A recent survey conducted by the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (HKPORI) revealed the level of satisfaction among residents regarding various social policies. Among the 10 designated social policy categories, citizens showed the highest satisfaction with higher education policy, scoring 5.38 out of 10. Conversely, housing policy had the lowest average satisfaction rating of 4.60.
The survey took place from May 6 to 13, utilizing a mix of random telephone interviews conducted by field interviewers and online surveys through text message invitations. A total of 765 Hong Kong residents were successfully interviewed, comprising 676 telephone interview samples and 89 online survey samples.
In the ranking of satisfaction levels across the social policy categories, higher education policy received the highest score of 5.38, followed by basic education policy at 5.37. The rankings from highest to lowest satisfaction were rehabilitation services for the disabled (5.32), healthcare policy (5.32), family and child welfare services (5.19), social security policy (5.02), labor policy (4.94), youth services (4.86), elderly services (4.60). Housing policy, with an average satisfaction rating of 4.60, consistently scored the lowest among all categories in each survey since October 2021.
Looking at the overall satisfaction ratings across all policy categories, only basic education policy showed a slight increase compared to a year ago, while the remaining 9 categories experienced a decline.
Analysis from the HKPORI revealed common terms used by respondents to evaluate housing policy included “public housing,” “property prices,” “new immigrants,” “affordability,” and “cage homes.” Concerns raised included lengthy public housing waiting times, inadequate supply, limited housing options for young people and singles, and worries about preferential treatment in housing allocations for new immigrants. Criticisms were also voiced regarding the government’s lack of long-term planning and foresight in housing development, high property prices and rents causing economic pressure on citizens, although some expressed concerns that a decline in property prices could trigger an economic crisis.
Discussing evaluations of basic education policy, common terms cited included “brainwashing,” “patriotism,” “politics,” and “lack of.” Critiques highlighted an overemphasis on patriotic education and national security, neglect of critical thinking, fears of indoctrinating future generations with a pro-government ideology, and concerns about the politicization of education prioritizing loyalty over professional autonomy. Some also criticized the lack of strategic direction in education policy, failing to adequately prepare students for emerging industries and global competitiveness, citing insufficient talent and future-oriented skill development.
黃志偉, a lecturer at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University School of Social Sciences, analyzed the results and pointed out that the government’s ability to maintain a certain level of service delivery has prevented major disappointments among citizens. This reflects a period of relative calm. Regarding the highest satisfaction level in higher education policy, he noted concerns about university funding being a worry as the younger generation is leaving Hong Kong due to demographic changes.
Looking ahead, 黃志偉 suggested potential fluctuations could occur in basic education policy with the implementation of national education. Concerns about parental indoctrination may need to be monitored for changes resulting from mainland visits, specific teaching approaches, and other factors.
In terms of healthcare, 黃志偉 emphasized that the government must not underestimate the lengthy wait times for specialized services. He urged a shift from reactive to proactive measures, advocating for increased resources to be allocated to social public policies such as healthcare, education, and housing to restore public confidence in the system gradually.
He warned that if the government mishandles these challenges, coupled with a worsening economic environment and unchanged rental conditions, it could ultimately impact citizens’ incomes, leading to wage decreases and escalating labor disputes. The contradiction between a decline in property prices and increased public housing supply will test the government’s wisdom in decision-making.
On the topic of restricted freedoms for assemblies and protests affecting public sentiment, 黃 explained that such activities are essential forms of expression with deep-rooted historical significance in colonial times. Bringing street opinions back to the government system for resolution facilitates effective communication between officials and the public. He cautioned against suppressing dissent as it may result in poor governance due to heightened mistrust, potentially culminating in a backlash that requires a hard-line response—ultimately an unwise approach.
Furthermore, in a June online opinion group survey by HKPORI, an open-ended question was posed regarding citizens’ confidence in Hong Kong’s future, exploring the reasons behind the decline in confidence observed during the May telephone survey. A total of 491 respondents presented their views.
Reasons cited for the decline in confidence in Hong Kong’s future included continued economic stagnation, slowed growth, decreased competitiveness, lacking industrial transformation plans, and the outflow of capital and talent to other regions. Politically, factors such as the enforcement of the National Security Law and Article 23 of the Basic Law, restrictions on freedom and civil liberties, and the lack of trust in the government’s problem-solving abilities were significant contributors to the decrease in future confidence. Concerns were also raised regarding doubts about the “One Country, Two Systems” principle, Hong Kong’s role as an international financial center, and tensions in Sino-American relations amid geopolitical tensions.
This comprehensive analysis underscores the complex landscape of social policies and public sentiment in Hong Kong, reflecting a range of concerns and priorities that warrant careful attention and strategic planning by policymakers to address the diverse needs and expectations of the population.