ICAC Annual Survey 2012 Executive Summary

ICAC Annual Survey 2012 


Executive Summary 

Background 

1.1 To keep a close tab on the public’s perception of the problem of corruption and ICAC’s work, 

the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) conducted community-wide opinion 

surveys through telephone interviews between 1992 and 2009 on an annual basis. 

1.2 In view of socio-economic changes in recent years, more in-depth understanding of the 

public’s perception and their concerns over the issue of corruption will be useful to the 

Commission in mapping out its education strategy. To better achieve such goals, the survey has 

been changed from telephone interviews to face-to-face household interviews since 2010. 

Survey Objectives 

1.3 The objectives of the survey were mainly three-fold: 

• To understand public attitude towards corruption and the reasons behind; 

• To identify changing public concerns regarding the problem of corruption and their 

underlying reasons; and 

• To gauge public opinion towards the work of the ICAC. 

Coverage and Target Respondents 

1.4 The survey targeted to cover all persons aged between 15 and 64 living in Hong Kong who 

speak Cantonese, Putonghua or English. 

Sample Design and Data Collection Method 

1.5 A total of 1 529 persons representing the target population was randomly selected on the basis 

of Next Birthday method within selected households and successfully interviewed by 

face-to-face household interviews. 

Fieldwork Period and Response Rate 

1.6 The fieldwork was carried out from 8 October to 30 November 2012. The response rate was 

70.1%. 

Weighted Data 

1.7 The collected data were weighted by gender and age group according to the 2011 mid-year 

population statistics compiled by the Census and Statistics Department. 

i


Report of Survey Findings 

1.8 In the tables presented in this executive summary, the weighted figures and percentage figures 

may not add up to totals (i.e. 100%) because of rounding of decimal points. 

ii


Summary of Key Findings 

A. Public Attitude towards Corruption 

Tolerance of corruption in Hong Kong (Table A-a) 

1.9 On a 0 to 10 scale where 0 represents total intolerance and 10 represents total tolerance, the 

mean score was 0.8, reflecting a low tolerance of corruption amongst the public. Of the 

respondents, 77.0% considered corruption in Hong Kong totally intolerable (i.e. a score of 0) 

and 14.4% gave a score between 1 and 3. Only a small proportion of respondents (1.4%) gave 

a score between 7 and 9 while a very low percentage (0.4%) considered corruption in Hong 

Kong totally tolerable (i.e. a score of 10). The mean score was similar to that recorded in 2011 

(0.7). 

1.10 Amongst those (23.0%) giving a score between 1 and 10, the most cited reasons for tolerance 

included: “corruption was unavoidable in society” (51.4%), “if corruption involved small 

amount of benefit (less than $1,000)” (16.3%) and “treating a free meal was common” (9.0%). 

Willingness to report corruption (Table A-a) 

1.11 The majority (79.2%) of the respondents indicated that they would report corruption if they 

were aware that someone had committed corruption, slightly higher than those of 2011 (77.2%), 

2010 (75.9%) and 2009 (75.3%). 14.1% replied it would depend on circumstances. Only 5.1% 

of the respondents would not report at all, the second lowest score from 2009 to 2012 

inclusive. 

1.12 Among those who were reluctant to report corruption, “troublesome – did not specify any 

reasons” (29.6%), “troublesome – reporting procedures/follow-up interviews by ICAC” 

(26.0%) and “it did not concern me” (24.8%) were three major reasons given. 

1.13 Among those who said that whether they would report corruption would depend on 

circumstances, 36.1% would consider “the likely effect to work and safety of respondents and 

their relatives/friends”, followed by “the likely effect to public interests” (17.0%) and “the 

likely benefit to respondents and their relatives/friends” (16.2%). 

