularity of PL members in exactly the same way as we monitored Legislative Councillors.

According to our recent survey, Elsie Tu was the most popular PL member with a support rating of 58.6, while Andrew Wong was at the bottom of the Top Ten with a score of 47.5. Selina Chow was apparently the most well-known PL member with a recognition rate of 76%. She ranked second with a support rating of 57.8 .

Compared with the popularity ratings of the Top Ten Legislative Councillors whom we have closely monitored (see last issue of POP Express), PL members generally have poorer popularity ratings. This was evident when comparisons were made between the average scores of Top Ten members (Legco members: 59.9 in December 1996; PL members: 53.8 in January 1997), as well as the different scores earned by

66 6-6

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年二月號individuals, who were both Legco and PL members, in their different capacities.

66 6-6


董建華與彭定康評分比較Comparing the Popularity Ratings of Tung Chee-hwa & Chris Patten

港督彭定康評分 Ratings of Governor Chris Patten

調查日期Date of Survey

支持度Support Rating

按月平均分Monthly Average

十二月份第一次調查 1st survey in December 3-4/12/96 58.1

十二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in December 9/12/96 58.4 58.5

十二月份第三次調查 3rd survey in December 16-17/12/96 58.7 (十二月 December)十二月份第四次調查 4th survey in December 30/12/96 58.7

一月份第一次調查 1st survey in January 7-8/1/97 58.2 59.4

一月份第二次調查 2nd survey in January 17-20/1/97 60.6 (一月 January)二月份第一次調查 1st survey in February 3-4/2/97 59.1 59.2

二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in February 18-19/2/97 57.3 （二月 February）二月份第三次調查 3rd survey in February 24/2/97 61.1

特區行政長官董建華評分 Ratings of the HKSAR Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa




十二月份第一次調查 1st survey in December 11/12/96 70.1 66.3

十二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in December 16-17/12/96 64.0 (十二月 December)十二月份第三次調查 3rd survey in December 30/12/96 64.9

一月份第一次調查 1st survey in January 7-8/1/97 64.2 64.4



6-7 67


有關董建華與李柱銘爭拗之民意調查Opinion Survey on the Argument between Tung Chee-hwa and Martin Lee

調查日期Date of survey: 18-19/2/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 534 回應率 Response rate: 45.1%

問題：董建華日前批評李柱銘到外國「唱衰」香港，你同唔同意董建華既言論？Question: Tung Chee-hwa said Martin Lee has “bad mouthed” Hong Kong in Lee’s overseas trip, do you agree with Tung?

同意 Agree 24.3% 無意見 No opinion 5.6%

一半半 Half-half 3.6% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 2.4%

不同意 Disagree 51.4% 唔清楚呢件事Not clear about the issue 12.6%

問題：因為呢件事，你對董建華既印象好左定差左呢？Question: Have you changed your impression of Tung Chee-hwa because of this incident?

好左 Better 10.2% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 5.5%

冇改變 No change 36.8% 唔清楚呢件事 Not clear about the issue 8.8%

差左 Worse 38.7%

問題：因為呢件事，你對李柱銘既印象好左定差左呢？Question: Have you changed your impression of Martin Lee because of this incident?

好左 Better 8.8% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 5.3%

冇改變 No change 55.3% 唔清楚呢件事 Not clear about the issue 9.2%

差左 Worse 21.4%

有關崇拜偶像的民意調查Opinion Survey on Idol Admiration

調查日期 Date of survey: 6-7/7/93 16-17/1/97

樣本數目 Sample size: 511 1055

回應率 Response rate : 56.6% 56.4%

1. 請問你最崇拜邊個呢？ Who is your idol?

2. 請問你贊唔贊成青少年崇拜偶像呢？Do you agree that youths should have idols?調查日期 Date of survey 6-7/7/93 16-17/1/97 調查日期 Date of survey 6-7/7/93 16-17/1/97

藝能界 Show business people 9.4% 23.5% 贊成 Agree 32.8% 34.2%

商界 Some businessmen 1.0% 1.5% 唔贊成 Disagree 38.1% 32.0%

學術界 Some academics 1.7% 0.4% 無意見 No opinion - 28.7%

政界 Some politicians 3.1% 2.9% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 29.1% 5.1%

體育界 Some sportsmen 0.4% 1.1%

其他 Others 2.7% 5.5%

冇崇拜任何人 None 76.3% 63.4%


68 6-8


68 6-8


大埔區議會（船灣選區）補選票站調查Tai Po District Board (Plover Cove) By-Election Exit Poll

大埔區議會船灣選區補選已告一段落，在民建聯的陳美德、自由黨的李國強及沒有政黨背景的文春輝三位候選人當中，終於由民建聯的陳美德以七百零二票大熱勝出。本中心民意研究小組如過往選舉一樣，在選舉當日進行票站調查，現向讀者公佈當日調查所

得結果，以供有興趣研究選舉的人士參考。The Tai Po District Board by-election for the

constituency of Plover Cove was held on 23 February 1997, with Chan Mei-tak, member of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong, having won the seat with a comfortable margin. We present here the result of an exit poll conducted by the POP Team.

調查日期 Date of survey: 23/2/97 樣本數目 Sample size : 161 回應率 Response rate : 68.2%

本區前任區議員陳觀優觸犯刑事罪行事件有冇增加或減少你對一般區議員既信任程度?Has the Chan Koon-yau Incident increased/decreased your confidence towards the District Board members?

增加 Increased 1.6% 不變 No effect 48.4%減少 Decreased 27.3% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 8.6%對事件不清楚 Not clear about the issue 14.1%

你贊唔贊成九七年解散區議會?Do you agree to the dismantling of District Boards in 1997?

贊成 Agree 9.5% 中立/無所謂 Neutral 14.3%反對 Disagree 57.9% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 18.3%

你贊唔贊成九七年後既區議會增加委任議席?Do you agree to the reintroduction of appointed seats into the District Boards after 1997?


你贊唔贊成原居民既婦女可以擁有新界土地繼承權?Do you agree that indigenous women have the right to inherit lands in the New Territories?


影響選民選擇候選人的因素 Factors affecting candidate choice 因素 Factors 表示有很大或有些影響者的比率

% admitting some or considerable influence陳美德

Chan Mei-tak李國強

Li Kwok-keung文春輝

Man Chen-fai政治背景 Party Background 17.2% 27.3% 9.4%

過往表現 Past performance 42.9% 52.4% 43.4%

競選表現 Campaign performance 42.9% 45.0% 17.0%

鄉村組職支持 Support from rural organizations 50.0% 15.0% 44.2%

政治明星拉票 Political celebrities 22.2% 30.0% 1.9%

6-9 69


陳觀優事件 Chan Koon-yau Incident 22.2% 15.8% 5.8%

九七年解散區議會 Dismantling DB after 1997 3.7% 5.3% 1.9%

6-9 69

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年二月號市民對人權法民意調查

Survey on People’s Opinion on Human Rights Legislation


問題：籌委會最近建議在九七年「還原」兩條因抵觸人權法而被修訂既法例，包括公安條例同社團條例，你贊成定反對這個「還原」的建議?Question : The Preparatory Committee has recently proposed to reinstate laws which were amended because of their inconsistency with the Bill of Rights, including the Public Order Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance. Do you agree with this proposal?

贊成 Agree 14.2% 中立 Neutral 9.4%

反對 Disagree 40.6% 冇意見 No opinion 35.8%

(若沒有意見) 點解無意見? Why don’t you have any opinion?

唔識這些野/唔清楚 Not familiar with this issue / Not clear about

this

76.9% 唔關我事 Not my business

4.9%

贊成反對都冇用 Doesn’t matter whether I agree or not

11.2% 其他 Others

0.9%

唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say

6.1%

(若反對) 咁你會用乜野方式去表達你既反對意見? How would you express your disagreement?

遊行 Demonstration 1.6% 簽名運動 Signature campaigns 37.4%

向傳媒表達意見 Speak up through the media 3.9% 沉默抗議 Protest in silence 12.0%

未決定 Undecided 15.8% 其他途徑 Other ways 1.6%

無/唔會表達 None /will not speak up 22.3% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 5.5%

(若不會表達反對意見) 點解唔表達呢? Why won’t you speak up?

表達都冇用 No use 50.1% 怕秋後算脹 Afraid of revenge 0.0%

唔夠切身 Not important enough 1.8% 有其他人做 Others will do it 10.0%

其他原因 Other reasons 26.2% 唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 11.9%

問題：籌委會的建議有冇增加或減少你對．．．．？Question: Has the proposal increased or decreased your......?

增加 Increased

減少 Decreased

不變 No change

唔知/難講 Hard to say

香港前途信心 Confidence in Hong Kong’s future 7.9% 32.2% 42.9% 17.0%

平穩過渡信心 Confidence in a smooth transition 8.6% 28.6% 49.5% 13.3%

中國政府信任程度 Trust in the Chinese government 7.3% 36.7% 44.8% 11.2%

一國兩制信心 Confidence in “one country, two systems” 7.7% 35.2% 43.1% 14.0%

70 6-10



Date of surveyFirst stage (naming)

Result from the survey in January 1997 Accumulated results in the past 12 months(6 surveys)第一階段訪問日期（提名）:

7-8/1/97 九七年一月份調查結果累積十二個月(六次)調查結果

Second stage (rating)Support Standard

errorTotal

sampleNo. of raters


list



第二階段訪問日期（評分）: 17-20/1/97

支持度標準誤差總人數評分人數認知度上榜次數平均支持度平均認知度Tung Chee-hwa 董建華 66.3 0.9 532 383 72.0% 3 62.7 67.8%Rita Fan 范徐麗泰 56.6 1.0 532 371 69.7% 5 55.9 69.4%Tam Yiu-chung 譚耀宗 56.3 1.0 532 343 64.5% 5 56.6 63.4%Henry Fok 霍英東 55.3 1.1 532 337 63.3% 6 52.2 61.7%Lee Ka-shing 李嘉誠 54.0 1.1 532 352 66.2% 6 55.2 69.2%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 53.7 1.0 532 381 71.6% 6 53.8 73.9%Frederick Fung 馮檢基 53.4 1.0 532 363 68.2% 3 57.8 67.9%Jasper Tsang 曾鈺成 52.9 1.0 532 348 65.4% 6 51.4 62.3%Maria Tam 譚惠珠 51.7 1.0 532 378 71.1% 5 50.3 67.7%Liza Wong 汪明荃 48.6 1.1 532 382 71.8% 3 46.0 70.9%Top 5 Average 首五名平均分 57.7 67.1%Top 10 Average 首十名平均分 54.9 68.4%

市民對「一國兩制」及香港前途的信心Confidence in “One Country, Two Systems” and Hong Kong’s Future

調查日期 Date of survey: 3-4/12/96, 30/12/96, 7-8/1/97, 26/1/97整體黎講, 你對一國兩制/香港前途有冇信心 On the whole, do you have confidence in “one country, two systems”/HK’s future?

一國兩制 One country, two systems 香港前途 Hong Kong’s future十二月份第一次調查 1st survey in December 42.2% 60.5%

十二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in December - 77.9%

一月份第一次調查 1st survey in January 54.1% 72.6%

一月份第二次調查 2nd survey in January 47.2% 66.8%

市民對中、英、港、台政府的信任程度Trust in Chinese, British, Hong Kong, and Taiwan Governments


中國Chinese

英國British

香港HK

台灣Taiwan

十二月份第一次調查 1st survey in December

30.4% 32.9% 60.9% -

十二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in December

- - - 20.4%

6-11 71

February 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE一月份調查Survey in January

31.6% 33.6% 69.7% -

6-11 71


九七年一月份社研定期調查之樣本數據Contact information for POP tracking polls conducted in January 1997

第一次調查 First poll 第二次調查 Second poll日期 Date of survey 7-8/1/97 17-20/1/97訪問對象 Target

population十八歲或以上之香港市民 Hong Kong population aged 18 or above

調查方法 Survey method 電話訪問 Telephone survey抽樣方法 Sampling

method從住宅電話簿中隨機抽出號碼，再用電腦配套另一部份．當成功接觸目標住戶後，再用出生日期抽取其中一名被訪者接受訪問。Telephone numbers were selected randomly from telephone directories and additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.

樣本數目 Sample size 599 532回應率 Response rate 44.7% 44.8%抽樣誤差 Standard error 2.0% 2.2%

《民意快訊》編輯委員會 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OF POP EXPRESS 主編 Chief Editor : 鍾庭耀 Chung Ting-yiu Robert副編 Editors : 陳夢施 Chan Mung-sze Natalie，楊針岩 Yeung Chin-arm Patrick編務助理 Editorial Assistant : 李德成 Lee Tak-shing Patrick電話 Telephone : 2859 2988, 2859 2989傳真 Fax : 2517 6951地址 Address : 香港薄扶林道, 香港大學黃子明樓 8 樓, 社會科學研究中心


鳴謝 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 香港電台 Radio Television Hong Kong

(贊助有關市民對鄧小平及人權法的民意調查)(for sponsoring opinion surveys on Deng Xiaoping and human rights)

亞洲電視有限公司　Asia Television Limited

(贊助九七回歸系列的各項民意調查及有關崇拜偶像的民意調查)

(for sponsoring opinion surveys on the 1997 transition and idol admiration)

72 6-12

March 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE




市民對政治、經濟及社會環境的關注及評價1-6 People’s concern for and evaluation of the

political, economic and social conditions

市民最關注的範圍 2-3 Areas of people’s concern

市民對現狀的滿意程度 4-5 People’s satisfaction with the current condition

市民對未來發展的評估 5-6 People’s assessment of future development

有關不同組織公信力的民意調查 7-8 Survey on the credibility of various organizations

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 19970%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

¥ «¥ Á³ ÌÃ öª ª º½ d³ ò Areas of people's concern

¬ Fª v° ÝÃ D Political problems ¸ gÀ Ù° ÝÃ D Economic problems ª À· |° ÝÃ D Social problems

¦ ~¥ ÷ Year

7-1 73

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年三月號


《民意快訊》自去年九月發刊以來，不經不覺已半年有多。早期之快訊雖再三翻印，仍供不應求。編輯委員會因此決定把第一期至第六期《民意快訊》，連同它們出版後的報章報導，結集成合訂本，供讀者訂購存閱。訂購表格已印於本刊背頁。有意訂購者請從速交回表格。

本刊今期亦增設訂閱服務，以照顧本刊贈閱網外的讀者，好讓《民意快訊》所載的資料能廣泛流傳。

本刊今期首次刊登一系列有關市民對本港政治經濟及社會環境的關注及評估的調查結果。該等調查自九二年開始每兩個月進行一次，以後亦會定期在本刊向讀者公佈結果。

此外，有關各政治人物及組織公信力的調查，亦屬首次刊登，作為日後衡量政治制度發展的一項基準。

鍾庭耀

Six months ago we published our first POP Express. To cater for increasing demands, especially for our earlier issues, we have decided to bind our previous volumes, together with relevant newspaper clippings, for sale. We are also accepting annual subscriptions, in order to widen our distribution network. The order forms are printed on the back cover.

Starting from this issue, we will report, on a regular basis, survey data on people’s concern for and evaluation of Hong Kong’s political, economic, and social conditions. Since 1992, the POP Team has been conducting these surveys regularly every two month.

The surveys on the public credibility of various organizations should also be of interest to the general reader. Although these are no longer hot issues, the findings reported herewith should be important benchmarks for studying the development of public institutions in Hong Kong.


市民最關注的範圍Areas of People’s Concern

九二年開始，民意研究組不斷就市民對社會現況的意見進行調查，其中包括他們最關心的問題、對目前政治、經濟及社會環境的滿意程度，及比較三年前後環境的轉變。

在九七年二月的最新民意調查顯示，四成被訪者表示最關心經濟問題，另有四成被訪者表示最關心社會問題，至於表示最關心政治問題的則只有一成二。回顧過去五年的發展，社會問題是越來越受市民關注，由九二年的兩成升至九七年的四成；而經濟問題則一直受市民所重視，與五年前的關心程度相約；至於政治問題，則趨勢與社會問題剛好相反，似乎越近九七，越少市民關心政治問題。

Since 1992, our POP team has been conducting regular surveys on people’s satisfaction with the current situation, as well as their anticipation of future development.

Our latest survey in February 1997 found that the public were most concerned with economic and social problems (40% each), while only 12% were concerned with political issues. When surveys in the last five years were reviewed, it was found that more and more people became concerned with social problems, while less became concerned with political problems. The number of people most concerned with economic problems has remained fairly constant.

74 7-2


74 7-2


¥ «¥ Á³ ÌÃ ö¤ ßª º° ÝÃ DPeople's most concerned problems

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1-2/

12/9

2

6-13

/4/9

3

5-6/

8/93

29-3

0/12

/93

25-2

7/4/

94

1-3/

8/94

19-2

0/12

/94

18-1

9/4/

95

18/8

/95

28-2

9/12

/95

29-3

0/4/

96

28-2

9/8/

96

16-1

7/12

/96

¬ Fª v° ÝÃ D Political problems ¸ gÀ Ù° ÝÃ D Economic problems ª À· |° ÝÃ D Social problems

調查年份Year of survey 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

調查次數 Number of surveys 1 7 6 5 6 1全年樣本數目 Sample size (accumulated) 726 4058 3305 2821 3215 534回應率 Response rate (year average) 66.8% 56.2% 57.2% 56.4% 49.3% 45.1%

問題：香港而家面對好多問題，你個人最關心邊種問題？Question: Hong Kong is currently facing various problems. What kind of problems are you most concerned with?

全年平均比率 Year average

政治問題 Political problems 22.0% 19.5% 18.4% 11.6% 12.8% 11.5%經濟問題 Economic problems 40.4% 32.1% 35.9% 43.6% 43.6% 39.5%社會問題 Social problems 21.3% 28.7% 33.1% 31.1% 32.7% 39.8%沒有意見 No opinion 16.3% 19.7% 12.7% 13.8% 12.6% 9.2%

7-3 75


市民對現狀的滿意程度People’s Satisfaction with the Current Situation

市民對現況的滿意程度方面，九七年二月的最新調查發現，六成一被訪者表示對現時的社會環境滿意，不滿的有二成六。對現時經濟環境滿意的有五成八，表示不滿的有三成三。至於政治環境，表示滿意的只有四成七，表示不滿的有三成一。相比之下，市民似乎對社會環境最為滿意，而對政治環境滿意程度最低。

回顧過去五年，政治環境幾乎一直是市民最不滿意的一項。在九五年四月之前的調查顯示，市民對經濟環境較為滿意，但在此以後，市民對經濟環境的滿意程度降低，而社會環境則成為市民最滿意的一項。

Our latest survey in February 1997 reveals that 61% were satisfied with the prevailing social condition, 58% were satisfied with the economic condition, while only 47% were satisfied with the political condition.

Over the past five years, the political condition was always the item with which people are least satisfied. Surveys before April 1995 show that the public were rather satisfied with the economic condition. However, that rate decreased over time, and the social condition has subsequently turned out to be the item with which people are most satisfied.

問題：整體黎講，你滿唔滿意香港而家既政治/經濟/社會環境？Question: Generally speaking, are you satisfied with the present political/economic/social condition in Hong Kong?

