PORI’s looming end and why Hong Kong needs credible polling outfits
Hong Kong Free Press
On Thursday, pollster Robert Chung announced that the independent Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (PORI) would “suspend all its self-funded research activities indefinitely, including regular tacking surveys conducted since 1992… or even may close down,” citing the “current environment.” This is an alarming development.
Robert Chung’s statement was apparently prompted by his run-ins with the national security police who are investigating whether he or PORI aided his former colleague, Chung Kim-wah, now overseas and wanted by the police. PORI has repeatedly emphasised that it has always obeyed the law. We expect nothing less.
PORI referenced the “current environment.” What is the current environment? Since 2020 authorities have narrowed the space for civil society where PORI operates. The community is deeply divided. Representative institutions such as the Legislative Council (LegCo) and the district councils mostly express one-dimensional support for the government. The government’s overriding concern is national security.
Consumers of public opinion polls include government, business, the media, and academics. We need polling beyond issues of narrow business interests such as consumer sentiment. The media and academics need the results of polls to accurately reflect society’s views. But so too does the government.
First, public opinion informs evidence-based policy-making. Because most policy is co-produced, what the public thinks about policy is part of the evidence that policymakers must take into account when they make decisions on our behalf.
Not doing so has wasteful consequences. Witness the municipal solid-waste charging fiasco. Polls conducted by PORI contribute to informed public discussion of public policy.
Second, beyond public policy, PORI focuses on trust, public sentiment, and legitimacy – critical issues for effective governance and social stability.
If we want to know why authorities in Beijing perceive that Hong Kong is not yet stable, we can look no further than the results of opinion polls. They track different opinions based on age, education and social class, and show low (but improving) levels of trust in government.
PORI is one of only a handful of credible public opinion polling outfits in Hong Kong. Another is the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Hong Kong Institute of Asia Pacific Studies.
We used to have more credible polling organizations. Hong Kong Baptist University’s Transition Project tracked public sentiment in the run-up to 1997.
Inside the government, the Central Policy Unit (CPU) used to poll public opinion but kept the results secret. Presumably, the government then sought to make policy that met public expectations. Then-chief executive Carrie Lam wound up the CPU in 2017.
Independent polling performs a valuable service. Because organisations like PORI are not controlled by the authorities and use scientific methods, they have credibility and our leaders need to take their results seriously.
Beyond PORI and CUHK, other organisations poll public opinion. Supported by political groups, they mostly have axes to grind. Unscientific polls, designed to demonstrate support for some pre-determined position, do a great disservice. They mislead leaders and the public into thinking that they understand public opinion, when they don’t.
See also: Journalists can play a key role in holding Hong Kong’s gov’t to account
The government needs to meet the expectations of the community. How do officials know what these expectations are except via credible, scientifically conducted, publicly available polls? This is what PORI delivers.
In 2018, the government declared that it sought to be transparent, open and accountable to the public “as much as possible.” Polling outfits like PORI and the media are part of the infrastructure for holding the government to account. They bring to public notice issues of concern to the public.
The relationship between the political class and polling is conflicted. Leaders praise polls that support them, but condemn polls, the pollsters and their methods when they do not. Leaders need to recognise that polls and pollsters are the message and the messenger. Credibility depends on delivering the good and the bad. In this, officials are mostly opportunistic.
Witness Robert Chung’s run-in with authority during the Tung Chee-hwa years. At the time, Chung led PORI’s predecessor, the Public Opinion Programme (POP), which was housed at the University of Hong Kong (HKU).
In 2000, after the polls showed popular dissatisfaction with Tung, an official from the chief executive’s office expressed dissatisfaction with Chung’s polls to HKU’s vice-chancellor.
Authorities within HKU then communicated this dissatisfaction to Chung, who perceived that authorities interfered with his academic freedom. He complained publicly. A judicial-like public inquiry agreed with Chung, and the HKU vice-chancellor stepped down.
I urge the community to support PORI. Community support is a measure of the health of our civil society. People of goodwill should not fear delivering authentic public opinion to authority, messages of both opposition and support.
The government needs to have a comprehensive view of community sentiment. Credible polling helps deliver these messages reliably and effectively to authority. PORI delivers such polling and deserves our strong support.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
| HKFP is an impartial platform & does not necessarily share the views of opinion writers or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views & regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Press freedom is guaranteed under the Basic Law, security law, Bill of Rights and Chinese constitution. Opinion pieces aim to point out errors or defects in the government, law or policies, or aim to suggest ideas or alterations via legal means without an intention of hatred, discontent or hostility against the authorities or other communities. |
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .entry-title {
font-size: 1.2em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .entry-meta {
display: flex;
flex-wrap: wrap;
align-items: center;
margin-top: 0.5em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .entry-meta {
font-size: 0.8em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles article .avatar {
height: 25px;
width: 25px;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail{
margin: 0;
margin-bottom: 0.25em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail img {
height: auto;
width: 100%;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles .post-thumbnail figcaption {
margin-bottom: 0.5em;
}
.wp-block-newspack-blocks-homepage-articles p {
margin: 0.5em 0;
}
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.