iii


Table A-a 

2009 1 2010 2 2011 2 2012 2 

Tolerance of corruption in Hong Kong @ 

0 (Total intolerance) - 68.6% 78.4% 77.0% 

1 - 3.2% 3.5% 3.4% 

2 - 6.5% 5.4% 5.8% 

3 - 5.7% 5.2% 5.2% 

4 - 2.1% 1.2% 1.8% 

5 - 7.1% 3.4% 4.0% 

6 - 1.7% 0.6% 1.2% 

7 - 1.9% 1.2% 0.8% 

8 - 2.0% 0.8% 0.6% 

9 - 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 

10 (Total tolerance) - 0.8% 0.1% 0.4% 

Mean score*: - 1.3 0.7 0.8 

Mean score (tolerance of corruption in 

government departments) @ 

Mean score (tolerance of corruption in 

business sector) @ 

1.1 - - - 

1.6 - - - 

Willingness to report corruption # 

- Willing 75.3% 75.9% 77.2% 79.2% 

- Unwilling 8.1% 5.3% 4.7% 5.1% 

- Depending on circumstances 13.5% 15.9% 15.5% 14.1% 

- Don’t know/no opinion 3.1% 2.9% 2.6% 1.5% 

Notes 

1 

The mode of interview used in ICAC Annual Survey 2009 was telephone interview and weighting was not 

applied to the findings. 

2 

The mode of interview used in ICAC Annual Survey since 2010 were face-to-face household interview and the 

survey results were weighted by gender and age group according to the mid-year population statistics compiled by 

the Census and Statistics Department. 

* Significant difference was found among the findings of the past three years at 0.01 significance level. 

# 

Significant difference was found among the findings of the four years at 0.01 significance level. 

@ 

Since 2010, respondents were only asked to rate the tolerance level towards the overall corruption in Hong Kong. 

Before 2010, they were asked to indicate the tolerance level of corruption in government departments and 

business sector in two separate questions. Therefore the mean score for 2010 (1.3), 2011 (0.7) and 2012 (0.8) 

cannot be directly compared with previous mean scores. 

iv


Acceptance level towards different corrupt behaviour (Table A-b) 

1.14 With regard to the six different corruption scenarios, a vast majority of the respondents 

(87.6% – 99.2%) considered the acts unacceptable. 

1.15 The proportion of respondents considering the acts described in the scenarios acceptable 

ranged from 0.2% – 5.9%, while 0.1% – 4.9% replied it would depend on circumstances: 

• On the scenario of “A company staff exaggerates his/her travelling expenses when making 

claims from the company”, the most commonly cited reason was that “exaggerated amount 

below $1,000 was acceptable”; 

• On the scenario of “A restaurant buyer accepts rebates from meat suppliers without the 

knowledge of the restaurant operator”, the most common reason was “custom/trade 

practice”; 

• On the scenario of “A frontline law enforcement officer of the government solicits festive 

‘laisees’ from shop owners”, the major reason was that “gift less than $1,000 was 

acceptable”; and 

• On the scenario of “A civil servant helps his/her relatives to bid the department’s tender by 

providing internal information”, the major reason was that “they were his/her 

relatives/friends”. 

1.16 A vast majority of the respondents (82.2% – 98.1%) considered the acts depicted in the six 

corruption scenarios illegal. The proportion of respondents who considered the acts legal 

ranged from 0.7% – 11.3%, while 0.8% – 6.6% did not express any views. 

v


Table A-b 

Different corrupt 

behaviour 

(i) A company staff 

exaggerates his/her 

travelling expenses when 

making claims from the 

company. 

(ii) A restaurant buyer accepts 

rebates from meat suppliers 

without the knowledge of 

the restaurant operator. 

(iii) A frontline law 

enforcement officer of the 

government solicits festive 

‘laisees’ from shop owners. 

(iv) A civil servant helps his/her 

relatives to bid the 

department’s tender by 

providing internal 

information. 

(v) A member of an owners’ 

incorporation accepts gifts 

from the maintenance 

contractor and agrees to 

consider using material 

which did not conform with 

the tender specifications. 

(vi) The operator of 

entertainment business 

offers advantages to 

government officers for 

lenient treatments in the 

inspection of fire safety 

facilities. 

Acceptable 

Acceptance level 

Depend on 

circumstances Unacceptable 

Whether the act is illegal 

Don’t 

know/no 

comment Yes No 

Don’t 

know/no 

comment 

5.9% 4.9% 87.6% 1.6% 82.2% 11.3% 6.6% 

5.8% 2.8% 88.5% 2.8% 88.1% 6.2% 5.7% 

1.6% 1.6% 96.3% 0.5% 94.4% 3.6% 1.9% 

1.3% 0.5% 97.4% 0.8% 95.6% 1.9% 2.5% 

0.4% 0.1% 99.1% 0.4% 98.0% 0.7% 1.3% 

0.2% 0.2% 99.2% 0.4% 98.1% 1.1% 0.8% 

vi


Perceived prevalence of corruption in Hong Kong (Table A-c) 

1.17 25.4% considered corruption common in Hong Kong, higher than those of 2010 (20.9%) and 

2011 (18.4%), but lower than that of 2009 (30.9%). 68.5% of the respondents perceived 

corruption uncommon which was lower than those recorded in 2010 (71.0%) and 2011 (71.3%). 