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

政治環境 Political condition

滿意 Satisfied 38.3% 32.9% 34.7% 36.5% 44.1% 46.6%

中立 Neutral 12.0% 12.2% 14.4% 13.0% 13.7% 11.6%

不滿 Dissatisfied 39.3% 36.4% 33.7% 31.0% 24.7% 30.5%

唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 10.3% 18.6% 17.3% 19.5% 17.5% 11.4%

經濟環境 Economic condition

滿意 Satisfied 67.5% 62.3% 66.0% 37.6% 44.9% 58.0%

中立 Neutral 9.4% 9.6% 10.0% 10.3% 11.9% 7.9%

不滿 Dissatisfied 21.8% 23.1% 21.1% 49.1% 40.6% 33.0%


社會環境 Social condition

滿意 Satisfied 61.3% 56.2% 58.6% 50.2% 56.9% 60.8%

中立 Neutral 11.2% 13.1% 13.8% 16.0% 14.9% 11.4%

不滿 Dissatisfied 25.5% 27.4% 24.9% 30.5% 25.4% 26.1%


76 7-4


76 7-4


¥ «¥ Á¹ ï² {® É¬ Fª v¡ B gÀ Ù¤ Îª À· |À ô¹ Òº ¡· Nµ {« ×People's satisfaction with the current political, economic, and social conditions

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1-2/12/92 5-6/8/93 24-28/2/94 3-4/10/94 5-6/6/95 26-29/2/96 23-24/10/96

¸ gÀ ÙÀ ô¹ Ò Economic condition ¬ Fª vÀ ô¹ Ò Political condition ª À· |À ô¹ Ò Social condition

市民對未來發展的評估People’s Assessment of Future Development

研究組除了直接詢問市民對政治、經濟及社會問題的滿意程度外，亦要求被訪者比較三年前及預期三年後的情況，以測試市民對香港中長線發展的評估。

與三年前比較，無論在政治環境、經濟環境和社會環境三方面，被訪者都是認為目前比以前差。九七年初的最新數字是：四成一認為政治環境變壞了、五成九認為經濟環境退步了，至於社會環境，除九二年認為當時有進步者人多於退步者外，九三年至九七初同樣是認為退步者多於認為有進步者。

估計三年後的政治環境，多年來都是認為會變壞者居多，但樂觀的比率自九四年起有上升的趨勢；九七年初最新的數字是，二成五認為三年後會更好，二成九認為會更差。經濟環境方面，九二至九五年都是悲觀者居多，但九六年及九七年初的最新調查則相反，樂觀者比悲觀者多。至於社會環境，九二至九六年都是認為會變差者居多，但九七年初的調查則顯示，三成四人估計三年後會變好，二成三則認為

會變差。Other than directly measuring people’s

satisfaction with the current political, economic, and social conditions, our surveys have also requested respondents to compare current conditions with those three years ago, as well as to predict the direction of change in the next three years.

Our surveys since 1992 have consistently shown that people have rated Hong Kong’s development negatively in the areas of political, economic, and social development, as compared to figures in the past. In early 1997, a total of 41% of the respondents said the political condition had deteriorated, 59% said the economy had gone down, while 40% said the social condition had become worse. Less people said those conditions had become better.

Regarding future development, pessimism was the general trend. However, people became more optimistic about the economy starting from 1996. In early 1997, people became more optimistic over the social development, but were equally divided over Hong Kong’s political prospect.

7-5 77


7-5 77

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年三月號比較三年前的情況 Comparing three years ago

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

問題：同三年前比較，你覺得香港而家既 XX環境好左定差左？Question: Do you think Hong Kong’s XX has become better or worse in the last three years?

政治環境 Political condition比三年前好 Better 28.3% 22.9% 24.4% 24.6% 24.0% 25.5%

差不多 Same 17.2% 15.8% 17.1% 19.5% 22.0% 19.4%

比三年前差 Worse 41.9% 44.7% 40.4% 38.8% 34.6% 41.0%


12.6% 16.7% 18.1% 17.1% 19.4% 14.1%

經濟環境 Economy比三年前好 Better 35.3% 33.1% 34.6% 10.5% 14.1% 22.4%

差不多 Same 14.3% 13.7% 12.9% 8.9% 12.1% 16.1%

比三年前差 Worse 45.3% 46.5% 46.7% 76.8% 69.7% 58.8%


5.0% 6.8% 5.9% 3.9% 4.2% 2.7%

社會環境 Social condition比三年前好 Better 41.9% 30.8% 34.3% 24.9% 26.8% 35.2%

差不多 Same 20.5% 19.5% 22.1% 22.1% 24.8% 21.2%

比三年前差 Worse 32.6% 39.5% 38.4% 47.4% 42.4% 39.9%


4.9% 10.1% 5.2% 5.6% 6.0% 3.8%

估計三年後的情況 Looking three years ahead

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

問題：以你估計，三年後香港既 XX環境會比而家好定差？Question: Do you think Hong Kong’s XX will become better or worse in three years’ time?

政治環境 Political condition比目前好 Better 13.5% 17.3% 12.8% 14.2% 15.8% 25.1%

差不多 Same 9.9% 8.8% 9.3% 9.9% 9.6% 9.7%

比目前差 Worse 37.3% 35.5% 37.7% 32.3% 31.8% 28.5%


經濟環境 Economy比目前好 Better 17.5% 22.0% 19.9% 20.2% 26.8% 42.2%

差不多 Same 7.2% 10.3% 13.4% 13.0% 13.5% 12.3%

比目前差 Worse 41.1% 32.9% 34.9% 33.2% 23.5% 19.3%


78 7-6

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年三月號社會環境 Social condition

比目前好 Better 20.5% 21.8% 17.1% 17.7% 21.8% 33.9%

差不多 Same 13.7% 11.9% 14.7% 15.1% 15.8% 15.0%

比目前差 Worse 31.9% 33.6% 35.5% 33.4% 26.5% 23.1%


78 7-6


有關不同組織公信力的民意調查Survey on the Credibility of Various Organizations

調查日期 Date of survey: 19-26/1/1994 樣本數目 Sample size: 1034 回應率 Response rate : 51.7%調查日期 Date of survey: 7-8/1/1997 樣本數目 Sample size: 599 回應率 Response rate : 44.7%

問題: 整體黎講你認為XXX有冇公信力？ Question: Generally speaking, do you think XXX is/are credible?預委會成員籌委會成員推選委員會成員港事顧問

Preliminary Working Committee Members

PreparatoryCommittee Members

Selection Committee Members

Hong Kong Affairs Advisers

調查日期 Date of survey 19-26/1/1994 7-8/1/1997 7-8/1/1997 19-26/1/1994 7-8/1/1997

有 Yes 21.4% 23.5% 20.6% 21.8% 24.5%

冇 No 30.2% 35.9% 39.6% 30.4% 33.5%

難講/不肯定 Hard to say/Not sure 48.5% 40.6% 39.8% 47.8% 42.1%

司法部門 Judiciary 行政局 Executive Council調查日期 Date of survey 19-26/1/1994 7-8/1/1997 19-26/1/1994 7-8/1/1997

有 Yes 52.8% 75.3% 41.5% 65.1%

冇 No 9.2% 6.9% 16.9% 16.2%

難講/不肯定 Hard to say/Not sure 38.0% 17.8% 41.6% 18.7%

立法局 Legislative Council 臨時立法會 Provisional Legislative Council調查日期 Date of survey 19-26/1/1994 7-8/1/1997 7-8/1/1997

有 Yes 48.3% 66.3% 22.1%

冇 No 15.0% 18.4% 41.4%

難講/不肯定 Hard to say/Not sure 36.7% 15.3% 36.5%

港督彭定康 Governor Chris Patten 特首董建華 Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa調查日期 Date of survey 19-26/1/1994 7-8/1/1997 7-8/1/1997

有 Yes 40.8% 46.7% 63.3%

冇 No 24.7% 35.5% 10.2%

難講/不肯定 Hard to say/Not sure 34.5% 17.8% 26.5%

7-7 79

March 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE 在一九九四年一月，民意研究組曾就本港不同組

織的公信力進行民意調查，九七年初，研究組再進行同類調查，測試三年來民意的轉變。

在九七年一月的最新民意調查顯示，幾個由中方成立的架構，包括籌委、推委及港事顧問的公信力均相當接近，認為此三個組織具有公信力的均約為百分之二十左右，此比率亦與三年前測試預委會的公信力相近。在九四年的調查，有二成一的被訪者認為預委會有公信力；在九七年認為籌委會有公信力的有二成四，而認為推選委員會有公信力的有二成一。

相對而言，在市民心目中司法部門的公信力最高。在九四的調查中，認為司法部門有公信力的有五成三，此比率高出所有在該次調查的其他組織。而在九七年一月，司法部門同樣獲市民認為最具公信力的組織，有七成半被訪者認為司法部門有公信力。對比兩次調查，

In January 1994, the POP Team conducted an opinion survey on the credibility of various organizations. In early 1997, the survey was repeated in order to measure opinion changes within the past three years.

Our latest survey shows that the credibility of various bodies set up by the Chinese government, including the Preparatory Committee, the Selection Committee, and the Hong Kong Affairs Advisers, was very similar, at around 20% level. This was very close to the credibility of the Preliminary Working Committee three years ago.

In contrast, the judiciary was perceived as the most credible in both the 1994 and 1997 surveys. In fact, there was a substantial increase of 23 percent over the past three years.

7-7 79

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年三月號發現認為司法部門有公信力的被訪者在三年間提升了二十三個百分點。

在行政立法方面，雖然行政局議員全部由港督委任，但其公信力亦與立法局接近。在九四年的調查中，有四成二被訪者認為行政局具公信力，認為立法局具公信力的有四成八；在九七年初，認為行政局具公信力的有六成半，認為立法局有公信力的有六成六。兩個機構在三年間的公信力均提升了約二十個百分點。

在最新的調查中，臨時立法會的公信力只有二成二，幾乎等同其他中方委任的組織。

至於港督彭定康與特首董建華的公信力又如何？在九七年一月的調查中，認為董建華有公信力的有六成三，認為彭定康有公信力的有四成七，二人差距為十七個百分點。

Even though all the Executive Councillors were appointed by the Governor, their credibility was almost the same as that of the Legislative Councillors. In early 1997, both councils enjoyed a public credibility of over 65%, which was an increase of about 20 percent over three years.

As for the Provisional Legislature, our latest survey shows that only 22% of the respondents said it was credible, which was very similar to the credibility of the other organizations set up by the Chinese government.

Using the same measurement, Governor Chris Patten enjoyed a public credibility of 47%, while the HKSAR Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa had 63% in early 1997. The difference was 17 percent.

市民對投資的認識及意見調查People’s Knowledge and Opinion of the Investment Market

香港電台自本年一月起與民意研究組合作進行一系列民意調查，以瞭解市民對投資的認識及對本港投資環境的意見。此系列至二月份共完成了三次調查，以下各表總結了主要的調查結果。第一及第二次調查的被訪對象為十八歲以上操粵語香港投資者或準投資者，第三次調查的對象則是十八歲以上操粵語香港投資者。

In collaboration with Radio Television Hong Kong,

the POP Team has conducted a series of surveys on

people’s knowledge of, and opinion about, the local

investment market. Target respondents of the first two

surveys were actual and potential investors aged 18 and

above, while the third survey concentrated only on actual

investors.


答對Correct

答錯Wrong

不知道Don’t know

問題:「中央結算」係邊一個金融投資市場既結算系統?〔答案: 股票 (包括證券)〕 15.0% 5.8% 79.1%Question: Which financial investment market does the “Central Clearing & Settlement System” belong to? [Answer: Stocks (including securities)]

問題:「日轉期匯」係邊一個機構既產品? 〔答案: 期貨交易所(期交所)〕 5.2% 7.6% 87.2%Question: Which institution does the product “Automated Trading System” belong to? [Answer: Futures Exchange Ltd.]

問題: 係基金投資市場中，除左證監會外，邊個機構負責監管基金經理既操作? 〔答案: 獨立信託人(信託人)〕

0.2% 24.4% 75.3%

Question: In the fund investment market, besides the Securities and Futures Commission, which institution is responsible for regulating the operation of fund managers [Answer: independent trustee (trustee)]

80 7-8


調查日期Date of survey: 11-12/2/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 571 回應率Response rate: 53.4%問題: 你認為現時政府對金融市場既監管係過於嚴厲、適中、定係過於寬鬆呢？Question: Do you think the Government’s regulation of the present monetary market is too strict, too lenient, or appropriate?

過於嚴厲 Too strict 2.2% 適中 Appropriate 57.4%

過於寬鬆 Too lenient 25.6% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 14.8%

問題: (只問答過於寬鬆者) 你認為政府最好用乜野方法加強監管金融市場？Question: (For respondents who answered “too lenient” in the above question) How do you think should the Government increase its regulation over the monetary market?

加重徵罰 Increase punishment

19.2% 提高賠償Increase compensation

16.5% 增加法例 Increase legislation

51.5%

其他 Others 5.4% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 7.4%

問題: 請你用 0至 10分評價你對目前香港金融市場監管制度既信心。0分代表絕對冇信心，10分代表有絕對信心，5分代表一半半，你既信心有幾多？Question: Please rate from 0 - 10 your confidence towards the current regulation on the Hong Kong monetary market. 0 means absolutely not confident, 10 means absolutely confident

平均數 Mean= 6.3 眾數 Mode = 5.0

調查日期Date of survey: 24-27/2/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 503 回應率Response rate: 45.3%問題: 選擇投資項目既時候，你認為邊個因素最重要？Question: When choosing an investment item, which factor do you consider to be the most important?

回報能力 Rate of return 37.6% 風險 Risk 26.7%

長線利益 Long-term benefits 19.6% 所需費用 Necessary expenses 3.0%其他人意見 Opinion of others 4.0% 其他因素 Other factors 2.6%

唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 6.5%

問題: 乜野消息最影嚮你既投資抉擇? Question: What kind of news affect your investment decisions the most?

大眾傳媒的報導 Report in the mass media

36.1% 專業人士意見(投資顧問，經紀等) Opinion of professionals (investment consultants, brokers,etc.)

24.5%

親友傳聞 News spread among relatives and friends

9.9% 股票的招股書，基金的發售文件，產品介紹書等Prospectuses of stocks, selling documents of mutual funds, introductory articles of products

8.2%

其他 Others 12.4% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 8.9%

市民對中、英、港、台政府的信任程度Trust in Chinese, British, Hong Kong & Taiwan Governments


中國Chinese

英國British

香港Hong Kong

台灣Taiwan

一月份調查Survey in January

31.6% 33.6% 69.7% -

二月份第一次調查 22.2% 25.8% 56.7% -

7-9 81

March 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE 1st Survey in February二月份第二次調查2nd Survey in February

- - - 19.4%

7-9 81

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年三月號市民對「一國兩制」及香港前途的信心

Confidence in “One Country, Two Systems” & Hong Kong’s Future

調查日期 Date of survey: 7-8/1/97, 26/1/97, 3-4/2/97, 20/2/97, 24/2/97整體黎講,你對一國兩制/香港前途有冇信心 On the whole, do you have confidence in ‘one-country, two systems’/HK’s future?

一國兩制 One country, two systems 香港前途 Hong Kong’s future一月份第一次調查 1st survey in January 54.1% 72.6%

一月份第二次調查 2nd survey in January 47.2% 66.8%

二月份第一次調查 1st survey in February 51.4% 67.0%

二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in February 69.9% 82.7%

二月份第三次調查 3rd survey in February 67.4% 79.7%


調查日期 Date of survey 支持度 Support rating 按月平均分 Monthly average一月份第一次調查 1st survey in January 7-8/1/97 58.2 59.4



董建華評分Ratings of Tung Chee-hwa

調查日期 Date of survey 支持度 Support rating 按月平均分 Monthly average一月份第一次調查 1st survey in January 7-8/1/97 64.2 64.4




調查日期 Date of survey 第一階段訪問日期（提

名）First Stage (Naming) :

18-19/2/97

九七年三月份調查結果Result from the survey in March 97

累積過去十二個月(六次)調查結果Accumulated results in the past 12 months

(6 surveys)

第二階段訪問期（評分）Second Stage (Rating):

3-4/3/97

支持數Support

標準誤差Standard

error

總人數Total

sample

評分人數Raters

認知率Recognition

上榜次數No. of time on the list

平均支持度Average

support rating

平均認知度Average rate of

recognitionQian Qichen 錢其琛 63.8 0.9 536 354 66.0% 5 59.3 67.6%Zhu Rongji 朱鎔基 62.1 1.0 536 303 56.5% 1 62.1 56.5%Jiang Zemin 江澤民 59.8 0.9 536 414 77.2% 6 55.2 72.9%Lu Ping 魯平 54.5 1.0 536 404 75.4% 6 50.5 74.9%Li Peng 李鵬 44.3 1.1 536 390 72.8% 6 42.1 74.6%

82 7-10

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年三月號首五名平均分Top 5 average

56.9 69.6%

82 7-10



調查日期 Date of survey第一階段訪問日期（提名）First stage (naming):

3-4/2/97

九七年二月份調查結果Result from the survey in February 97

累積過去十二個月( 六次)調查結果Accumulated results in the past 12 months

(6 surveys)

第二階段訪問日期（評分）Second stage (rating):

18-19/2/97

支持數Support


error

總人數Total

sample

評分人數Raters


上榜次數No. of time on

the list


support rating


recognitionDP 民主黨 57.9 1.0 534 404 75.7% 6 58.8 73.2%DABHK 民建聯 53.2 1.0 534 328 61.4% 6 54.0 59.7%ADPL 民協 51.8 0.9 534 310 58.1% 6 53.6 52.5%LP 自由黨 50.7 1.0 534 363 68.0% 6 51.6 63.9%Frontier 前線 50.6 1.4 534 235 44.0% 1 50.6 44.0%

首五名平均分Top 5 average

52.8 61.4%

ADPL = Hong Kong Association for Democracy & People's Livelihood 香港民主民生協進會DABHK = Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong 民主建港聯盟DP = Democratic Party 民主黨Frontier = Frontier 前線LP = Liberal Party 自由黨


調查日期 Date of survey第一階段訪問日期（提名）First stage (naming):

17-20/1/97

九七年二月份調查結果Result from the survey in February 97

累積過去十二個月(六次)調查結果Accumulated results in the past 12 months

(6 surveys)

第二階段訪問日期（評分）Second stage (rating):

3-4/2/97

支持數Support


error

總人數Total

sample

評分人數Raters




support rating


recognitionLau Chin-shek 劉千石 64.6 0.8 536 444 82.8% 6 63.7 78.5%Christine Loh 陸恭蕙 63.2 0.8 536 429 80.0% 6 62.9 75.3%Emily Lau 劉慧卿 62.5 1.0 536 453 84.5% 6 64.2 77.6%Martin Lee 李柱銘 60.9 0.9 536 464 86.6% 6 61.1 82.2%Lee Wing-tat 李永達 59.7 0.9 536 374 69.8% 1 59.7 69.8%Sezto Wah 司徒華 58.7 1.0 536 467 87.1% 6 59.9 82.5%Selina Chow 周梁淑怡 56.5 0.7 536 431 80.4% 5 56.7 71.2%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 51.6 0.9 536 441 82.3% 6 54.1 75.3%Andrew Wong 黃宏發 48.6 1.0 536 431 80.4% 5 56.1 69.7%Lau Wong-fat 劉皇發 47.2 1.0 536 389 72.6% 1 47.2 72.6%

7-11 83

March 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE 首五名平均分Top 5 average

62.2 80.7%

首十名平均分Top 10 average

57.3 80.7%

7-11 83

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年三月號九七年二月份社研定期調查之樣本數據 Contact information for POP tracking polls conducted in February 1997

第一次 First poll 第二次 First poll日期 Date of survey 3-4/2/97 18-19/2/97

訪問對象 Target population 十八歲以上之香港居民 Hong Kong population aged 18 or above調查方法 Survey method 電話訪問 Telephone survey抽樣方法 Sampling method 從住宅電話簿中隨機抽出號碼，再用電腦配套另一部份。當成功接觸目標住戶後，

再用出生日期抽取其中一名被訪者接受訪問。Telephone numbers were selected randomly from telephone directories and additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.




