 |
°Ý¡G¡u¤ä«ù«×¡v©M¡u¤ä«ù²v¡v¦³¤°»ò¤À§O¡H
Q: What is the difference between "support ratings" and "support rates"?
µª¡G¡u¤ä«ù«×¡vªº³æ¦ì¬O0¤À¦Ü100¤À¡AÅã¥Ü¤@¯ëÉ]¥Á¹ï¤ä«ù¬Y¬Y¤H¤h©Î¹ÎÅ骺¦n·Pµ{«×¡C¡u¤ä«ù²v¡vªº³æ¦ì¬O0¢H¦Ü100¢H¡A¥Nªí´X¦hÉ]¥Á¤ä«ù¬Y¬Y¤H¤h©Î¬FÄÒ¡C¬Y¬Y¤H¤h¥i¯àªí²{¥¥¡A±o¤À¶È¶È¦X®æ¡A¦ý¦b¸¾¤¤µL¤j±Nªº±¡ªp¤U¡A¥i¯à®t¤£¦h©Ò¦³É]¥Á³£¤ä«ù¥L°õ¦æ¬YÓn¾¡C¬Û¤Ï¡A¬Y¬Y¤H¤h¥i¯à¤H«~¤£¿ù¡A±o¤À©|¥i¡A¦ý¦]¬°¤£¬O»â³S¤H§÷¡A©Ò¥HÉ]¥Á³£¤Ï¹ï¥L¥X¥ô¬YÓn¾¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~1¤ë10¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A¡G "Support ratings" are expressed on a 0-100 scale, it shows how good or bad people feel about certain public figures or organizations. "Support rates" are expressed in terms of 0% - 100%, indicating the proportion of people supporting certain public figures or political groups. A person may have a mediocre support rating, but he may be considered by most people as the best person suited to a job, simply because there is no better people around. Likewise, a person may have an acceptable rating, but because he lacks leadership, nobody wants him to take up a certain job.
(First release: Supplementary section of our press release of
10 January 2006)
|
 |
°Ý¡G¥H¥Á·N¤ä«ù²vp¡A¦b³Ì·s½Õ¬d¤¤¡A¯Sº©M¦U°Ý³d©xûªº¥Á±æ¥i¥H¥Î¤°»ò°ò·Ç¨Ó§Î®e¡H
Q: In HKUPOP's latest survey, judging from government officials' support rates alone, how can we describe the popularity of the CE and the principal officials using various benchmarks?
µª¡GÃö©ó©xû¥Á±æ°ò·Çªº°ÝÃD¡A¥»Äæ¦b2006¦~7¤ë25¤é¡B8¤ë8¤é¡B8¤ë29¤é¡B9¤ë12¤é©M9¤ë26¤é¤w¸g°Q½×¤F¤Ó°ò·Ç¡A¥]¬A¡u²z·Q¡v¡B¡u¦¨¥\¡v¡B¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v¡B¡u©å¦H¡v©M¡u¤£¹ü¡v¡A¦b¦¹¤£ÂØ¡C¤µ¤é°Q½×ªº¡A¬O¦p¦ó§â¥H¤W°ò·ÇÀ³¥Î¦b³Ì·sªº½Õ¬d¤W¡C¼Æ¾ÚÅã¥Ü¡A¦b10¤ëªì¡A«O¦w§½§½ªø§õ¤Ö¥úªº¤ä«ù²v¶W¹L66¢H¡AÄÝ©óªí²{¡u²z·Q¡v¡F«ß¬F¥q¥qªø¶À¤¯Às¡B¯Sº´¿½®Åv¡B°]¬F¥q¥qªøð^¦~¡B¤ÎÀô¹Ò¹B¿é¤Î¤u°È§½§½ªø¹ù¨q¥Vªº¤ä«ù²v¶W¹L50¢H¡AÄÝ©óªí²{¡u¦¨¥\¡v¡F¤½°Èû¨Æ°È§½§½ªø«\©v©É¡B¤u°Ó¤Î¬ì§Þ§½§½ªø¤ý¥Ã¥¡B¤Î¬F°È¥q¥qªø³\¥K¤¯ªº¤ä«ù©M¤Ï¹ï²v¦Xp¤£¨¬50¢H¡AÄÝ©óªí²{¡u¤£¹ü¡v¡F¨ä¾l©xûªºªí²{¤¶¥G¡u¦¨¥\¡v»P¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v¤§¶¡¡AÄÝ©óªí²{¡u¤@¯ë¡v¡A¥]¬A¸gÀÙµo®i¤Î³Ò¤u§½§½ªø¸æ@ûi¡B½Ã¥ÍºÖ§Q¤Î¹ª«§½§½ªø©P¤@À®¡B±Ð¨|²ÎÄw§½§½ªø§õ°ê³¹¡B°]¸g¨Æ°È¤Î®w°È§½§½ªø°¨®É¦ë¡B¥Á¬F¨Æ°È§½§½ªø¦ó§Ó¥¡B©Ð«Î¤Î³W¹º¦a¬F§½§½ªø®]©ú´¡B¤Î¬F¨î¨Æ°È§½§½ªøªL·çÅï¡C¥H10¤ëªìp¡A¨S¦³©xûªºªí²{ÄÝ©ó¡u¥¢±Ñ¡v©ÎªÌ¡u©å¦H¡v¡C(ªìª©¡G2006¦~10¤ë10¤é·s»D¤½³ø¤§ªþ¥[¸ê®Æ)
A¡G In our press releases of July 25, August 8 and 29, September 12 and 26, 2006, we discussed five benchmarks of popularity, namely, "ideal", "successful", "depressing", "disastrous" and "inconspicuous". We will not repeat the discussion here, but we will apply them to our latest survey findings. In early October, the support rate of Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee exceeds 66%, his performance can be labeled as "ideal". The support rates of SJ Wong Yan-lung, CE Donald Tsang, FS Henry Tang and Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works Sarah Liao all exceed 50%, their performance can be labeled as "successful". The combined support and disapproval rates of Secretary for the Civil Service Denise Yue, Secretary for the Commerce, Industry and Technology Joseph Wong and CS Rafael Hui do not reach 50%, their performance can be labeled as "inconspicuous". The performance of all other officials range between "successful" and "depressing", they can be labeled as just "mediocre". They include Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip, Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food York Chow, Secretary for Education and Manpower Arthur Li, Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Frederick Ma, Secretary for Home Affairs Patrick Ho, Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen, and Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam. In early October, no official falls under the categories of "depressing" or "disastrous".
(First release: Supplementary section of our press release of
10 October 2006)
|