6.0% of the respondents did not express any views, the lowest since 2009. 

1.18 The main reasons for considering corruption common in Hong Kong included: “respondents 

learnt of many corruption cases from the media” (51.6%), “corruption was a common practice 

in doing business for some trades” (25.4%) and “corruption was observed in the Government, 

senior government officials and civil servants” (13.6%). 

1.19 On the other hand, the major reasons for perceiving corruption uncommon in Hong Kong were 

that “respondents learnt of corruption cases from the media less frequently” (36.6%), “ strong 

deterrence of the ICAC” (17.9%) and “respondents themselves, their relatives and friends 

seldom/had not heard about/come across corruption” (17.4%). 

Encounter with corruption in the past 12 months (Table A-c) 

1.20 The vast majority (98.1%) of the respondents indicated that they themselves had not come 

across corruption in the past 12 months, similar to that recorded in 2011. Only 1.8% said that 

they had and 0.2% did not express any views. 

1.21 94.1% of the respondents said that their relatives and friends had not come across corruption in 

the past 12 months, similar to that recorded in 2011. 2.5% said they had, higher than those of 

2010 (1.4%) and 2011 (1.3%). 3.4% did not express any views. 

vii


Table A-c 

2009 1 2010 2 2011 2 2012 2 

Perceived prevalence of corruption in Hong 

Kong *#^ 

- Very common/quite common 30.9% 20.9% 18.4% 25.4% 

- Not quite common/very uncommon 59.9% 71.0% 71.3% 68.5% 


Whether respondents had come across 

corruption in the past 12 months @ 

- Yes - 2.2% 1.2% 1.8% 

- No - 97.4% 98.5% 98.1% 

- Don’t know/no opinion - 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 

Whether respondents’ relatives or friends 

had come across corruption in the past 12 

months @∆ 

- Yes - 1.4% 1.3% 2.5% 

- No - 93.6% 95.2% 94.1% 


Whether respondents, their relatives or 

friends had come across corruption in the 

past 12 months @ 

- Yes 2.5% - - - 

- No 94.7% - - - 

- Don’t know/no opinion 2.9% - - - 

Notes 

1 



2 




* The findings were significantly different from those of 2011 at 0.01 significance level. 

∆ Significant difference was found among the findings of the three years at 0.01 significance level. 

# 


^ 

@ 

Before 2010, the rating scale was: very common, quite common, uncommon, very uncommon. 

Before 2010, only one question was set to ask the respondents whether they themselves, their relatives or friends 

had come across corruption in the past 12 months. Since 2010, the question was split into two: one asked on the 

respondents themselves and the other on respondents’ relatives and friends. Therefore the percentage figures since 

2010 cannot be directly compared with the previous percentage figures. 

viii


B. Public Concern over Corruption Problem 

Perceived importance of keeping Hong Kong corruption-free to the overall development of 

Hong Kong (Table B) 

1.22 Almost all respondents (98.8%) agreed that keeping Hong Kong corruption-free was important 

to the overall development of Hong Kong, which was slightly lower than that of 2011 (99.2%). 

Only a tiny proportion (0.2%) held opposite views and 1.0% did not express any views. 

1.23 Among the respondents who thought that keeping Hong Kong corruption-free was important, 

the most common reasons were “to help uphold fairness and justice” (43.2%), “to help 

economic and commercial development of Hong Kong” (19.2%) and “to help attract foreign 

investments” (14.5%). 

Perceived changes in the level of corruption next year (Table B) 

1.24 More than two-thirds (67.5%) of the respondents perceived that the level of corruption would 

remain more or less the same. 14.0% of the respondents considered the level of corruption 

would increase; while 10.1% of the respondents thought that it would decrease. As compared 

with 2010 and 2011, the proportion of respondents who believed corruption would increase 

next year was the highest, while the proportion of “don’t know/no opinion” (8.5%) was the 

lowest. The proportion of respondents who believed corruption would decrease next year was 

slightly higher than that of 2011 (9.5%), but still lower than that of 2010 (13.3%). 