《民意快訊》編輯委員會 Editorial Committee of POP Express

鳴謝 Acknowledgement 主編 Editor : 鍾庭耀 Chung Ting-yiu Robert 香港電台副編 Assistant Editors : 陳夢施 Chan Mung-sze Natalie

楊針岩 Yeung Chin-arm PatrickRadio Television Hong Kong

(贊助市民對投資的編務助理 Editorial Assistant : 李德成 Lee Tak-shing Patrick 認識及意見調查) 電話 Telephone : 2859 2988, 2859 2989 (for sponsoring opinion surveys 傳真 Fax : 2858 4327, 2517 6951 on people’s knowledge and 地址 Address : 香港薄扶林道，香港大學黃子明樓 8 樓，

社會科學研究中心Social Sciences Research Centre, 8/F, Wong Chue Meng Bldg.,the University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong.

opinion of theinvestment market)

《民意快訊》一至六期合訂本現已有售 POP EXPRESS NO.1 TO NO.6 BOUND VOLUME NOW AVAILABLE 訂閱表格 Order Form

本人欲訂購《民意快訊》第一至六期合訂本連剪報_______本自取 pick-up ($145@) I would like to order _______ copies of POP EXPRESS No.1 to No. 6 Bound Volume with Newspaper Clippings

郵寄本港 by post, local ($155@) 郵寄海外 by post, overseas ($225@)

本人欲預訂第八至十九期《民意快訊》_______份自取 pick-up ($144@) I would like to order _______ sets of POP EXPRESS No.8 to No. 19 郵寄本港 by post, local ($180@)

郵寄海外 by post, overseas ($250@)

　　姓名 Name:_______________________________________ 聯絡電話 Contact Tel. no.:____________________________

　　職位 Position :_____________________________________ 傳真 Fax:__________________________________________

　　機構 Organization:_____________________________________________________________________________________

　　地址 Address: _________________________________________________________________________________________

　　　　　　　　_________________________________________________________________________________________

　　*付款方式: 如劃線支票付款，抬頭請寫「香港大學」84 7-12

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年三月號　　*Payment method: Cheques should be crossed and payable to “The University of Hong Kong”.

84 7-12

April 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE




市民對香港新聞傳媒的評價 1-4 Opinion Surveys on the News Media in Hong Kong

主要的新聞來源 2-3 Main Source of News

對各新聞傳媒的信任程度 3 Trustworthiness of Different Types of News Media

對各新聞傳媒表現的滿意程度 4 Performance of Different Types of News Media

市民對平穩過渡的信心 8 Confidence in a Smooth Transition

¥ «¥ Á¹ ï· s» D¶ Ç Cª ºº ¡· Nµ {« ×Satisfaction with different News Media

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

12/93 1-6/94 7-12/94 1-6/95 7-12/95 1-6/96 7-12/96 1-4/97

¹ qµ øTV

¹ q¥ xRadio

³ ø³ ¹Newspaper

Â ø» xMagazine

¾ ãÅ éª í² {Overall

8-1 85

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年四月號


香港主權回歸日近，各方人士開始關注言論及新聞自由日後的發展，及本地新聞傳媒的表現。

民意研究小組自九三年開始便不斷測試市民對本地新聞傳媒的滿意程度，為傳媒學者及社會人士提供參考數據。

《民意快訊》今期把過去四年有關市民對各種新聞傳媒表現的數據綜合發表，並會在日後按次提供最新調查資料，作為定期監察有關民意的發展。此外，有關言論及新聞自由的統計亦會在日後陸續公佈。

本刊今期亦附上有關本刊內容的讀者意見調查問卷乙份（第十二頁），懇請各讀者踴躍回覆，集思廣益。

鍾庭耀

As the reversion of sovereignty approaches, people are becoming more and more concerned about the future of press freedom in Hong Kong.

Since 1993, our POP Team has been monitoring the performance of our local news media with a set of opinion questions repeated once every two months. In this issue, we have summarized part of our findings accumulated in the past four years, for the reference of media scholars and the general public. We will release our data on the freedom of expression, and freedom of the press in the near future.

This issue also carries a questionnaire (p.12) which we hope all readers would complete and return to us. Findings from this miniature readership survey would be of great value to us in planning our future issues.

Thank you in anticipation.


市民對香港新聞傳媒的評價Opinion Surveys on the News Media in Hong Kong

自九三年十二月開始，民意研究小組不斷就市民對香港傳媒的意見進行調查，其中包括瞭解他們的主要新聞來源及對各種傳媒表現的滿意程度等。

過去三年的調查發現，電視是香港市民最重要的新聞來源，接著順序是報章、電台及雜誌。至於其他，例如朋友及家人均只是少數香港市民的新聞來源

此外，調查亦訪問市民在各種渠道的消息出現予盾時。他們覺得那一個新聞來源最值得信任。調查發現，市民最信任的傳媒依次為電視、報章、電台及雜誌，與主要新聞來源的次序相同。由此推論，市民一般都覺得自己的主要新聞來源最可靠，但亦有成半至二成半表示不能判別那個來源最可信。

Since December 1993, the POP team has been conducting regular surveys on people’s evaluation of the news media in Hong Kong.

According to the findings in the past three years, television continued to be the main source of news for Hong Kong people. It is followed by newspapers, radio, and then magazines. Other sources like friends and family members were only of nominal importance.

Where there was a conflict of information, most respondents would believe in television reports, then reports in newspapers, radio, and magazines. This shows that people trusted their main source of information, but about 15% to 20% of the respondents did not know what to trust in that situation.

86 8-2


主要的新聞來源 Main source of news 調查日期 Date of survey 12/93 1-6/94 7-12/94 1-6/95 7-12/95 1-6/96 7-12/96 1-4/97

調查次數 No. of surveys 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2

樣本數目 Sample size 600 1551 1606 1644 1,640 1645 1578 1,061

回應率 Response rate 55.0% 59.6% 53.4% 51.9% 54.7% 55.7% 44.1% 44.0%

那一種渠道是你的主要新聞來源？(可選多項) Which of the following channels are your main source of news? (Multiple response)　電視 Television 40.5% 42.9% 43.6% 41.5% 41.2% 40.9% 40.4% 39.6%

　電台 Radio 15.2% 14.4% 13.4% 13.0% 14.7% 14.9% 15.4% 14.1%

　報章 Newspapers 31.6% 33.6% 33.7% 33.9% 31.6% 32.1% 33.4% 33.5%

　雜誌 Magazines 4.6% 3.5% 4.4% 5.2% 4.5% 4.8% 4.8% 6.0%

　朋友 Friends 3.6% 2.9% 2.3% 3.1% 4.0% 3.7% 2.9% 3.5%

　家人 Family members 2.6% 1.7% 1.9% 2.1% 3.2% 2.3% 2.0% 2.8%

　其他 Others 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3%

　唔知/難講　Don’t know/Hard to say 1.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 1.2% 0.6% 0.5%

就上述四種主要新聞傳媒的表現來看，市民對電子傳媒的滿意程度比文字傳媒的表現高。平均有六成八市民表示滿意電視的表現；電台方面，平均亦有五成二市民表示滿意其表現。至於文字傳媒方面，雖然報章為市民第二重要之新聞來源，但平均只有四成三市民滿意其表現。有一成表示不滿。市民對雜誌的滿意程度為各種傳媒最低，平均只有一成一市民滿意，兩成一表示普通及二成九成表示不滿。綜合而言，平均有六成三市民表示滿意香港新聞傳媒的整體表現，另有二成七表示普通，只有四個百分比不滿意傳媒的整體表現。由此看來，香港市民一般都是滿意新聞傳媒的表現。

With respect to the performance of the four different types of news media, people were generally more satisfied with the electronic media than the printed media. An average of 68% were satisfied with television, followed by 52% with radio, 43% with newspapers, and then 11% with magazines, a rate very low by any standard. Generally speaking, however, people were fairly satisfied with the overall performance of the news media, as 63% of the respondents, on average, said they were satisfied, while only 4% said they were not.

最值得信任的新聞渠道 Most trustworthy source of news

調查日期 Date of survey 12/93 1-6/94 7-12/94 1-6/95 7-12/95 1-6/96 7-12/96 1-4/97

如果各種渠道既消息有矛盾，你覺得邊一個新聞來源最值得信任？When there is a conflict of information, which of the following news channels do you trust most?　電視 Television 50.3% 45.0% 46.8% 43.5% 42.8% 47.5% 40.5% 42.6%

　電台 Radio 9.2% 7.2% 6.8% 6.4% 8.8% 7.7% 8.9% 6.9%

　報章 Newspapers 16.8% 22.1% 22.5% 22.4% 18.2% 19.6% 20.7% 21.5%

　雜誌 Magazines 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3%

　朋友 Friends 1.3% 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.9%

　家人 Family members 0.6% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.8% 1.4%

　其他 Others 4.1% 5.3% 4.5% 5.6% 7.5% 4.7% 3.1% 3.5%

8-3 87


　唔知/難講　Don’t know/Hard to say 17.3% 18.6% 17.1% 20.0% 21.1% 18.9% 25.3% 23.1%

8-3 87


新聞傳媒的整體表現 Overall performance of the news media 調查日期 Date of survey 12/93 1-6/94 7-12/94 1-6/95 7-12/95 1-6/96 7-12/96 1-4/97

問題：你滿唔滿意新聞傳媒的整體表現？Are you satisfied with the overall performance of the news media?

　滿意 Satisfied 65.8% 61.1% 65.7% 59.2% 55.5% 62.2% 63.7% 66.8%

　普通 Average 24.1% 27.4% 26.5% 28.3% 32.6% 28.1% 27.7% 23.8%

　唔滿意 Dissatisfied 2.6% 3.3% 2.9% 5.2% 5.4% 4.3% 4.0% 4.0%

　唔知／難講　Don’t know/Hard to say 7.5% 8.1% 4.9% 7.3% 6.5% 5.4% 4.6% 5.6%

對香港電子及文字傳媒的滿意程度 Satisfaction with the electronic and printed media 調查日期 Date of survey 12/93 1-6/94 7-12/94 1-6/95 7-12/95 1-6/96 7-12/96 1-4/97

問題：你滿唔滿意 XXX 既表現？Are you satisfied with the performance of XXX?

電視 Television

　滿意 Satisfied 69.6% 66.9% 70.2% 63.9% 63.8% 68.3% 69.7% 72.8%

　普通 Average 20.0% 21.1% 19.8% 23.2% 21.6% 21.0% 18.5% 18.1%



電台 Radio

　滿意 Satisfied 56.0% 48.1% 47.4% 50.8% 50.2% 52.2% 53.0% 54.1%

　普通 Average 18.8% 18.9% 20.0% 20.7% 21.2% 18.6% 18.1% 16.3%



報章 Newspaper

　滿意 Satisfied 39.6% 42.8% 46.7% 45.4% 41.8% 42.4% 43.7% 44.6%

　普通 Average 29.9% 27.8% 28.4% 29.5% 31.1% 32.9% 31.3% 27.8%


　唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say

20.3% 21.1% 14.4% 16.1% 16.5% 15.3% 13.6% 16.3%

雜誌 Magazine

　滿意 Satisfied 11.5% 11.7% 12.1% 11.3% 9.3% 9.5% 8.9% 13.2%

　普通 Average 21.9% 18.9% 22.0% 20.3% 21.8% 20.6% 20.6% 20.5%


　唔知／難講 41.8% 48.6% 37.6% 34.4% 39.3% 38.2% 38.4% 38.6%

88 8-4

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年四月號　Don’t know/Hard to say

88 8-4


市民對退休保障制度的意見調查Survey on People’s Opinion on Pension Schemes

調查日期 Date of survey: 20-21/1/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 549 回應率 Response rate : 46.9%

你認為一個理想既退休保障制度應該可以係退休後每月羅番你現時人工既幾多成？ Under an ideal pension scheme, what percentage of your present salary should you get per month after retirement?

一成 1/10 3.1% 二成 2/10 2.8% 三成 3/10 8.4%

四成 4/10 7.0% 五成 5/10 22.2% 六成 6/10 5.7%

七成 7/10 8.8% 八成 8/10 4.9% 九成 9/10 0.7%

十成 10/10 1.6% 唔知 Don't know 24.7% 愈多愈好 The more, the better 9.9%

你認為市民應唔應該承擔呢個制度既投資風險同行政費用？ Do you think the public should bear the risk of investment and the administrative costs of this pension scheme?

應該 Yes 49.7% 唔應該 No 35.3% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 15.0%

你認為退休保障制度既管理同投資應該由政府定私人機構負責？ In your opinion, should the government or a private firm be responsible for the management and investment of the pension scheme?

政府 The government 68.7% 私人 Private firm 12.3%

冇所謂 Doesn’t matter 9.3% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 9.6%

你認為傷殘人士/家庭主婦應唔應該同其他市民一樣享有退休既保障？ Do you think handicapped people/housewives should also be covered by pension schemes? 傷殘人士 Handicapped people 家庭主婦 Housewives

應該 Yes 96.7% 48.4%

唔應該 No 1.1% 37.7%


以下幾個退休計劃，你認為邊個比較好？ Which of the following pension schemes do you think is the best?

自願性私營退休金計劃 Voluntary Private Pension Scheme

14.5% 強制性私營退休金計劃Mandatory Private Pension Scheme

7.7%

中央公積金 Central Provident Fund

47.4% 強制老人退休金Mandatory Pension Scheme for the Elderly

12.2%

唔了解／唔明有什麼分別 Don’t understand the difference

13.7% 唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say

4.5%

請問你清唔清楚以上提及果幾個方案既分別？ Do you know the difference among the above pension schemes?

好清楚 Very clear 7.7% 幾清楚 Quite clear 43.1%

唔係幾清楚Not quite clear 35.6% 唔清楚 Not at all 13.6%

請問你覺得退休保障制度應該由誰制訂？ Who do you think should be responsible for designing the pension scheme?

現時香港政府 Existing Hong Kong Government

12.2% 未來特區政府Future SAR Government

45.3%

中英雙方政府負責制訂 31.0% 其他答案 Other answers 1.8%

8-5 89


Chinese and British governments together 唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 9.6%

8-5 89


市民對填海的意見調查Survey on People’s Opinions on Harbour Reclamation

90 8-6

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年四月號保護海港協會委託民意研究小組進行一項有關市

民對填海的意見調查。調查問卷及方法是研究組在諮詢協會後獨立設計及進行研究，以電話訪問形式進行。

一千多名被訪者當中，有六成九不贊成繼續於維多利亞港進行填海工程；在不贊成繼續填海的被訪者中，五成七表示填海會令海港航道縮窄，構成危險；另外二成七認為填海會破壞海港的景觀，失去海港原來面貌；其餘亦有一成一表示填海會造成環境污染，破壞生態環境；

當被訪者被給予三種發展都市的方法選擇時，其中兩種方法均較獲被訪者支持，有四成九認為發展新界較適合本港，另外亦有四成二選擇市區重建為最適合發展都市的方法，只有兩個百分比的被訪者選擇在維多利亞港填海。另外，九成一的被訪者認為政府在進行填海計劃之前應事先諮詢市民的意見。

由於保護海港協會要求本研究組探討市民對協會所提出的《保護海港條例草案》的一點意見，故在調查的問卷設計上，特意從條例中選取了一些概念，以測試被訪者的看法。結果發現，在監察政府的填海計劃方面，八成被訪者認為填海計劃應該先通過立法局的批准，始可進行；八成半則認為政府應成立一　個由專業人士及公眾所組成的委員會，以監察填海計劃。

在法例保障方面，九成三的被訪者均同意政府應訂立法例以保護海港的環境；而七成半則表示條例內應列明只有在沒有其他更佳的辦法時方可進行填海。

The POP Team was commissioned by the Society for Protection of the Harbour to conduct a public opinion survey on reclamation. The survey was designed and conducted independently by the POP Team after consultation with the Society.

A total of 69% of the interviewees disagreed to further reclamation of the Victoria Harbour. Among them, 57% believed that reclamation would narrow the shipping channel and make navigation dangerous. Another 27% said reclamation would destroy the scenic beauty of the harbour. A further 11% indicated that reclamation would cause environmental pollution and destroy the ecological environment.

When respondents were given three choices of urban development, 49% indicated that development in the New Territories would be more suitable for Hong Kong, while another 42% chose urban redevelopment. Only 2% chose the reclamation of the Victoria Harbour. Besides, 91% of the respondents believed that the government should consult the public prior to the implementation of any reclamation.

The POP Team also tested some key concepts extracted from the proposed “Protection of the Harbour Bill”. Results show 80% agreed that prior approval from the Legislative Council should be obtained before any reclamation plan could be implemented; 85% indicated that the government should set up a committee comprising professionals and representatives from the public to supervise all reclamation plans. While 93% agreed that the government should pass legislation to protect the environment of the harbour, 75% indicated that legislation should be passed stating that reclamation should only take place if there is no better alternative.

調查日期 Date of survey: 1-4/4/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 1002 回應率 Reponse rate: 58.4%

你贊唔贊成繼續響維多利亞港進行填海？ Do you agree to further reclamation of the Victoria Harbour?

贊成 Agree 9.0% 唔贊成 Disagree 69.3%

一半半 Half-half 2.1% 無意見 No opinion 19.6%

90 8-6

April 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPEICAL ISSUE

點解贊成填海？ Why do you agree? 點解唔贊成填海？ Why do you disagree?

增加土地 Increase land supply 84.4% 破壞海港美觀 Destroy the scenic beauty of harbour 27.3%

最經濟方法 Most economical means 1.2% 航道太窄 (危險/大浪)Navigation channel too narrow (dangerous/huge waves)

57.2%

最快捷方法 Quickest way 2.4% 製造環境污染 Cause pollution to environment 10.9%

其他原因 Other reasons 12.1% 影響旅遊事業 Affect tourist industry 0.1%

其他原因 Other reasons 4.4%

以下三種發展都市既方法, 你認為邊種最適合香港？ Of the following three methods of urban development, which one do you think is the most suitable for Hong Kong?

係維多利亞港填海 Reclaim Victoria Harbour 1.9% 其他方法 Other ways 0.2%

發展新界 Develop the New Territories 48.8% 唔知/難講 Don’t know 7.4%

市區重建 Urban redevelopment 41.7%

你認為政府係進行填海計劃之前應唔應該事先諮詢市民既意見？ Do you think the government should consult the public before the implementation of any reclamation plans?

應該 Yes 90.6% 唔應該 No 3.3% 無意見 No opinion 6.1%

你認為填海計劃應唔應該先通過立法局批准先可以進行？ Do you think prior approval from the Legislative Council should be obtained before any reclamation plans could be implemented?


你認為應唔應該成立一個由專業人士及公眾所組成既委員會監察所有填海計劃？ Do you think the government should set up a committee comprising professionals and representatives from the public to supervise all reclamation plans?


你認為應唔應該訂立法例保護海港環境？ Do you think the government should pass legislation to protect the environment of the harbour?


你認為應唔應該訂立法例寫明係冇其他更佳辦法時先至進行填海？ Do you think legislation should be passed stating that reclamation of the harbour should only take place if there is no better alternative?


港督彭定康評分Ratings of the Governor Chris Patten




二月份第一次調查 1st survey in February 3-4/2/97 59.1 59.2


三月份第一次調查 1st survey in March 3-4/3/97 59.2 59.8

三月份第二次調查 2nd survey in March 17-18/3/97 59.5 （三月 March）三月份第三次調查 3rd survey in March 26/3/97 60.8

四月份第一次調查 1st survey in April 10-15/4 58.6 58.6

8-7 91

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年四月號市民對平穩過渡的信心

Confidence in a Smooth Transition

92 8-8

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年四月號本刊於九六年十二月號總結了自回歸前一千日

起，至二百日每隔一百日市民對平穩過渡的信心。自回歸倒數一百日後，研究小組對此問題的調查已改為每隔二十五日進行一次。所以，今期提供的兩個最新數字是回歸前一百日及七十五日市民對平穩過渡的信心。

三月中回歸前一百日時有六成三的被訪者表示對平穩過渡有信心，比回歸前二百日的六成六減少，但至回歸前七十五日的調查，有信心的人數又回升至六成半，整體趨勢仍然是向上升的。雖然表示有信心的人數間有起伏，但沒有信心的人數自回歸前三百日至今卻不斷下降。

Starting from approximately 1000 days in the countdown to the transition of sovereignty, the POP Team has been monitoring the public’s confidence in a smooth transition once every 100 days. Results up to 200 days before the transition have been published in our December issue of our POP Express. Starting from the 100th day countdown, we have stepped up our survey to once every 25 days, and our latest results are summarized below.

In mid-March, approximately 100 days before the transition, 63% of the respondents expressed confidence in a smooth transition, slightly less than the 66% registered 100 days earlier. But near the 75th day, the figure rose again, to 65%. Although there were ups and downs in the number of optimistic people, pessimism continued to drop since the 300th day.

回歸前 X日(約數)X days before

handover (approx.)

調查日期Date of survey

樣本數目Sample

size

回應率Response

rate

有信心Confident

一半半Half-half

冇信心Not confident

唔知/難講Don’t know/ Hard to say

1000 5/1094 1716 75.5% 34.9% 25.0% 24.7% 15.4%900 9-12/1/95 554 63.5% 45.2% 32.5% 14.5% 7.8%800 18-19/4/95 640 51.8% 42.7% 24.3% 22.8% 10.2%700 27-28/6/95 990 57.8% 41.1% 19.8% 17.8% 21.2%600 6-7/11/95 550 53.6% 43.6% 25.3% 21.3% 9.9%500 15-16/2/96 560 65.3% 44.4% 22.4% 21.2% 12.0%400 8-9/5/96 538 50.8% 55.0% 19.9% 15.3% 9.7%300 28-29/8/96 515 52.7% 58.4% 17.6% 18.2% 5.8%200 11/12/96 1301 65.3% 66.0% 16.3% 10.2% 7.6%100 17-18/3/97 502 42.9% 62.7% 21.5% 9.7% 6.2%75 10-15/4/97 525 42.3% 65.4% 18.6% 9.0% 7.1%





二月份第一次調查 1st survey in February 3-4/2/97 58.5 60.1


三月份第一次調查 1st survey in March3-4/3/97 61.6 60.0

三月份第二次調查 2nd survey in March17-18/3/97 57.7 （三月 March）

三月份第三次調查 3rd survey in March26/3/97 60.6

四月份第一次調查 1st survey in April10-15/4/97 57.9 (待定 Pending)

92 8-8



調查日期 Date of survey: 3-4/2/97, 20/2/97, 24/2/97, 3-4/3/97, 19-20/3/97

整體黎講, 你對一國兩制/香港前途有冇信心 On the whole, do you have confidence in ‘one-country, two systems’/HK’s future?

一國兩制 One country, two systems 香港前途 Hong Kong’s future

二月份第一次調查 1st survey in February 51.4% 67.0%

二月份第二次調查 2nd survey in February 69.9% 82.7%

二月份第三次調查 3rd survey in February 67.4% 79.7%

三月份第一次調查 1st survey in March 63.4% 72.9%

三月份第二次調查 2nd survey in March - 73.1%

市民對中、英、港、台政府的信任程度Trust in Chinese, British, Hong Kong and Taiwan Governments


中國Chinese

英國British

香港Hong Kong

台灣Taiwan

二月份調查Survey in February

22.2% 25.8% 56.7% -

二月份調查Survey in February

- - - 19.4%

三月份調查Survey in March

34.2% 32.4% 67.5% -


Date of survey on March First stage (naming)

Result from the survey in March 1997 Accumulated results in this year(6 surveys)三月第一階段訪問日期（提名）:

3-4/3/97 九七年三月份調查結果累積今年(六次)調查結果

Date of survey on MarchSecond stage (rating)

Support Standard error

Total sample

No. of raters


list


Average rate of recognition

三月第二階段訪問日期（評分）: 17-18/3/97

支持度標準誤差總人數評分人數認知度上榜次數平均支持度平均認知度Tung Chee-hwa 董建華 62.2 1.1 502 383 76.3% 4 62.6 70.0%Frederick Fung 馮檢基 54.6 1.0 502 331 65.9% 3 56.1 67.3%Rita Fan 范徐麗泰 53.3 1.2 502 367 73.1% 5 55.4 70.0%Tam Yiu-chung 譚耀宗 52.6 1.0 502 321 63.9% 5 55.7 63.6%Lee Ka-shing 李嘉誠 51.6 1.1 502 335 66.7% 6 55.2 68.9%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 51.2 1.0 502 351 69.9% 6 53.1 72.5%Jasper Tsang 曾鈺成 50.0 1.1 502 306 61.0% 6 51.2 62.1%Henry Fok 霍英東 49.2 1.2 502 299 59.6% 6 52.1 62.0%

8-9 93


Maria Tam 譚惠珠 47.9 1.1 502 348 69.3% 6 49.9 67.9%Liza Wong 汪明荃 44.3 1.2 502 354 70.5% 3 45.0 70.5%Top 5 Average 首五名平均分 54.8 69.2%Top 10 Average 首十名平均分 51.7 67.6%

8-9 93


十大香港特別行政區臨時立法局議員評分Ratings of the Top Ten Members of HKSAR Provisional Legislative Council

Date of survey on MarchFirst stage (naming)

Result from the survey in March 1997 Accumulated results in this year(2 surveys)三月第一階段訪問日期（提名）:

3-4/3/97 九七年三月份調查結果累積今年(兩次)調查結果

Date of survey on MarchSecond stage (rating)


Total sample

No. of raters

Recognition No. of time on the list


Average rate of recognition三月第二階段訪問日期（評分）:

17-18/3/97支持度標準誤差總人數評分人數認知度上榜次數平均支持度平均認知度

Elsie Tu 杜葉鍚恩 60.0 1.1 502 363 72.3% 2 59.3 72.4%Cheng Kai-nam 程介南 56.3 1.0 502 327 65.1% 2 56.5 66.7%Frederick Fung 馮檢基 56.3 1.0 502 327 65.1% 2 55.1 67.3%Selina Chow 周梁淑怡 54.7 1.0 502 361 71.9% 2 56.2 73.8%Tam Yiu-chung 譚耀宗 53.0 1.1 502 325 64.7% 2 53.5 66.3%Rita Fan 范徐麗泰 50.3 1.3 502 359 71.5% 2 52.7 71.4%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 50.3 1.1 502 367 73.1% 2 50.4 72.1%Maria Tam 譚惠珠 48.8 1.2 502 349 69.5% 2 49.8 70.0%Lau Wong-fat 劉皇發 46.6 1.2 502 329 65.5% 1 46.6 65.5%Andrew Wong 黃宏發 45.7 1.2 502 365 72.7% 2 46.6 72.9%Top 5 average 首五名平均分 56.0 67.8%Top 10 average 首十名平均分 52.2 69.2%


Date of surveyFirst stage (naming)第一階段訪問日期(提名):

17-18/3/97

Result from the survey in April 1997

九七年四月份調查結果Accumulated results in the past 12 months

(3 surveys) 累積過去十二個月(三次)調查結果Second stage (rating)第二階段訪問日期(評分):

10-11,14-15/4/97

Support

支持度Standard



Recognition



Average rate of recognition 平均認知度

Anson Chan 陳方安生 69.9 0.7 525 463 88.2% 3 71.3 85.4%Lau Chin-shek 劉千石 63.6 0.9 525 425 81.0% 3 61.9 77.5%Donald Tsang 曾蔭權 61.3 0.8 525 392 74.7% 1 61.3 74.7%Christine Loh 陸恭蕙 61.1 0.8 525 398 75.8% 3 62.8 74.4%Emily Lau 劉慧卿 60.9 1.0 525 421 80.2% 3 63.6 76.8%Martin Lee 李柱銘 59.6 1.1 525 436 83.0% 3 61.2 80.9%Szeto Wah 司徒華 57.9 1.1 525 442 84.2% 3 58.8 81.6%Selina Chow 周梁淑怡 57.6 0.8 525 407 77.5% 1 57.6 77.5%Rita Fan 范徐麗泰 54.6 0.9 525 406 77.3% 1 54.6 77.3%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 54.1 0.8 525 399 76.0% 3 55.5 75.1%

Top 5 average 首五名平均分 63.4 80.0%

Top 10 average 首十名平均分 60.1 79.8%

94 8-10

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年四月號九七年三月份社研定期調查之樣本數據 Contact information for POP tracking polls conducted in March 1997

第一次調查 First poll 第二次調查 Second poll日期 Date of surveys 3-4/3/97 17-18/3/97

訪問對象 Target population 十八歲或以上之香港市民 Hong Kong population aged 18 or above調查方法 Survey method 電話訪問 Telephone survey抽樣方法 Sampling method 從住宅電話簿中隨機抽出號碼，再用電腦配套另一部份。當成功接觸目標住戶後，再用

出生日期抽取其中一名被訪者接受訪問。 Telephone numbers were selected randomly from telephone directories and additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.




民意研究計劃最新出版資料 LATEST POP PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE

《市民對填海的意見調查》


保護海港協會Society for Protection of the Habour

Opinion Survey on Habour Reclamation中文版 Chinese version: 每本 $36 per copy (贊助有關市民對填海的意見調查)

《民意快訊》第一至六期合訂本 POP EXPRESS No.1 to No.6 combined volumn

(for sponsoring opinion survey onhabour reclamation)

每本 $145 per copy




本人欲定期訂閱《民意快訊》: 由 __________年_________月至 ___________年__________月I would like to subscribe to POP Express periodically from ________________to _________________

□ 郵寄本港 by post, local ($15@) □ 郵寄海外 by post, overseas ($19@)

姓名 Name: 電話 Tel. no: 傳真 Fax no.:

機構 Organization: 職位 Position:

地址 Address:

94 8-10


*付款方式: 如劃線支票付款，抬頭請寫「香港大學」。*Payment method: Cheques should be crossed and payable to “The University of Hong Kong”.

94 8-10


讀者意見調查Readership Survey (請傳真至 Please fax to 2858 4327)

親愛的讀者：我們誠意邀請你參與《民意快訊》讀者問卷調查，你的回應是我們最大的鼓舞。You are cordially invited to take part in our readership survey. Your response will be our greatest encouragement.

1. 你是如何得知《民意快訊》（可選多項）How did you learn about the POP Express ? (Multiple answers accepted) 朋友介紹 introduced by friends 傳媒 through media 政黨或社團組織 political parties or social organizations 圖書館 library

其他途徑 other means（請列明 please specify：ˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍˍ）2. 你閱讀《民意快訊》的方式為何 How do you normally read POP Express?

快速瀏覽 quickly skim through 　整本看完 read through thoroughly　選取有興趣的部份看 read only certain articles of interest

3. 請寫出七個月以來《民意快訊》中，你印象最深、最欣賞、或最引起你興趣的三項調查或文章。 Please list the three articles or survey reports you have read in the last seven months which impressed you most: 1. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. ____________________________________________________________________________________________

4. 你覺得《民意快訊》現時十二頁紙的內容是否足夠? Do you think that 12 pages are enough for one single issue of the POP Express?

足夠 enough 　　不足夠 not enough

5. 你覺得《民意快訊》的內容如何 How would you describe the content of the POP Express?多元化 diversified 沉悶 boring 　　富趣味性 interesting 緊貼時弊 up to date 深入淺出 simple and concise 太複雜，閱讀不易 difficult to read

6. 你覺得《民意快訊》的圖表是否足夠 Do you think there are enough charts and tables?足夠 enough　　不足夠 not enough

7. 你對《民意快訊》的版面設計是否滿意（請在合適一項上加上號）。 How satisfied are you with the layout of the POP EXPRESS (please put a where appropriate ).

非常滿意 Very satisfied

幾滿意Quite satisfied

一半半Half-half

不大滿意Not quite satisfied

非常不滿意Very dissatisfied

設計編排 Layout & design字體大小 Font size紙張品質 Paper quality圖表設計Graphic design

8. 通常你的《民意快訊》會和多少人一起傳閱分享Normally, how many persons altogether would read your copy of the POP Express? ˍˍˍˍˍˍˍ人 persons (連同自已，including yourself)

你的基本資料 Basic personal information 性別Gender: 年齡Age: ________ 教育程度 Education：__________________________男Male　女 Female職業 Occupation：________________________ 開始訂閱時間 Subscription begins from : ____________

96 8-12

May 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE



本月專題調查 Special Feature of the Month

台灣問題民意調查 2-5 Surveys on the Taiwan Issues 對台灣政府的信任程度 3 Trust in the Taiwan Government

對台灣獨立的意見 3 Independence of Taiwan

對大陸與台灣統一的意見 3 Reunification of Taiwan and Mainland China

對台灣重新加入聯合國的意見 3 Whether Taiwan Should Rejoin the United Nations

港台市民對香港及台灣前途意見比較

4-5 Comparison of Hong Kong and Taiwan People’s Feeling on the Future of Hong Kong and Taiwan

1-6/93 7-12/931-6/94

7-12/941-6/95

7-12/951-6/96

7-12/961-6/97

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

» ä¥ «¥ Á¹ ï¤ j³ °© M¥ xÆW² Î¤ @ª º« H¤ ßConfidence in the Reunification of Taiwan and Mainland China

9-1 97

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年五月號


隨著「一國兩制」在港澳地區實行，國際焦點便將會慢慢地轉移到台灣問題方面。作為特別行政區的一份子，香港居民理當對國家民族的發展更加關注。

台灣獨立、西藏獨立等問題，是政治上頗為敏感的課題。特區行政長官董建華早前有關修改《公安條例》的言論中，便指出任何支持台獨的運動、甚至口號，將會在特區法律下被界定為威脅「國家安全」而遭懲罰。然而，從民意民情的角度看，台獨及藏獨是了解民族發展不可迴避的問題，因此，民意研究小組早在九三年中便開始測試市民對該等問題的看法，並不時在香港、大陸、及台灣等三地比較研究中加入有關課題。《民意快訊》今期把過去有關台灣問題的定期研究

結果整理，與去年底與《台灣聯合報》合作進行的一項港台比較研究一併發表，並會在日後按次提供最新調查結果，作為長線研究之一。

鍾庭耀

As “one country two systems” begin to operate in Hong Kong and Macau, the attention of both the local and international communities will gradually shift to the problem of Taiwan.

Needless to say, Taiwan and Tibet are very sensitive issues. In his recent comments on the Public Order Ordinance, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa has specifically mentioned that any movement, or slogans, in support of the independence movements in Taiwan or Tibet would be prohibited. Nevertheless, from a research point of view, such questions are important pointers of patriotic development and should not be avoided.

Since 1993, the POP Team has been gauging people’s opinion about such problems. In this issue, we have summarized part of our findings in relation to the Taiwan issue, and presented them together with a comparative study conducted last year. We will continue to keep our readers updated in future issues.


台灣問題民意調查Surveys on the Taiwan Issues

由九三年六月開始，本中心研究組開始就一些台灣問題進行研究，包括對台灣政府信任程度、台獨問題、台灣加入聯合國問題等。對台灣政府的信任程度方面，在九三年的第一次調查中，有三成六的被訪者表示對台灣政府信任，這個比率到九四年下半年開始下跌，在九四年下半年三次調查的平均數字顯示，對台灣政府表示信任的跌至二成三。此比率在九五年持續下跌，到本研究組在九七年最新兩次調查的平均數字顯示，表示不信任台灣政府的有四成七，只有一成七的被訪者對台灣政府表示信任。

在另一組問題中，本研究組測試市民對台灣獨立的看法。結果顯示支持台獨及台灣重新加入聯合國的被訪者比率一年比一年少，在九三年六月的調查中，有三成三的被訪者贊成台灣獨立，不贊成的有五成一；至九七年的兩次調查數據顯示，有六成一的被訪者不贊成台獨，贊成的只有二成四。總括而言，不贊成台獨的被訪者比率大大超出贊成的比率。就台灣重新加入聯合國事情上，在九三年有五成四被訪者贊成台灣重新加入聯合國，二成二表示不贊成；

在九七年，兩次調查結果發現

98 9-2

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年五月號Since June 1993, our POP Team has been

conducting surveys on several Taiwan issues. Our first survey in 1993 revealed that 36% of the respondents trusted the Taiwan government, but that began to drop during the latter half of 1994. Our latest result in 1997 found that 47% of the respondents distrusted the Taiwan government, and only 17% showed faith in it.

Our other set of questions shows that people’s support for Taiwan’s independence movement and her rejoining the United Nations declined year after year. A total of 33% of the respondents supported Taiwan’s independence while 51% disagreed during the June 1993 survey. The rate of support dropped to only 24% in the two surveys conducted in 1997. On the issue of Taiwan’s rejoining the United Nations, supporters accounted for 54% in 1993, but in 1997, 43% of the respondents disapproved. In comparison to 1993, there is a significant change in

98 9-2


平均有四成三的被訪者不贊成台灣加入聯合國，贊成加入的則有跌至三成八，對比九三年而言，贊成與不贊成的比率有拉近及扭轉的傾向。

至於對大陸與台灣最終能夠統一的信心方面，四年內的結果均沒有太大轉變。在九三年，有四成六被訪者表示對大陸與台灣統一有信心，表示沒有信心的亦有三成八；至九七年最新兩次調查顯示，四成半被訪者對此表示有信心，而沒有信心者有四成二，比率一直都頗為接近。

As for the confidence in the unification of Taiwan and China, the results in the past four years showed little change. In 1993, 46% of the interviewees showed confidence, our latest surveys in 1997 show that 45% were confident while 42% were not. Both sides have remained fairly close.

調查日期 Date of survey 6/93 7-12/93 1-6/94 7-12/94 1-6/95 7-12/95 1-6/96 7-12/96 1-4/97

調查次數 No. of surveys 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 2

樣本數目 Sample size 509 1650 1557 1589 1657 1621 2228 1625 1053

回應率 Response rate 52.7% 59.2% 56.5% 54.1% 52.6% 54.6% 53.1% 48.5% 41.8%

對台灣政府的信任程度 Trust in the Taiwan Government 整體黎講，你信唔信任台灣政府？On the whole, do you trust the Taiwan government?

信任 Trust 36.0% 40.8% 37.6% 23.1% 16.2% 17.9% 28.5% 19.8% 16.8%

中立 Neutral 9.6% 15.2% 16.2% 13.1% 13.9% 16.1% 15.4% 11.0% 12.4%

不信任 Distrust 25.2% 24.5% 23.1% 31.7% 39.3% 35.7% 31.0% 43.0% 46.5%

唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 29.1% 19.5% 23.1% 32.1% 30.7% 30.3% 25.3% 26.2% 24.6%

對台灣獨立的意見 Independence of Taiwan 你贊唔贊成台灣獨立？Do you agree if Taiwan becomes independent?

贊成 Yes 32.5% 32.0% 34.6% 33.8% 30.7% 27.6% 23.2% 24.2% 24.0%

唔贊成 No 51.0% 52.4% 49.2% 48.3% 50.8% 52.4% 61.2% 59.6% 61.1%


對大陸與台灣統一的意見 Reunification of Taiwan and Mainland China 你有無信心大陸同台灣終於能夠統一？Are you confident in the ultimate reunification of Taiwan and Mainland China?

有信心 Yes 46.4% 40.0% 36.2% 33.5% 38.3% 40.1% 49.4% 45.0% 44.6%

無信心 No 37.8% 43.0% 47.5% 45.9% 45.0% 41.4% 36.4% 39.8% 41.6%


對台灣重新加入聯合國的意見 Whether Taiwan Should Rejoin the United Nations 你贊唔贊成台灣重新加入聯合國？Do you agree if Taiwan to rejoins the United Nations?

贊成 Yes 54.7% 51.2% 50.4% 45.7% 44.1% 36.5% 39.7% 37.1% 37.7%

唔贊成 No 21.5% 27.5% 26.6% 30.5% 31.7% 37.1% 40.4% 38.1% 42.5%

唔知/難講 Don’t know 23.8% 21.2% 23.1% 23.8% 24.2% 26.4% 20.0% 24.7% 19.9%

9-3 99

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年五月號港台市民對香港及台灣前途意見比較

Comparison of Hong Kong and Taiwan People’s Feeling on the Future of Hong Kong and Taiwan

100 9-4

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年五月號研究小組於九六年十一月接受台灣聯合報邀請

共同進行一項民意調查，以比較港台民眾對兩地前途及對中港台三地發展的看法。香港的調查由本研究小組負責，台灣的調查則由聯合報民意調查中心進行，結果已於早前的台灣聯合報發表。

In November 1996, the POP Team collaborated with the Taiwan United Daily News to conduct a comparative study on Hong Kong and Taiwan people’s feeling on the future of the two places. The survey in Hong Kong was conducted by the POP Team, while the one in Taiwan was conducted by the Taiwan United Daily News Survey Research Centre. The results have already been published by the Taiwan United Daily News.

香港調查 Survey in Hong Kong 台灣調查 Survey in Taiwan 調查日期Date of survey: 20-21/11/96 2-5/12/96

樣本數目 Sample size: 820 1189

調查方法 Survey method: 電話調查 Telephone survey訪問對象 Target population: 十八歲或以上之香港市民

Hong Kong population aged 18 or above二十歲或以上台灣民眾

Taiwan population aged 20 or above回應率 Response rate: 50.5% 72.0%

香港調查 Survey in Hong Kong 台灣調查 Survey in Taiwan 台灣政府是否關心香港未來Do you think the Taiwan government is concerned about the future of Hong Kong?

關心 Concerned 43.9% 69.0%

不關心Not concerned 40.2% 14.1%

是否了解台灣政府對香港的政策Do you understand the policy of the Taiwan government on Hong Kong?了解 Yes 6.3% 5.1%

不了解No 80.4% 81.0%

九七後香港的變化 Hong Kong after 1997 維持經濟繁榮Maintain economic prosperity

可能 Possible 71.2% 31.5%

不可能 Impossible 11.9% 41.8%

維持自由生活Maintain liberty可能 Possible 53.1% 22.9%


維持行政效率Maintain administrative efficiency可能 Possible 46.3% 17.6%


維持政府清廉Maintain Integrity of Government可能 Possible 37.3% 12.7%


台灣的未來演變 Future development of Taiwan 政局維持安定Maintain a stable political condition



經濟維持繁榮Maintain economic prosperity可能 Possible 71.6% 48.1%


100 9-4


香港調查Survey in Hong Kong

台灣調查Survey in Taiwan估計台灣未來的發展方向Anticipated future development of Taiwan

統一Unite with China 25.2% 22.7%

獨立 Independence 8.7% 11.0%

維持現狀No change 49.1% 37.4%

希望台灣未來的發展方向Desired future development of Taiwan統一Unite with China 44.6% 19.0%

獨立 Independence 7.9% 20.9%

維持現狀No change 34.0% 45.1%

一國兩制的香港模式是否適用於解決台灣問題Applicability of the formula “one country, two systems” to Taiwan可適用Applicable 29.8% 13.9%

不適用Not applicable 44.4% 54.0%

中國大陸的未來演變 Future development of Mainland China 發展為民主政治 Develop democracy



發展為自由／市場經濟Develop a laissez-faire/market economy可能 Possible 74.2% 50.5%


港台關係 Relationship between Hong Kong and Taiwan 目前關係 Present relationship

親密 Close 35.5% 44.0%

疏離 Estranged 23.3% 24.0%

九七年七月後關係 Relationship after July 1997更親密 Closer 19.0% 13.2%

更疏離More estranged 40.9% 51.7%

兩地人民相互印象及對中國大陸印象Mutual impression of Hong Kong and Taiwan people and their impression of Mainland China

印象好 Good impression

印象差 Bad impression 香港人對台灣人Impression of Hong Kong people towards Taiwan people

56.5% 21.7%

香港人對台灣政府 Impression of Hong Kong people towards the Taiwan government

30.0% 49.9%

香港人對大陸人Impression of Hong Kong people towards the people of Mainland China

37.8% 50.0%

香港人對大陸政府Impression of Hong Kong people towards the government of Mainland China

25.8% 61.9%

台灣人對香港人Impression of Taiwan people towards Hong Kong people

46.4% 19.2%

台灣人對香港政府Impression of Taiwan people towards the Hong Kong government

30.8% 12.8%

9-5 101


台灣人對大陸人Impression of Taiwan people towards the people of Mainland China

30.4% 42.7%

台灣人對大陸政府Impression of Taiwan people towards the government of Mainland China

8.5% 63.1%

9-5 101

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年五月號斜坡維修及斜坡安全評估調查

Evaluation Survey on Slope Maintenance and the Slope Safety Campaign

研究小組於九六年受土力工程處委託，首次進行市民對該處的斜坡維修宣傳活動的意見調查，九七年再進行第二次，並加入有關斜坡安全信息的問題綜觀兩次調查所得，市民非常關心本港的斜坡安全問題，主要是有關的山泥傾瀉傷亡事件引起關注，因政府宣傳而表示關心的反而不多。至於土力工程處的宣傳活動，其中「定期維修斜坡」及業主有責任維修私人地段內的斜坡或擋土牆，兩年來都有過半數被訪者表示知道，且認知程度於九七年更分別上升至八成二及七成二。斜坡安全信息方面，則有八成七的被訪者知道政府於暴雨期間發出山泥傾瀉警報信號

除了下表所列問題外，調查還詢問了有關被訪者所住物業的斜坡維修情況及比較了不同物業類別的斜坡維修程度。詳細數據可參考調查報告。

In 1996 and 1997, the POP Team was twice commissioned by the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) of the Civil Engineering Department to carry out opinion surveys to investigate the opinion of the general public about the Slope Maintenance Campaign. The result shows that the general public was very concerned with slope safety problems. For the GEO’s promotional campaign, the most well-known safety messages were “Keep your slope safe” and that property owners have the responsibility for the maintenance of slopes. In terms of slope safety messages, 87% were aware of the hoisting of landslip warnings during heavy rainfalls.

The surveys also included questions on actual maintenance of slopes. Please refer to our research report for the complete set of findings.

調查日期Date of survey 樣本數目 Sample size 回應率 Response rate九六年調查 Survey in 1996 25/2/97-3/3/97 1537 49.8%

九七年調查 Survey in 1997 29-31/1/96 1609 63.5%1996 1997你關唔關心香港既斜圾安全問題？Are you concerned with slope safety problems in Hong Kong?

關心Yes 72.3% 70.1%

唔關心 No 17.1% 23.2%

唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 10.6% 6.7%

有什麼事情令你咁關心斜坡安全問題？What made you concerned?

山泥傾瀉傷亡事件 Landslide incidents 83.0% 75.4%

政府宣傳 Government propaganda 4.1% 5.4%

親身經歷山泥傾瀉事件 Personal experience 1.9% 3.4%

其他 Others 8.8% 12.2%

唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 2.1% 3.6%

各個斜坡維修及斜坡安全信息的認知程度 Level of awareness of slope maintenance and slope safety messages 「定期維修斜坡」“Keep your slope safe” 73.8% 81.9%

業主有責任斜修私人斜坡Property owner’s responsibility for the maintenance of slopes within private lots

57.6% 71.5%

斜坡維修簡易指南 Layman’s Guide to Slope Maintenance 11.7% 11.6%

斜坡維修熱線 Slope Maintenance Hotline 11.2% 10.9%

山泥傾瀉警報宣傳 Promotion of landslip warnings - 50.2%

暴雨期間發出山泥傾瀉警報信號Hoisting of landslip warnings during heavy rainfall - 87.0%

於低於安全標準的斜坡附近放置山泥傾瀉警告牌Landslip warning signs on slopes below safety standard

- 30.5%

102 9-6

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年五月號見過馬路邊的山泥傾瀉警告牌 Having seen road side landslip warning signs - 20.8%

102 9-6


市民對投資的認識及意見調查People’s Knowledge and Opinion of the Investment Market

調查日期Date of survey:3-4/3/97 樣本數目 Sample size:536 回應率 Response rate:43.7%調查對象 Target population: 十八歲或以上香港居民 Hong Kong people aged 18 or above你信唔信任投資顧問？Do you trust investment consultants?

信任Yes 14.3% 一半半 Half-half 11.8% 唔信任 No 50.3%

唔識什麼是投資顧問Don’t know who they are 13.7% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say

9.8%

如果你要選擇投資顧問，你認為乜野標準係最重要呢？If you were to choose an investment consultant, which factor do you consider to be the most important?

投資顧問公司的信譽 Reputation of the investment consultancy firm

17.1% 投資顧問本身的態度/分析Attitude of/ analysis by the investment consultant

13.3%

投資顧問公司的規模 Size of the investment consultancy firm

10.5% 相熟朋友口碑 Recommendations by close friends 10.0%

視乎投資顧問所推介基金之表現Performance of the fund recommended by the investment consultant

3.4% 不會選擇投資顧問Won’t choose an investment consultant

25.7%

其他Others 2.4% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 17.6%

如果你要購買基金，你會選擇乜野途徑買賣基金？ If you were to invest in funds, through which channel would you buy them?

透過銀行認購 Purchase through banks 50.8% 直接向基金公司認購Directly purchase through fund companies

7.0%

透過投資顧問公司認購 Purchase through investment consultants

7.2% 不會購買基金Won’t buy funds 24.1%


調查日期Date of survey:4-8/3/97 樣本數目 Sample size:503 回應率 Response rate:46.4%調查對象 Target population: 十八歲或以上香港投資者 Hong Kong investors aged 18 or above你透過邊一種途徑黎選擇期貨經紀？Through which channel do you select a futures broker?

未買賣過期貨 No experience in futures exchange 32.3% 親友介紹 Recommendations by relatives and friends

20.6%

公司規模和信譽 Size and reputation of company 3.8% 經紀毛遂自薦 Cold call from broker 1.8%

報紙/雜誌廣告Newspaper/magazine advertisement

1.6% 其他途徑Other ways 8.6%


照你所知，香港法例規定摃扞式外匯買賣開倉最低既按金比率係幾多個%？In your knowledge, what is the percentage of the minimum deposit ratio of the Leveraged Foreign Exchange according to government regulation?

5% 【正確答案 correct answer】 3.0% 錯誤答案 Wrong answers 4.6%


係進行摃扞式外匯買賣遇上問題時，你認為應該向邊一方面求助呢？When problems arise in Leveraged Foreign Exchange trading, where should you go for help?

證監會 The Securities and Futures Commision 13.7% 警方 Police 5.6%

9-7 103


聯交所 Stock Exchange of Hong Kong 5.4% 期交所 Futures Exchange Ltd. 4.4%

廉政公署 ICAC 0.4% 其他Others 13.6%


9-7 103


調查日期Date of survey:5-8/3/97 樣本數目 Sample size:506 回應率 Response rate:48.8%調查對象 Target population: 十八歲或以上香港投資者 Hong Kong investors aged 18 or above如果你要投資股票，你會選擇邊個做中介人呢？If you were to invest in stocks, who would you choose as the intermediary?

銀行 Banks 54.9% 經紀行 Broker firms 37.8%

國際電腦網絡 Internet 1.6% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 5.6%

你選擇佢最重要既原因係乜？What is the most important reason in determining your choice?

有信譽 Reputation 48.1% 親友推介 Recommendations by relatives and friends

14.9%

具規模 Size 6.3% 其他原因Other reasons 22.8%


照你所知，銀行業之證券買賣服務係受邊個機構監管？ In your knowledge, which organization is responsible for the regulation of the banks’ stock transaction services?

金融管理局Hong Kong Monetary Authority【正確答案 correct answer】

19.3% 證監會 The Securities and Futures Commission【錯誤答案 wrong answer】

29.1%

聯交所 Stock Exchange of Hong Kong【錯誤答案 wrong answer】

9.5% 其他Others【錯誤答案 wrong answer】 6.5%


你認為本港經紀行既服務符唔符合專業水平？ Do you think that the local broker firms meet professional standards?

符合專業水準Yes 34.0% 一半半 Half-half 22.4%

不符合專業水準No 9.5% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 34.0%

你認為證券從業員應唔應該參與投機買賣？Do you think commodity dealers should participate in speculation?

應該Yes 26.4% 唔應該 No 58.5% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 15.1%


調查日期 Date of survey第一階段訪問日期（提

名）:First Stage (naming)22-23,26-27/4,1/5/97

九七年五月份調查結果Result from the survey in May 1997

累積過去十二個月(六次)調查結果 Accumulated results in the past 12 months

(6 surveys)

第二階段訪問日期（評分）:

Second Stage (rating)2,5/5/97

支持數Support


error

總人數Total

sample





support rating

平均認知度Average rate

of recognition

Qian Qichen 錢其琛 56.8 1.1 536 385 71.8% 6 58.9 68.3%Zhu Rongji 朱鎔基 55.2 1.2 536 300 56.0% 2 58.7 56.3%Jiang Zemin 江澤民 54.9 1.1 536 407 75.9% 6 55.8 74.3%Lu Ping 魯平 51.8 1.1 536 406 75.7% 6 51.5 75.4%

104 9-8

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年五月號Li Peng 李鵬 43.2 1.1 536 406 75.7% 6 42.9 75.2%

首五名平均分 Top 5 average 52.4 71.0%

104 9-8


市民最關注的範圍Areas of People’s Concern

調查日期 Date of survey:18-19/2/97, 22-24,26-27/4,1/5/97問題: 香港而家面對好多問題，你個人最關心邊種問題？Question: Hong Kong currently faces various problems. What kind of problems are you most concerned with?

政治問題Political problems

經濟問題Economic problems

社會問題Social problems

沒有意見No opinion

二月份調查 Survey in February 11.5% 39.5% 39.8% 9.2%

四月份調查 Survey in April 11.2% 33.8% 42.4% 12.6%

問題: 整體黎講，你滿唔滿意香港而家既政治／經濟／社會環境？Question: Are you satisfied with the present political/economic/social condition in Hong Kong?

滿意Satisfied

中立Neutral

不滿Dissatisfied

唔知／難講Don't know/Hard to say

政治問題 Political condition二月份調查 Survey in February 46.6% 11.6% 30.5% 11.4%


經濟問題 Economic condition二月份調查 Survey in February 58.0% 7.9% 33.0% 1.1%


社會問題 Social condition二月份調查 Survey in February 60.8% 11.4% 26.1% 1.6%


問題: 同三年前比較，你覺得香港而家既ＸＸ環境好左定差左？Question: Do you think the XX in Hong Kong has become better or worse in the last three years?

（比三年前）好Better

差不多Same

（比三年前）差Worse








問題: 以你估計，三年後香港既ＸＸ環境會比而家好定差？Question: Do you think the XX in Hong Kong will become better or worse in three years’ time?

（比目前）好Better

差不多Same

（比目前）差Worse






9-9 105




9-9 105

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年五月號十大立法局議員評分

Ratings of the Top Ten Legco Members


名）:First Stage (naming)

17-18/3/97

九七年四月份調查結果 Result from the survey in April 1997


(6 surveys)


Second Stage (rating)10-11,14-15/4/97

支持數Support


error

總人數Total

sample





support rating


of recognition

Lau Chin-shek 劉千石 63.6 0.9 525 425 81.0% 6 63.7 78.8%Lee Cheuk-yan 李卓人 62.3 0.9 525 388 73.9% 5 62.0 71.0%Christine Loh 陸恭蕙 61.1 0.8 525 398 75.8% 6 63.0 75.2%Emily Lau 劉慧卿 60.9 1.0 525 421 80.2% 6 63.4 78.1%Lee Wing-tat 李永達 59.7 0.9 525 332 63.2% 2 59.7 66.5%Martin Lee 李柱銘 59.6 1.1 525 436 83.0% 6 61.0 82.0%Szeto Wah 司徒華 57.9 1.1 525 442 84.2% 6 59.8 82.6%Selina Chow 周梁淑怡 57.6 0.8 525 407 77.5% 5 56.9 71.9%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 54.1 0.8 525 399 76.0% 6 54.3 75.1%Andrew Wong 黃宏發 51.2 1.0 525 389 74.1% 6 55.3 70.5%


首十名平均分 Top 10 average

58.8 76.9%


調查日期 Date of Survey 支持度 Support Rating 按月平均分 Monthly Average三月份第一次調查 1st survey in March 3-4/3/97 59.2 59.8


四月份第一次調查 1st survey in April 10-11,14-15/4/97 58.6 59.0

四月份第二次調查 2nd survey in April 22-23,26-27/4,1/5/97 59.6 （四月 April）四月份第三次調查 3rd survey in April 28-29/4/97 58.7


調查日期 Date of Survey 支持度 Support Rating 按月平均分 Monthly Average三月份第一次調查 1st survey in March 3-4/3/97 61.6 60.0


106 9-10

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年五月號四月份第一次調查 1st survey in April 10-11,14-15/4/97 57.9 57.7


106 9-10




名）:First Stage (naming)

10-11,14-15/4/97

九七年四月份調查結果 Result from the survey in April 1997


(6 surveys)


Second Stage (rating)22-23,26-27/4,1/5/97

支持數Support


error

總人數Total

sample




平均支持度Average support

rating


of recognition

FTU 工聯會 58.4 0.9 519 332 64.0% 5 58.6 60.4%DP 民主黨 55.2 1.1 519 424 81.7% 6 58.2 74.8%DABHK 民建聯 51.6 1.0 519 327 63.0% 6 54.2 60.3%LP 自由黨 50.3 1.0 519 335 64.5% 6 51.6 64.2%ADPL 民協 49.9 1.0 519 285 54.9% 6 53.0 53.0%


ADPL = Hong Kong Association for Democracy & People's Livelihood 香港民主民生協進會DABHK = Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong 民主建港聯盟DP = Democratic Party 民主黨FTU = Hong Kong Federation of Trade Union 工聯會LP = Liberal Party 自由黨

市民對中、英、港及台灣政府的信任程度People’s Trust in Chinese, British, Hong Kong & Taiwan Governments

調查日期 Date of survey: 3-4/3/97,10-11,14-15/4/97, 22-23,26-27/4,1/5/97問題: 整體黎講, 你信唔信任XX政府呢? Question: On the whole, do you trust the XX government?

中國Chinese

英國British

香港Hong Kong

台灣Taiwan

三月份調查Survey in March

34.2% 32.4% 67.5% -

四月份調查Survey in April

26.8% 30.8% 59.3% 14.1%

市民對「一國兩制」及香港前途的信心People’s Confidence in “One Country, Two Systems” & Hong Kong’s Future

調查日期 Date of survey: 3-4/3/97, 19-20/3/97, 10-11,14-15/4/97, 28-29/4/97整體黎講, 你對一國兩制/香港前途有冇信心 On the whole, do you have confidence in ‘one-country, two systems’/HK’s future?

一國兩制 One country, two systems 香港前途 Hong Kong’s future

9-11 107


三月份第一次調查 1st survey in March 63.4% 72.9%

三月份第二次調查 2nd survey in March - 73.1%

四月份第一次調查 1st survey in April 51.3% 64.1%

四月份第二次調查 2nd survey in April - 66.7%

9-11 107


九七年四月份社研定期調查之樣本數據Contact information for POP polls conducted in April 1997

第一次調查 First poll 第二次調查 Second poll日期 Date of surveys 10-11,14-15/4/97 22-23,26-27/4,1/5/97

訪問對象 Target population 十八歲或以上之香港市民 Hong Kong population aged 18 or above調查方法 Survey method 電話訪問 Telephone survey抽樣方法 Sampling method 從住宅電話簿中隨機抽出號碼，再用電腦配套另一部份。當成功接觸目標住戶

後，再用出生日期抽取其中一名被訪者接受訪問。Telephone numbers were selected randomly from telephone directories and additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.




民意研究計劃最新調查報告LATEST POP SURVEY REPORT AVAILABLE

《斜坡維修及斜坡安全評估調查》Evaluation Survey on Slope Maintainence

and Slope Safety Campaign

鳴謝 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 香港電台 Radio Television Hong Kong

(贊助市民對投資的認識及意見調查)(for sponsoring opinion surveys on

people’s knowledge and opinion of the investment market)

英文版 English version: 每本 $90 per copy

土力工程處 Geotechnical Engineering Office

(贊助斜坡維修及斜坡安全評估調查)(for sponsoring evaluation survey on

slope maintainence and slope safety campaign)



108 9-12

June 1997 POP EXPRESS COMBINED VOLUME #1 SPECIAL ISSUE



本月專題調查 Special Feature of the Month

九七回歸前市民的心情 2-7 The Public Mood Before the 1997 Transition

九七回歸後的變化 2 Anticipated Change after the 1997 Transition

對平穩過渡的信心 5 Confidence in a Smooth Transition對「一國兩制」的信心 6 Confidence in “One Country, Two Systems”

對香港前途的信心 7 Confidence in Hong Kong’s Future

有關六四事件民意調查總結 11-15 Combined Analysis on the June Fourth Incident

10-1 109

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年六月號


110 10-2

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年六月號對很多人來說，九七年六月是個狂歡慶祝的日子，

因為殖民地時代即將結束，新紀元即將來臨。可是，對不少人來說，六月也是一個悲慘的月份，因為八年前在北京發生了流血事件，香港人念念不忘。

對於民意工作者而言，九七年六月肯定是個極其忙碌的月份。一方面主權回歸，另一方面紀念六四，都使民間思潮起伏，心意難平。就如今期的專題分析顯示，香港市民對平穩過渡似乎都充滿信心，但又希望中國政府平反六四。這種愛恨交集、複雜矛盾，可能向來就是港人心態的寫照。

主權移交，是歷史上的大事。《民意快訊》今期由十二版增至二十版，就是希望能全面向讀者匯報所有相關的數據，為這段歷史留下一個見證。

當然，我們沒有遺忘我們的週期調查，如港督評分、董建華評分、政治人物評分、傳媒表現評價、中英港台政府評價等，一如我們希望歷史不會遺忘我們一樣。

鍾庭耀

To some people, June may be a happy month to celebrate the end of the colonial rule. To others, it may be a sad month to commemorate the June Fourth Incident. Yet, to the opinion researcher, it is just another month of hard work.

The diversified, and probably contradicting, feelings among the general public is fully reflected in our special feature stories of the month. While people are very confident of having a smooth transition, many wished China would reverse its official stand on the June Fourth Incident.

Because June 1997 is such an important month, we have expanded our POP Express from twelve pages to twenty pages, just to make sure that all the important data are here, for everyone interested. We have, of course, not forgotten our regular surveys on Chris Patten, Tung Chee-hwa, other political figures, the news media, and various governments. We hope our effort will not be forgotten, after 1997.


110 10-2


九七回歸後的變化Anticipated Change after the 1997 Transition


估計香港回歸後的變化 Anticipated change after the handover 可能 Possible 不可能 Impossible

維持現在的經濟繁榮 Maintain economic prosperity as present 68.7% 14.7%

繼續享有現在的人權自由 Keep on enjoying present human rights and freedom

30.5% 54.6%

政府維持現在的廉潔程度 Government to maintain present honesty 38.4% 42.1%

你估計香港回歸中國後,你既家庭生活會比宜家好些定差些? Do you think your family life will be better or worse after the handover? 好些 Better 12.8% 差些 Worse 18.1%

無變/同宜家一樣 No change 51.4% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 17.7%

九七回歸前市民的心情The Public Mood Before the 1997 Transition

總結半年來市民面對香港回歸的心情，多次調查的結果大至一樣，被訪者多以「平淡」或「沒有什麼感覺」等中性詞語形容自己在回歸日近時的心情。當中最多被訪者以「沒有什麼感覺」來形容對回歸的心情，由九六年十二月的一成七，到九七年一月的一成三人再一直上升至九七年五月中的三成七，但九七年五月尾則回落至二成半。另一方面，以正面形容詞如「開心」、「興奮」等形容對回歸心情的則一向比以負面詞語形容的多。以九六年十二月最多（三成）被訪者以「開心」、「期待」、「樂觀」等詞語形容自己面對回歸的心情，其後每次調查都有穩定的二成多人對回歸懷正面的看法。至於對回歸持負面看法的人，例如以「無奈」、「憂慮」等詞語形容面對回歸的心情，除九七年一月的調查有二成三外，其餘各次調查都有一成至一成半。

In the past six months, the majority of respondents chose neutral words like ‘nothing particular’ or ‘no special feeling’ to describe their feeling towards the forthcoming handover. Among all options, ‘no special feeling’ was the most frequent answer. In December 1996, the percentage for this option was 17%, which dropped to 13% in January 1997. Since then, the figure kept increasing for four months and was up to 37% in mid-May 1997, but decreased to 25% in late May. On the other side, the number of respondents choosing positive words such as ‘happy’ and ‘excited’ has always been higher than that of negative words. The top record for those choosing positive words like ‘happy’, ‘expecting’ and ‘optimistic’ was 30% in December 1996 but decreased to 24% in late May. With regard to negative feelings, the figures usually stood at 10% to 15%.

調查日期 Date of survey 30/12/96 26/1/97 24/2/97 19-20/3/97 28-29/4/97 15-19/5/97 27/5/97

樣本數目 Sample size 520 530 552 624 535 1059 531

回應率 Response rate 52.5% 45.6% 53.0% 46.9% 58.4% 48.0% 44.4%

問題：你會用乜野形容詞黎形容你對香港九七主權回歸既心情？Question: Please describe your feelings about the 1997 transition in a single word.

開心 Happy 7.4% 6.5% 6.4% 8.9% 6.1% 9.4% 10.1%

110 10-2

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年六月號興奮 Excited 4.5% 4.8% 3.8% 3.0% 4.5% 2.8% 3.9%

期待 Expecting 7.4% 6.0% 5.6% 2.9% 2.4% 3.3% 5.2%

樂觀 Optimistic 6.6% 4.2% 2.2% 4.4% 2.5% 4.6% 3.2%

其他正面形容詞 Other positive words 4.1% 3.3% 4.0% 4.5% 7.0% 0.9% 1.4%

小計 Sub-total 30.0% 24.8% 22.0% 23.7% 22.5% 21.0% 23.8%

憂慮 Anxious 3.1% 3.8% 2.2% 2.5% 1.9% 2.3% 2.6%

害怕 Afraid 3.3% 0.6% 1.1% 0.5% 2.0% 0.8% 1.1%

無奈 Helpless 4.0% 11.7% 4.6% 4.4% 4.7% 5.3% 7.0%

悲觀 Pessimistic 1.7% 2.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.2% 1.2%

其他負面形容詞 Other negative words 2.9% 3.7% 3.1% 1.6% 3.5% 1.6% 1.5%

小計 Sub-total 15.0% 22.7% 11.9% 9.9% 13.0% 11.2% 13.4%

矛盾 Contradictory 3.3% 2.3% 2.9% 1.5% 2.4% 2.6% 3.1%

複雜 Complicated 2.1% 3.1% 0.9% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 2.1%

其他混合形容詞 Other ambivalent words 1.4% 3.5% 1.3% 1.0% 2.3% 0.5% 1.1%

小計 Sub-total 6.8% 8.9% 5.1% 3.6% 5.8% 4.2% 6.3%

平常 Plain 10.0% 6.9% 15.5% 9.6% 4.3% 8.9% 11.8%

平淡 Nothing particular 7.3% 13.1% 10.7% 12.9% 8.4% 9.3% 13.7%

冇乜感覺 No special feelings 17.2% 13.4% 21.0% 27.7% 31.2% 37.3% 24.8%

其他中性形容詞 Other neutral words 3.7% 3.4% 4.2% 4.5% 3.8% 2.7% 1.9%

小計 Sub-total 38.2% 36.8% 51.4% 54.7% 47.7% 58.2% 52.2%

不知道 Don’t know 10.2% 6.9% 9.7% 8.0% 10.9% 5.4% 4.4%

對於選擇留在香港或是離開的問題，被訪者中一直都是選擇留港的比率遠高於要離開的，除九七年一月時選擇留港的不足七成外（六成六），其餘各次調查都有七成二以上的被訪者說會選擇留下。

從另一方面測試市民對香港前景的看法，假設被訪者有一大筆金錢，四成以上的人都會把它用於香港作長線投資，於九七年三月及五月的調查更有五成以上選擇長線投資於香港。另外自九六年十二月至九七年四月一直都有二成多被訪者說會把它放在銀行或作短線投資。

As on whether the respondents would prefer to stay in Hong Kong or leave, the percentage choosing to stay has always been higher than that of preferring to leave, usually between 70% and 80%.

A hypothetical question was asked to test the respondents’ confidence in Hong Kong’s economy. If the respondents had a large sum of money, more than 40% would invest it long-term in Hong Kong. In March and May, more than 50% would make the same choice.

調查日期 Date of survey 30/12/96 26/1/97 24/2/97 19-20/3/97 28-29/4/97 15-19/5/97 27/5/97

樣本數目 Sample size 520 530 552 624 535 1059 531

回應率 Response rate 52.5% 45.6% 53.0% 46.9% 58.4% 48.0% 44.4%

問題：如果有得選擇，你會寧願： Question: If you had the choice, would you：留係香港 Stay in Hong Kong 79.6% 66.3% 72.4% 77.2% 77.6% 72.1% 78.7%

定係離開香港呢？ Leave Hong Kong 17.1% 22.1% 21.2% 17.9% 19.1% 16.9% 15.9%

唔知/難講/視乎情況 Don't know/Hard to say 3.3% 11.4% 6.2% 4.9% 3.4% 11.0% 5.4%

拒絕選擇，冇得選擇 No choice - 0.2% 0.2% - - - -

110 10-2

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年六月號總數 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

調查日期 Date of survey 30/12/96 26/1/97 24/2/97 19-20/3/97 28-29/4/97 27/5/97

樣本數目 Sample size 520 530 552 624 535 531

回應率 Response rate 52.5% 45.6% 53.0% 46.9% 58.4% 44.4%

問題：如果你有一大筆多餘既錢，你會首先選擇： Question: If you had a large sum of spare money, you would choose to：長線投資香港 Make long-term investments in Hong Kong

40.0% 40.2% 43.3% 51.2% 44.8% 55.2%

投資國內 Invest in China 7.2% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.7% 4.3%

投資海外 Invest overseas 9.7% 11.5% 11.6% 4.9% 5.6% 8.1%

擺係銀行或作其他短線投資Save in banks or make other short-term investments

27.3% 25.5% 22.0% 21.0% 24.5% 18.8%

駛左佢 Spend it all 2.9% 3.6% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 2.8%

其他答案 Other answers 5.8% 4.8% 5.1% 3.3% 5.1% 2.1%

不知道 Don’t know 7.1% 9.1% 9.3% 11.0% 10.9% 8.6%

總數 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

由以上數據可看出港人在心理上對回歸並沒有太大反應，既不狂歡，亦不悲慼，只以平常心視之。反而在行動上更能看出市民對香港前景的信念，多數人願留在香港及把資金投資於港。

以下各部份則綜合了後過渡期具體民意在各項信心指標如「平穩過渡」、「一國兩制」及「香港前途」的發展。

According to these statistics, Hong Kong people tend to be rather indifferent towards the 1997 transition, but most of them would like to stay and invest long-term in Hong Kong.

People’s confidence in a smooth transition, ‘one country and two systems’, and Hong Kong’s future is summarized respectively in the following sections.

110 10-2


市民對平穩過渡的信心Confidence in a Smooth Transition

市民對平穩過渡信心 Confidence in a Smooth Transition回歸前 X日(約數)

X days before handover (approx.)

調查日期Date of survey

樣本數目Sample size

回應率Response rate

有信心Confident

一半半Half-half

冇信心Not confident

唔知/難講Don’t know/ Hard to say

1000 5/10/94 1716 75.5% 34.9% 25.0% 24.7% 15.4%900 9-12/1/95 554 63.5% 45.2% 32.5% 14.5% 7.8%800 18-19/4/95 640 51.8% 42.7% 24.3% 22.8% 10.2%700 27-28/6/95 990 57.8% 41.1% 19.8% 17.8% 21.2%600 6-7/11/95 550 53.6% 43.6% 25.3% 21.3% 9.9%500 15-16/2/96 560 65.3% 44.4% 22.4% 21.2% 12.0%400 8-9/5/96 538 50.8% 55.0% 19.9% 15.3% 9.7%300 28-29/8/96 515 52.7% 58.4% 17.6% 18.2% 5.8%200 11/12/96 1301 65.3% 66.0% 16.3% 10.2% 7.6%100 17-18/3/97 502 42.9% 62.7% 21.5% 9.7% 6.2%75 10-15/4/97 525 42.3% 65.4% 18.6% 9.0% 7.1%50 2,5/5/97 536 44.1% 72.2% 15.6% 6.4% 5.9%25 5-6/6/97 544 40.4% 70.4% 16.8% 8.5% 4.4%

10-5 13


10-5

13


對「一國兩制」的信心Confidence in “One Country, Two Systems”

調查日期Year of poll

1993 Average九三年平均數 1994 Average九四年平均數 1995 average九五年平均數 1996 Average九六年總結 1997 Average九七年總結調查次數 No. of surveys 4 6 8 12 10

樣本數目 Successful cases 2,159 3,146 4601 6,557 5,965

回應率 Response rate 57.5% 55.3% 56.1% 50.9% 46.0%

原始數據 Raw data有信心 Confident 38.6% 37.7% 42.0% 44.0% 57.0%

冇信心 Not confident 44.2% 43.8% 35.7% 32.0% 23.8%


總數 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

除去唔知/難講之數據Omitting "don't know" - "% of those expressing an opinion"有信心 Confident 46.7% 46.2% 54.1% 57.8% 70.4%

冇信心 Not confident 53.3% 53.8% 45.9% 42.2% 29.6%

總數 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1993 1994 1995 1996 19970.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

¦Ê¤À

²v %

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

¥ þ¦ ~¥ § ¡¼ Æ Year average

¹ ï¡ u¤ @° ê â î¡ vª º« H¤ ß Confidence in "one country, two systems"

¦ ³« H¤ ßConfident

É N« H¤ ßNotconfident øª ¾/Ã øÁ ¿Don'tknow

114 10-6


114 10-6


對香港前途的信心Confidence in Hong Kong's future

調查日期Year of poll

1994 Average九四年平均數 1995 average九五年平均數 1996 Average九六年總結 1997 Average九七年總結調查次數 No. of surveys 10 12 13 13

樣本數目 Successful cases 5,299 6,900 7,077 7,655

回應率 Response rate 59.3% 57.0% 51.0% 46.9%

原始數據 Raw data有信心 Confident 56.1% 58.1% 62.7% 71.2%

冇信心 Not confident 21.4% 21.8% 16.2% 11.8%

唔知/難講 Don't know/Hard to say 22.3% 20.1% 21.1% 17.0%

總數 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

除去唔知/難講之數據 Omitting "don't know" - "% of those expressing an opinion"有信心 Confident 72.4% 72.7% 79.3% 85.7%

冇信心 Not confident 27.6% 27.3% 20.7% 14.3%

總數 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

10-7 115


市民對中國公安的看法People’s Opinion of the Police Officers in China

調查日期 Date of survey : 24/2/97 樣本數目 Sample size : 552 回應率 Response rate : 53.0%

你有冇接觸過國內既公安，包括報案及日常接觸？Have you ever come in contact with police officers in China, either for reporting crime and/or daily contact?

有 Yes 17.2% 冇 No 82.2% 唔記得 Don’t remember it 0.5%

如果你係國內發生事故，你會唔會搵公安尋求協助？If you have accidents in China, will you seek help from the police there?

會Yes 62.2% 唔會 No 14.8% 唔肯定 Not sure 23.0%

係你既印象中，你覺得中國既公安好D 還是香港既警察好 D？From your own impression, which is better, the Police Force in China or that in Hong Kong?

中國公安好D Police in China 0.2% 香港警察好D Police in Hong Kong 73.9%

差不多 Same 10.3% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 15.6%

對特區行政會議成員任政策研究的看法Appointment of SAR Executive Councillors to Devise Policies

調查日期 Date of survey : 26/3/97 樣本數目 Sample size : 548 回應率 Response rate : 59.9%

董建華最近委任左部份特區行政會議成員擔任政策研究工作，你覺得呢個安排是否合適？Tung Chee-hwa has recently appointed a number of SAR Executive Councillors to devise long-term policies. Do you think this arrangement is appropriate?

合適 Appropriate 42.7% 一半半 Half-half 9.5%

唔合適 Not appropriate 15.6% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 32.3%

董建華最近委任左 XXX，你覺得佢擔任呢個工作是否合適？Tung Chee-hwa has recently appointed XXX. Do you think the appointee is suitable for the job?

譚耀宗負責研究老人福利政策

Tam Yiu-chung responsible for

elderly welfare policy

梁錦松負責研究教育政策

Leung Kam-chung responsible for

education policy

梁振英負責研究房屋政策

Leung Chun-ying responble for

housing policy

合適 Suitable 40.8% 27.4% 33.0%

一半半 Half-half 6.1% 4.4% 3.9%

唔合適 Not suitable 16.9% 8.9% 31.9%

唔識佢 Don’t know the appointee 9.3% 35.6% 9.4%

唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 26.8% 23.7% 21.7%

116 10-8


梁振英係一間測量師行既老闆,又同時擔任研究房屋政策，你擔唔擔心會有利益衝突？Leung Chun-ying is at the same time the boss of a surveyor company as well as a person responsible for devising housing policies. Are you worried that there is conflict of interest?

好擔心 Very worried 20.4% 幾擔心 Quite worried 37.3% 唔係幾擔心 Not quite worried 19.9%

完全唔擔心 Not worried at all 8.0% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 14.4%

對九七後貪污情況的看法Opinion on Corruption after 1997

調查日期Date of survey : 27/5/97 樣本數目 Sample size : 531 回應率 Response rate : 44.4%

你認為廉政公署係九七回歸之後，打擊貪污既能力會增加定減少？Do you think the power of the ICAC to fight corruption will increase or decrease after the 1997 transition?

增加 Increase 19.9% 減少 Decrease 40.0%

無變 No change 26.7% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 13.4%

你認為公務員係九七後既貪污情況會比宜家好些定差些？ Do you think corruption among government officials will become better or worse after 1997?

好些 Better 11.3% 差些 Worse 47.0%

不變 No change 23.5% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 18.2%

你認為私人機構係九七後既貪污情況會比宜家好些定差些?Do you think corruption in private companies will become better or worse after 1997?



你認為駐港中資機構係九七後既貪污情況會比宜家好些定差些？ Do you think corruption in the Hong Kong subsidiaries of Chinese-capital firms will become better or worse after 1997?


不變 No change 16.8% 唔知 / 難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 17.8%

你認為駐港外資機構係九七後既貪污情況會比宜家好些定差些？ Do you think corruption in the Hong Kong subsidiaries of foreign-capital firms will become better or worse after 1997?



你認為係九七後大陸既貪污風氣會唔會對香港構成影響？Do you think corruption practices in China will affect Hong Kong after 1997?

會 Yes 78.9% 唔會 No 15.5% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 5.6%

10-9 117


鳴謝 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 亞洲電視有限公司 Asia Television Limited

(贊助二月至五月有關中國公安、特區行政會議成員任政策研究及九七後貪污情況的調查)(for sponsoring opinion surveys between February and May on

police officers in China, appointment of SAR Executive Councillors to devise policies, and corruption after 1997)

對中國政府的期望Expectations for the Chinese Government

調查日期 Date of survey:15-16,19/5/1997 樣本數目 Sample size: 1059 回應率 Response rate : 48.0%

請問你相唔相信中國「港人治港」既保證？Do you believe in the Chinese Government’s guarantee of “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong”?

非常相信 Very much 8.9% 唔係幾相信 Not quite 26.1%

幾相信 Quite so 25.6% 絕對唔相信 Absolutely not 9.3%

一半半 Half-half 17.3% 唔知/難講/無意見 Don’t know/Hard to say 12.8%

你估計香港回歸中國後,你既家庭生活會比宜家好些定差些? Do you think your family life will become better or worse after the 1997 handover? 好些 Better 12.8% 差些 Worse 18.1%

無變/同宜家一樣 No change 51.4% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 17.7%

係香港回歸中國後,你對中國政府有咩期望?What are your expectations for the post-1997 Chinese government? 保持香港既穩定繁榮 To maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong

21.4% 尊重香港市民既意見/有重要決策時諮詢市民 To respect the opinion of Hong Kong people / To consult Hong Kong people on important issues

2.2%

改善香港人既生活質素 To improve the living standard of Hong Kong people

6.0% 實踐承諾 Do as promised 1.6%

希望香港或中國沒有貪污出現 To eliminate corruption in Hong Kong or China

2.9% 唔好將大陸既方式用係香港 Not to impose the Chinese style on any aspect of Hong Kong

0.8%

控制中國人口唔好移民落黎香港 To control the number of immigrants from China to Hong Kong

1.0% 立法機關全民直選 To allow direct election for the legislative body

0.3%

保持香港現有生活方式不變 To maintain the present life-style of Hong Kong people

10.0% 行政長官由市民選出 The SAR Chief Ececutive to be elected by the general public

0.3%

唔好限制香港既民主自由 Not to limit the democratic freedom in Hong Kong

10.0% 冇期望 No expectation 3.1%

依照基本法管治香港 To rule Hong Kong according to the Basic Law

5.1% 其他答案 Other answers 11.9%

保證香港特別行政區既高度自治 To ensure high autonomy for the SAR Government

2.4% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 21.1%

118 10-10


有關六四事件民意調查總結Combined Analysis on the June Fourth Incident

本民意研究組自九三年開始，在每年六四期間均會進行民意調查，以了解市民對六四事件及一些中國問題的看法，及是否有隨著接近主權移交的日子而看法有所轉變。九七年七月一日本港正式回歸祖國，本研究組特意選擇今年就有關六四事件的調查進行一個總結，探討民意的走勢。市民對六四事件的看法

在本中心五月底進行的最新調查顯示，有三成六的被訪者認為北京學生在六四事件中做得對，但較多被訪者傾向不給予意見或沒有肯定的答案，此等人士佔四成七，其餘的一成七則認為學生在六四事件中做得不對。對比過去六年的調查結果，發現認為學生做得對的被訪者比率有明顯下降的趨勢，在九三年的調查顯示，有五成九的被訪者表示學生做得對，沒有肯定答案的則有三成一，而不同意學生在六四事件做法的有一成。支持學生的比率之後逐年下降，反而對事件不願置評的則由三成一上升至九七年的四成七，此結果大概反映接近主權移交，似乎不少被訪者不願就六四事件表態。

Since 1993, our POP Team has been conducting annual surveys on people’s opinion on the June 4 Incident every year around June. As the reversion of sovereignty will take place very soon, we have summarized the research results on this topic collected so far.

According to our survey conducted in late May this year, 36% of respondents thought that the Beijing students had done the right thing in 1989. A total of 47% of them remained neutral or uncertain, while 17% believed they were wrong. As compared to the results in the past four years, there has been an obvious decline in the support of the Beijing students. Our survey in 1993 revealed that 59% thought the students were right. In the following years, there has been a gradual decrease in the percentage supporting the students, and those with no comments has increased from 31% to 47%. These findings probably show that the public’s opinion on the June 4 Incident has changed as the handover approaches.

問題 : 你覺得北京學生係六四事件中做得對不對？Question: Do you think the Beijing students did the right thing in the June 4 Incident?

調查日期Date of survey 10-11/5/93 17-20/5/94 29-31/5/95 22-23/5/96 27/5/97

年份 Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

樣本數目 Sample size 573 504 504 521 531


百份率% 百份率% 百份率% 百份率% 百份率%對 Right 58.6 56.3 50.0 53.0 35.8

唔對 Wrong 10.3 13.5 12.1 14.1 17.4

唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 31.1 30.2 37.9 32.9 46.8

總數 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

在另一條同類問題則發現，雖然市民對學生的支持不能明確地予以肯定，被訪者意見分云，但對中國政府處理六四的手法則看法較為一致。在九七年最新的調查顯示，有六成三被訪者認為中國政府處理六四事件做得不對，認為對的只有一成，另有二成七則沒有肯定答案。不過，當再對比過去調查結果，仍然發現認為中國政府不對的比率隨時間有下降的趨勢，由九三年的七成七下降至九七年的六成三，相對認為中

國政府的做法對的比率則由九三年的六個百分比升至九七年一成，而不給予肯定答案的亦由九三年的一成七上升至二成七。

Another similar question revealed that despite the change in public support for the students, their opinion over the Chinese Government’s way of handling remains relatively consistent in the past few years. In our latest

10-11 119


survey, 63% disapproved of the Chinese Government’s way of handling in 1989. Yet, when compared to previous research findings, the percentage expressing

objection to the Chinese Government’s way of handling has dropped from 77% in 1993 to 63% in 1997.

問題 : 你覺得中國政府處理六四事件做得對不對？Question: Do you think the Chinese Government did the right thing in the June 4 Incident?

調查日期 Date of survey 10-11/5/93 17-20/5/94 29-31/5/95 22-23/5/96 27/5/97

年份 Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

樣本數目 Sample size 573 504 504 521 531


百份率% 百份率% 百份率% 百份率% 百份率%對 Right 5.7 7.2 9.0 6.5 10.0

唔對 Wrong 77.1 76.7 71.9 72.1 63.1


總數 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

中國人權狀況在中國人權狀況方面，跟八九年比較，有六成三

被訪者認為中國現時的人權狀況比八九年好，有二成半認為較八九年差。當再要求被訪者估計三年後中國的人權狀況時，有五成六被訪者認為三年後中國的人權狀況會有好轉，認為會與現時相近的有二成一，不願置評或沒有肯定答案的則有一成八。總結過去的調查數據，一直是以看好中國人權狀況的被訪者佔大比數（如九三年有六成一認為中國三年後的人權狀況會好轉，此比率在九五年則有四成五），反映香港市民似乎都對中國的人權狀況抱頗樂觀的態度。

Whilst the percentage showing support has increased from 6% to 10% and no comments from 17% to 27% in the same period of time.

Concerning the human right condition in China, 63% of respondents believed the present condition was better than that in 1989, while 25% believed it was getting worse. When asked to predict the human right condition in China in three years’ time, 56% believed there would be positive progression, 21% thought there would be no significant change, while 18% had no comments or not sure.

問題 : 以你估計，三年後中國既人權狀況會好些定差些？Question: Do you think the human right condition in China will be better or even worse in three years’ time?


年份 Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

樣本數目 Sample size 573 504 504 521 531


百份率% 百份率% 百份率% 百份率% 百份率%好左 Better 60.7 37.7 44.9 40.6 55.8

差不多 No significant change 18.2 30.2 23.8 27.7 20.5

差左 Worse 3.7 6.2 6.8 7.9 5.3


總數 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

香港與中國民主及經濟發展的關係市民認為香港在中國民主及經濟發展歷程上應扮演如何的角色呢？調查發現，有七成半被訪者認為香港

10-11 119


人有責任推動中國民主發展；與四年前（九三年）比較，當時有八成四被訪者表示香港人有責任推動中國民主發展，換句話說，此比率亦隨著接近九七而有輕微下降

Concluding the previous research findings, the majority of Hong Kong people seemed to take a positive attitude towards the development of the human right condition in China.

What about the role of Hong Kong in the democratic and economic developments in China?

的趨勢。另外，最新調查顯示，認為香港人有責任推動中國的經濟發展的有八成七。前後兩項調查數據反映認為香港人有責任推動中國經濟發展的比率多於推動民主發展的比率。

10-11 119


Our latest findings showed that 75% of the respondents thought that Hong Kong people had a responsiblility

towards the democratic development in China, while 87%

問題 : 你覺得香港人有冇責任推動中國既民主發展？Question: Do you think Hong Kong people have a responsibility to instigate the development of democracy in China?


年份 Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

樣本數目 Sample siz e 573 504 504 521 531


百份率% 百份率% 百份率% 百份率% 百份率%有 Yes 83.6 79.3 79.9 77.8 75.2

冇 No 6.1 8.4 7.3 10.4 13.4


總數 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

當調查直接要求被訪者選擇香港人應該推動中國的經濟發展抑或民主發展多一些時，有四成八認為推動經濟發展較為重要，認為兩者均需推動的有二成八，表示推動中國民主發展重要些的有一成九。

至於香港市民又認為中國現時較需要經濟抑或民主發展呢？最新調查顯示，有五成五被訪者認為中國現時需要經濟發展多一些，認為經濟及民主發展同樣重要的有二成四，而表示中國較需要民主發展的有一成七。對六四事件的立場及六四紀念活動的看法

本研究組在最新一次有關六四事件的調查中，加入一條立場性問題，直接詢問被訪者是否支持平反六四。結果發現，有一半被訪者（五成）表示支持平反六四，另有一成九表示不支持，而不願給予肯定答案的亦有三成一。此數據反映香港市民較傾向支持平反六四，而亦有部份人對六四事件沒有表示明確態度。至於被訪者在九七後又是否會參加六四紀念集會，有六成四表示不會，表示會參加的有二成六。

另一項頗惹爭議性的問題是究竟九七後是否仍有六四紀念集會，此問題牽涉中國政府在九七後對特區內部事務的容忍及不干預程度。為測試市民對此問題的看法，是次調查要求被訪者估計在九七後本港是否還有六四紀念集會。結果發現，有五成的被訪者估計在九七後仍然有六四紀念集會，另有三成四則估計沒有，表示「唔知／難講」的有一成六。換句話說，一般被訪

者對未來的集會自由尚算樂觀。thought Hong Kong people had a responsibility towards

China’s economic development. This reflects that more

people believed Hong Kong people had greater

responsibility towards China’s economic development

than democratic development.

If given only one choice, 48% said Hong Kong

people should help China develop its economy, only 19%

chose democratic developement.

As to whether China needs economic or democratic

development more at this moment? A total of 55%

thought China needed economic development more, 24%

thought both were equally important and 17% thought

China needed democratic development more.

In our latest survey, we asked the respondents

whether they supported a reversion of the official stand

on the June 4 Incident. According to the research result,

half of the respondents demonstrated support for such a

move, 19% did not and 31% refused to comment. As to

whether the respondents would participate in

commemorative activities after 1997, 64% said they

would not while 26% said they would.

10-11 119


擺放「國殤之柱」的爭議近期支聯會在市政局申請於市政局場地擺放「國

殤之柱」的問題引來不少關注，而支聯會亦計劃在區域市政局再次提出同樣的申請。由於這件事件的爭議與六四事件的紀念活動有著密切的關係，故最新的民意調查中亦有測試市民對此事件的看法。調查數據顯示，有四成一的被訪者不贊成市政局否決支聯會租用市政局場地擺放「國殤之柱」的決定，有三成二則表示支持市政局的決定，另外的二成七則沒有表示意見。整體而言，不贊成市政局決定的比率比贊成的略高九個百分比。市民對支聯會的支持

在過去的六年調查中，本研究組均有要求市民對支聯會給予評分，在最新一次調查中，支聯會獲五十五點六分，對比在九二年的五十九點五分，下降三點九分，顯示市民對支聯會的支持度沒有太大的轉變。至於對支聯會解散的問題，有五成三的被訪者認為不應該解散支聯會，認為應解散的有一成三，沒有肯定答案的亦有三成四。對比過去數年的調查結果，市民在此問題上的態度並沒有轉變，認為不應該解散支聯會的比率一直維持在五成或五成多左右。

In another question, the respondents were asked to predict whether there would be any commemorative activities after 1997. A total of 50% said ‘yes’ while 34% said ‘no’, the remaining 16% found it hard to predict. Generally speaking, the respondents were fairly optimistic towards the freedom of gathering after the handover, based several guarantees from the SAR Chief Executive.

Recently, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratice Movement in China (“the Alliance”) applied for a site to exhibit the ‘Pillar of Shame’, but was rejected by the Urban Council. A total of 41% disagreed with the Urban Council’s rejection, while 32% supported it.

In the past five years, we have been rating people’s support of the Alliance. In our latest survey, the rating of it was 55.6. With regard to the disband of the Alliance, 53% said it should not be disbanded, 13% said it should and 34% was uncertain. Compared to findings in the past few years, the public’s opinion was fairly stable over this question.

支聯會評分 Rating of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratice Movement in China 調查年份 Year of survey 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

支持度 Support rating 59.5 54.1 54.3 59.4 59.5 55.6

標準誤差 Standard error 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1

總人數 Total sample size 1002 499 504 504 521 531

評分人數 Valid raters 862 365 348 350 356 392

認知率 Recognition rate 86.0% 73.1% 69.0% 69.4% 68.3% 73.8%

問題 : 你覺得應唔應該解散支聯會？Question: Do you think the Alliance should be disbanded?


年份 Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

樣本數目 Sample size 573 504 504 521 531


百份率% 百份率% 百份率% 百份率% 百份率%

10-11 119


應該 Yes 11.5 12.2 14.3 12.3 12.9

唔應該 No 54.5 49.2 49.2 48.4 53.4

唔知/難講/無意見 Don’t know/Hard to say 34.0 38.5 36.5 39.3 33.8

總數 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

六四事件調查的最新數字 Figures from the latest survey on the June Fourth Incident

調查日期 Date of survey 27/5/1997 回應率 Response rate 44.4%

樣本數目 Sample size 531 抽樣誤差 Standard error 少於 less than 2.0%

問題 :同八九年比較，你覺得中國而家既人權狀況好左定差左？ Question: Compared to 1989, do you think China’s human right condition has become better or worse?

好左 Better 63.2% 差左 Worse 3.8%

差不多 Same 25.0% 唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 7.9%

問題 : 你覺得香港人有冇責任推動中國既經濟發展？ Question: Do you think Hong Kong people have a responsibility to instigate economic development in China?

有 Yes 87.0% 冇 No 5.7% 唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 7.3%

問題 : 你覺香港人應該推動中國既經濟發展多Ｄ定係民主發展多Ｄ？ Question: Do you think Hong Kong people should put more effort on instigating development in China‘s economy or democracy?

經濟多些 Economic development 47.8% 民主多些 Democratic development 18.9%

一樣 Same 27.9% 唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 5.5%

問題 : 你覺得中國而家需要經濟發展多Ｄ定係民主發展多Ｄ？ Question: Which do you think China needs more: economic or democratic development?

經濟多些 Economic development 55.0% 民主多些 Democratic development 16.5%

一樣 Same 23.5% 唔知／難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 5.0% 問題 : 你是否支持平反六四？ Question: Do you support a reversion of the official stand on the June Fourth Incident?

支持 Yes 49.9% 唔支持 No 18.9% 唔知 / 難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 31.2%

問題 : 如果九七後重有六四紀念集會，你會唔會參加？ Question: If there were still June Fourth commemorative activities after 1997, would you take part in them?

會 Yes 26.4% 唔會 No 63.9% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 9.7%

問題 :你估計九七後重有冇六四紀念集會？ Question: Do you think there would be June Fourth commemoratve activities after 1997?

有 Yes 50.2% 冇 No 34.3% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 15.6%

10-11 119


問題 :最近市政局否決支聯會租用市政局場地擺放「國殤之柱」，你贊唔贊成市政局呢個決定？ Question: The Urban Council has recently rejected the Alliance’s application to exhibit the “Pillar of Shame”. Do you agree with this decision?

贊成 Agree 32.4% 唔贊成 Disagree 40.9% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 26.7%

10-11 119

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年六月號有關梁銘彥事件之民意調查

Opinion Survey on the Incident of Laurence Leung

調查日期 Date of survey:20-21/1/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 549 回應比率 Response rate: 46.9% 調查日期 Date of survey:18-19/2/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 534 回應比率 Response rate: 45.1% 調查日期 Date of survey:5-6/6/97 樣本數目 Sample size: 544 回應比率 Response rate: 40.4%

你認為最近既梁銘彥事件有冇增加或者減少政府既公信力? Do you think the incident of Laurence Leung has increased/decreased the credibility of the Government?

20-21/1/97 5-6/6/97 增加公信力 Increased 1.3% 4.1%

減少公信力Decreased 49.1% 32.5%

冇影響 No effect 32.9% 38.0%


你擔唔擔心今次梁銘彥既事件會影響公務員隊伍既士氣? Are you worried that the incident of Laurence Leung would affect the morale of the civil servants?

20-21/1/97 5-6/6/97 擔心Worried 41.0% 25.8%

唔擔心 Not worried 46.4% 55.2%


你相唔相信梁銘彥係聆訊期間既說話？ Do you believe in Laurence Leung’s words in the Select Committee hearing?

20-21/1/97 18-19/2/97 5-6/6/97 相信 Yes 22.3% 20.1% 14.4%

唔相信 No 16.0% 23.8% 22.4%

半信半疑/唔知/難講 Half-half/Don’t know 45.4% 30.0% 39.7%

唔清楚佢講乜 Don’t know what he said 16.2% 26.0% 23.5%

你相唔相信港府官員係立法局調查委員會聆訊中所講既說話? Do you believe in the words of the government officials in the Select Committee hearing?

18-19/2/97 5-6/6/97 相信 Yes 21.7% 20.3%

唔相信 No 23.3% 18.3%

半信半疑/唔知/難講 Half-half/Don’t know 30.5% 38.5%

唔清楚佢既表現 Don’t know what they said 24.5% 22.9%

咁你滿唔滿意立法局議員係聆訊期間既表現？ Are you satisfied with the performance of the Legislative Councillors in the Select Committee hearing?

20-21/1/97 5-6/6/97 滿意 Satisfied 53.5% 38.4%

唔滿意 Dissatisifed 14.4% 21.6%


唔清楚佢既表現 Don’t know their performance 19.9% 22.0%

請問你接唔接受政府以公眾利益為理由唔肯公開有關梁銘彥既廉署調查報告同品格審查報告？ Do you accept the Government’s reason of it being ‘in the interest of the public’ to keep the ICAC report and police integrity-check report confidential?

20-21/1/97 5-6/6/97 接受 Accept 25.1% 30.4%

124 10-16

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年六月號唔接受 Do not accept 60.8% 46.5%


124 10-16



調查日期 Date of Survey 支持度 Support Rating 按月平均分 Monthly Average四月份第一次調查 1st survey in April 10-11,14-15/4/97 58.6 59.0


五月份第一次調查 1st survey in May 2,5/5/97 57.3 59.0

五月份第二次調查 2nd survey in May 19-20/5/97 59.4 （五月 May）五月份第三次調查 3rd survey in May 27/5/97 60.4


調查日期 Date of Survey 支持度 Support Rating 按月平均分 Monthly Average四月份第一次調查 1st survey in April 10-11,14-15/4/97 57.9 57.7


五月份第一次調查 1st survey in May 2,5/5/97 57.4 58.6

五月份第二次調查 2nd survey in May 19-20/5/97 58.8 （五月 May）五月份第三次調查 3rd survey in May 27/5/97 59.7


Date of survey in MayFirst Stage (naming)

Result from the survey in May 97 Accumulated results in this year (6 surveys)

五月第一階段訪問日期（提名）: 2,5/5/97

九七年五月份調查結果累積今年(六次)調查結果Second Stage (rating)五月第二階段訪問日期（評分）:


Total sample

No. of raters




19-20/5/97 支持度標準誤差總人數評分人數認知度上榜次數平均支持度平均認知度Tung Chee-hwa 董建華 62.6 0.9 518 380 73.4% 5 62.6 70.6%Frederick Fung 馮檢基 57.8 1.0 518 312 60.2% 4 56.5 65.5%Rita Fan 范徐麗泰 55.5 1.1 518 350 67.6% 5 54.8 68.6%Leung Chun-ying 梁振英 55.3 1.2 518 283 54.6% 2 53.5 49.6%Tam Yiu-chung 譚耀宗 55.1 1.1 518 307 59.3% 5 55.2 62.2%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 54.8 1.0 518 331 63.9% 6 52.8 70.5%Jasper Tsang 曾鈺成 54.0 1.0 518 302 58.3% 6 51.4 61.0%Maria Tam 譚惠珠 51.7 1.1 518 319 61.6% 6 50.0 66.7%Lau Wong-fat 劉皇發 50.5 1.2 518 303 58.5% 1 50.5 58.5%Liza Wong 汪明荃 48.6 1.2 518 328 63.3% 4 45.9 68.7%Top 5 Average 首五名平均分 57.3 63.0%Top 10 Average 首十名平均分 54.6 62.1%

10-17 125

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年六月號十大香港臨時立法會議員評分

Ratings of the Top Ten Members of the Provisional Legislative Council

Date of survey in MayFirst Stage (naming)

Result from the survey in May 97 Accumulated results in this year(3 surveys)五月第一階段訪問日期（提名）:

2,5/5/97 九七年五月份調查結果累積今年(三次)調查結果

Second Stage (rating)五月第二階段訪問日期（評分）: 19-20/5/97


Total sample

No. of raters




支持度標準誤差總人數評分人數認知度上榜次數平均支持度平均認知度Elsia Tu 杜葉鍚恩 59.9 1.1 518 331 63.9% 3 59.5 69.5%Selina Chow 周梁淑怡 58.3 1.0 518 364 70.3% 3 56.9 72.6%Frederick Fung 馮檢基 58.0 1.0 518 339 65.4% 3 56.1 66.6%Tam Yiu-chung 譚耀宗 55.8 1.0 518 310 59.8% 3 54.3 64.1%Rita Fan 范徐麗泰 55.0 1.1 518 362 69.9% 3 53.5 70.9%Henry Tang 唐英年 54.7 1.1 518 293 56.6% 1 54.7 56.6%Jasper Tsang 曾鈺成 53.5 1.1 518 320 61.8% 2 53.2 64.5%Allen Lee 李鵬飛 53.5 1.1 518 327 63.1% 3 51.5 69.1%Maria Tam 譚惠珠 51.7 1.2 518 313 60.4% 3 50.4 66.8%Andrew Wong 黃宏發 51.0 1.0 518 343 66.2% 3 48.1 70.7%Top 5 average 首五名平均分 57.4 65.9%Top 10 average 首十名平均分 55.1 63.7%

市民對中、英、港、台政府的信任程度Trust in Chinese, British, Hong Kong and Taiwan Governments

調查日期 Date of survey: 10-11,14-15/4/97; 22-24,26-27/4,1/5/97; 2,5/5/97問題: 整體黎講, 你信唔信任XX政府呢? Question: On the whole, do you trust the XX government?

中國Chinese

英國British

香港Hong Kong

台灣Taiwan

四月份調查Survey in April

26.8% 30.8% 59.3% 14.1%

五月份調查Survey in May

30.7% 33.6% 63.3% -


調查日期 Date of survey: 10-11,14-15/4/97; 28-29/4/97; 2,5/5/97; 15-16,19/5/97; 27/5/97整體黎講, 你對一國兩制/香港前途有冇信心 On the whole, do you have confidence in ‘one-country, two systems’/HK’s future?

一國兩制 One country, two systems 香港前途 Hong Kong’s future四月份第一次調查 1st survey in April 51.3% 64.1%

四月份第二次調查 2nd survey in April - 66.7%

五月份第一次調查 1st survey in May 59.0% 68.9%

五月份第二次調查 2nd survey in May - 71.8%

126 10-18

民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊一九九七年六月號六月份調查 Survey in June 56.8% 67.9%

126 10-18


市民對香港新聞傳媒的評價Opinion Surveys on News Media in Hong Kong

調查日期 Date of survey: 5-6/6/97 調查樣本 Sample size :544 回應率 Response rate : 40.4%

那一種渠道是你的主要新聞來源？(可選多項) Which of the following channels are your main source of news? (Multiple response)

　電視 Television 40.8% 電台 Radio 13.2% 報章 Newspapers 33.8%

　雜誌 Magazines 5.2% 朋友 Friends 2.9% 家人 Family members 3.1%

　其他 Others 0.1% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 0.9%

如果各種渠道既消息有矛盾，你覺得邊一個新聞來源最值得信任？When there is a conflict of information, which of the following news channels do you trust most?

　電視 Television 44.9% 電台 Radio 9.0% 報章 Newspapers 19.3%

　雜誌 Magazines 0.4% 朋友 Friends 0.0% 家人 Family members 0.6%

　其他 Others 1.6% 唔知/難講 Don’t know/Hard to say 24.3%

問題：你滿唔滿意新聞傳媒的整體表現？Are you satisfied with the overall performance of the news media?

　滿意 Satisfied 67.8% 普通 Average 22.0%

　唔滿意 Dissatisfied 4.9% 唔知／難講　Don’t know/Hard to say 5.3%

問題：你滿唔滿意 XXX 既表現？Are you satisfied with the performance of XXX?

電視 Television 電台 Radio 報章 Newspaper 雜誌 Magazine　滿意 Satisfied 71.3% 55.8% 45.6% 12.1%

　普通 Average 15.1% 13.6% 22.2% 18.9%

　唔滿意 Dissatisfied 10.1% 4.4% 12.7% 29.9%

　唔知／難講　Don’t know/Hard to say 3.5% 26.2% 19.6% 39.1%

九七年五月份社研定期調查之樣本數據 Contact information for POP tracking polls conducted in May 1997第一次調查 First poll 第二次調查 First poll

日期 Date of surveys 2,5/5/97 19-20/5/97

訪問對象 Target population 十八歲或以上之香港市民 Hong Kong population aged 18 or above調查方法 Survey method 電話訪問 Telephone survey抽樣方法 Sampling method 從住宅電話簿中隨機抽出號碼，再用電腦配套另一部份。當成功接觸目標住戶後，

再用出生日期抽取其中一名被訪者接受訪問。Telephone numbers were selected randomly from telephone directories and additional numbers generated by the computer. If more than one subject had been available, the one who had his/her birthday next was selected.




10-19 127


10-19 127



朝日新聞 Asahi Shimbun

(贊助香港市民對九七過渡及對中國政府的期望意見調查) (for sponsoring the opinion survey on the 1997 transition,

and expectations for the Chinese government)

民意研究計劃最新出版資料 LATEST POP PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE 《香港市對九七過渡的意見調查》 Opinion Survey On the 1997 Transition

中英雙語版 Bilingual version: 每本 $70 per copy

《民意快訊》第一至六期合訂本 POP EXPRESS No.1 to No.6 Combined Volumn




本人欲定期訂閱《民意快訊》: 由 __________年_________月至 ___________年__________月I would like to subscribe to POP Express from ________________to _________________□ 郵寄本港 by post, local ($15@) □ 郵寄海外 by post, overseas ($19@)《民意快訊》第一至六期合訂本 POP EXPRESS No.1 to No.6 Combined Volumn:□ 自取 pick-up ($145@) □ 郵寄本港 by post, local ($155@) □ 郵寄海外 by post, overseas ($225@)

姓名 Name: 電話 Tel.no: 傳真 Fax no.:

機構 Organization: 職位 Position:

地址 Address:

*付款方式: 如劃線支票付款，抬頭請寫「香港大學」。*Payment method: Cheques should be crossed and payable to “The University of Hong Kong”.

128 10-20

索引Index

**[ ]內的篇號乃刊登該項目的期號及其頁數**The numbers in [ ] indicate the no. of issue and the page no. in that issue carrying that item.

編者的話 From the Editor 發刊詞 1[1-1]Inaugural Statement分析與評論 13[2-1]Analysis and Commentary評特首推選意見調查 25[3-1]Comments on Surveys on the Selection of the HKSAR Chief Executive主權回歸與特首推選 37[4-1]Return of Sovereignty and Selection of the HKSAR Chief Executive鄧小平功過 50[5-2]The Contributions and Demerits of Deng Xiaoping鄧小平逝世 62[6-2]Death of Deng Xiaoping<<民意快訊>>半週年 74[7-2]Half-anniversary of POP EXPRESS香港新聞自由與新聞傳媒的表現 86[8-2]Press Freedom and News Media in Hong Kong台灣專題 98[9-2]Taiwan Issues主權回歸與六四回顧 110[10-2]Return of Sovereignty and Review of the June Fourth Incident

評分調查 Popularity Ratings 各項評分調查之設計方法 2[1-2]Reseach Design of Popularity Ratings港督彭定康評分 7[1-7], 13[2-1], 25[3-1], 46[4-10],Ratings of Governor Chris Patten 58[5-10], 67[6-7], 82[7-10],

91[8-7], 106[9-10], 125[10-17]

129

董建華評分 59[5-11], 67[6-7], 82[7-10],Ratings of Tung Chee-hwa 92[8-8], 106[9-10], 125[10-17]十大香港特別行政區籌備委員會評分 6[1-6], 22[2-10], 47[4-11],Ratings of the Top Ten HKSAR Preparatory 71[6-11], 93[8-9], 125[10-17]Committee Members十大立法局議員評分 9[1-9], 35[3-11], 60[5-12],Ratings of the Top Ten Legco Members 83[7-11], 106[9-10]十大政治人物評分 10[1-10], 48[4-12], 94[8-10]Ratings of the Top Ten Political Figures十大香港特別行政區臨時立法會議員評分 66[6-6], 94[8-10], 126[10-18]Ratings of the Top Ten HKSAR Provisional Legislative Council Members五大政治團體評分 9[1-9], 35[3-11], 59[5-11],Ratings of the Top Five Political Groups 83[7-11], 107[9-11]五大中國領導人評分 34[3-10], 50[5-2], 82[7-10],Ratings of the Top Five Chinese Leaders 104[9-8]

一九九七回歸與信心問題 1997 Transition and Confidence Issues 特區行政長官民意調查及評論 3[1-3], 23[2-11], 26[3-2],Surveys and Comments on the Chief Executive of HKSAR 40[4-4], 43[4-7]市民對「一國兩制」及香港前途的信心 20[2-8], 58[5-10], 71[6-11],Confidence in “One country, Two systems” and 82[7-10], 93[8-9],Hong Kong’s Future 107[9-11], 114[10-6]市民對中、英、港、台政府的信任程度 21[2-9], 36[3-12], 47[4-11],Trust in Chinese, British, Hong Kong and 58[5-10], 71[6-11], 81[7-9],Taiwan Governments 93[8-9], 107[9-11]民協成員應否加入臨時立法會之選民意見調查 29[3-5]Opinion Survey on Whether ADPL Members Should Join the Provisional Legislative Council市民對基本法的認識 32[3-8]People’s Knowledge of the Basic Law首屆特區行政長官當選後即晚民意調查 42[4-6]Instant Poll on the Selection of the First Chief Executive of HKSAR有關臨時立法會民意調查結果 44[4-8], 52[5-4]Results of Opinion Surveys on the Provisional Legislative Council

130

市民對平穩過渡的信心 45[4-9], 92[8-8], 113[10-5]Confidence in a Smooth Transition市民對九七回歸的意見調查 54[5-6]Survey on People’s Feeling on the 1997 Transition有關董建華與李柱銘爭拗之民意調查 68[6-8]Opinion Survey on the Argument Between Tung Chee-hwa and Martin Lee市民對人權法民意調查 70[6-10]Survey on People’s Opinion on Human Rights Legislation市民最關注的範圍 74[7-2], 105[9-9]Areas of People’s Concern市民對現狀的滿意程度 76[7-4]People’s Satisfaction with the Current Condition市民對未來發展的評價 77[7-5]People’s Assessment of Future Development有關不同組織公信力的民意調查 79[7-7]Survey on the Credibility of Various Organizations港台市民對香港及台灣前途意見比較 100[9-4]Comparison of Hong Kong and Taiwan People’s Feelings on the Future of Hong Kong and Taiwan九七回歸後的變化 110[10-2]Anticipated Change After the 1997 Transition九七回歸前市民的心情 111[10-3]The Public Mood Before the 1997 Transition對香港前途的信心 115[10-7]Confidence in Hong Kong’s Future對特區行政會議成員任政策研究的看法 116[10-8]Appointment of SAR Executive Councillors to Devise Policies對九七後貪污情況的看法 117[10-9]Opinion on Corruption After 1997對中國政府的期望 118[10-10]Expections for the Chinese Government

本港政策 Local Policies 施政報告滿意程度 8[1-8]Satisfaction with Policy Addresses市民對港督施政報告的即時反應 14[2-2]

131

Instant Reaction Towards the Governor’s Policy Address

131

市民對退休保障制度的意見調查 89[8-5]Survey on People’s Opinion on Pension Schemes市民對填海的意見調查 90[8-6]Survey on People’s Opinion on Harbour Reclamation

選舉研究 Electoral Studies 澳門選舉模式不合香港政情 17[2-5]Macau’s Election Model Not Suitable for Hong Kong從黃大仙區議會(新蒲崗選區)補選看民主黨的生存空間 55[5-7]The Future of the Democratic Party as Reflected in the Wong Tai Sing (San Po Kong) District Board By-election大埔區議會(船灣選區)補選票站調查 69[6-9]Tai Po District Board (Plover Cove) By-election Exit Poll

國家問題 National Issues 有關釣魚台領土主權爭論之民意調查 11[1-11]Survey on the Controversy Over the Sovereignty of the Diaoyu Island港人對鄧小平的看法 49[5-1]Feeling about Deng Xiaoping市民對鄧小平的評價 62[6-2]People’s Evaluation of Deng Xiaoping鄧小平的功過 63[6-3]Deng Xiaoping’s Achievements鄧小平逝世後對香港及中國發展的影響 64[6-4]Effect of Deng’s Death on the Development of Hong Kong and China市民對近代中國領導人的功過評價 65[6-5]People’s Feeling about Contemporary Chinese Leaders鄧小平逝世對港人信心的影響 65[6-5]Effect of Deng’s Death on People’s Confidence

台灣問題民意調查 98[9-2]Surveys on Taiwan Issues市民對中國公安的看法 116[10-8]People’s Opinion on the Police Officers in China

132

有關六四事件民意調查總結 119[10-11]Combined Analysis on the June Fourth Incident

其他調查 Other Surveys 市民對脊骨神經科醫生稱號的意見 30[3-6]People’s Perception of the Title Dzek Gwat San Ging Fo Ji Sang一九九六年回顧調查 38[4-2]1996 Year-end Survey有關梁銘彥事件之民意調查 53[5-5], 124[10-16]Opinion Survey on the Incident of Laurence Leung有關崇拜偶像的民意調查 68[6-8]Opinion Survey on Idol Admiration市民對投資的認識及意見調查 80[7-8], 103[9-7]People’s Knowledge and Opinion of the Investment Market市民對香港新聞傳媒的評價 86[8-2], 127[10-19]Opinion Surveys on the News Media in Hong Kong斜坡維修及斜坡安全評估調查 102[9-6]Evaluation Survey on Slope Maintenance and the Slope Safety Campaign

133

《民意快訊合訂本第一冊特刊》編輯委員會 · web...

Documents