1.25 For those respondents who believed corruption would increase next year, the major reason was 

“influence of the culture in the Mainland” (47.9%). The second most commonly cited reason 

was “closer co-operation/more economic activities between Hong Kong and the Mainland” 

(31.3%), followed by “people are eager to earn more money/money is everything” (17.8%). 

1.26 For those respondents who thought that corruption would decrease next year, the most 

commonly cited reasons were “the ICAC was effective in fighting corruption” (28.3%), “strong 

deterrence of the ICAC” (25.1%) and “public awareness of anti-corruption had increased” 

(23.4%) . 

ix


Table B 

2009 1 2010 2 2011 2 2012 2 

Perceived importance of keeping Hong Kong 

corruption-free to overall development of 

Hong Kong #@ 

- Very important/quite important - 96.3% 99.2% 98.8% 

- Not quite important/very unimportant - 1.0% 0.2% 0.2% 


Perceived changes in the level of corruption 

next year *#^ 

- Will increase - 12.9% 11.0% 14.0% 

- Will decrease - 13.3% 9.5% 10.1% 

- More or less the same as at present - 65.3% 68.0% 67.5% 


Notes 

1 



2 





# 

Significant difference was found among the findings of the three years at 0.01 significance level. 

@ This question has been introduced since 2010. 

^ This question was not asked in 2009. 

x


Perception of corruption problem in different sectors 

1.27 With regard to corruption problem in different sectors in Hong Kong, “government officials/ 

civil servants” (19.5%) topped the list as the area of greatest concern, followed by “real estate 

industry” (17.7%) and “construction and engineering industry” (16.8%). 10.1% of the 

respondents did not express any opinions. 

1.28 Among those who opted “government officials/civil servants” as the sector of greatest concern, 

the main reasons were “it affected people’s livelihood/interest of the public” (61.5%), “they 

were in high position and had much power in society” (19.8%) and “it would affect the 

society’s fairness” (16.3%). 

1.29 Among those respondents who thought that corruption problem in “real estate industry” was 

their greatest concern, about half of them (48.8%) indicated that the reason for their concern 

was “high property prices caused by developers”, followed by “it affected people’s 

livelihood/interest of the public” (41.5%) and “large amount of money involved was conducive 

to corruption” (26.8%). 

1.30 For those respondents who believed that “construction and engineering industry” was worthy 

of the greatest concern, the major reasons stated were “it affected people’s livelihood/interest 

of the public” (65.1%), “corruption would result in substandard works or materials/it affected 

the quality of construction works” (60.1%) and “large amount of money involved was 

conducive to corruption” (20.4%). 

xi


C. Public Opinion towards the Work of the ICAC 

Effectiveness of ICAC’s anti-corruption work (Table C) 

1.31 Similar to 2011, the majority of the respondents (88.3%) considered ICAC’s anti-corruption 

work effective. 6.5% of the respondents held opposite views while 5.1% did not express any 

opinions. 

1.32 For those respondents who considered ICAC’s anti-corruption work effective, most of them 

attributed their opinions to “strong deterrence of the ICAC” (23.9%), “media reports” (20.5%) 

and “seldom learnt of corruption cases from the media” (16.2%). 

1.33 The main reason cited by respondents for considering ICAC’s anti-corruption work ineffective 

was “not successful in investigations/investigations not effective” (76.0%). 

Support for the ICAC (Table C) 

1.34 Nearly all respondents (98.7%) stated that the ICAC deserved their support. The level of 

support remained consistently high. Only 0.4% of the respondents thought the opposite while 

0.9% did not express any views, which was the lowest in the recent four years. 

1.35 Among the respondents who said that the ICAC deserved their support, most believed the 

ICAC could help “maintain a corruption-free society” (34.0%), “uphold fairness and justice” 

(32.3%) and “the ICAC was effective in fighting corruption” (13.2%). 

xii


Table C 

2009 1 2010 2 2011 2 2012 2 

Effectiveness of ICAC’s anti-corruption work ^ 

- Very effective/quite effective 68.3% 87.4% 87.8% 88.3% 

- Average 23.9% - - - 

- Not quite effective/very ineffective 2.2% 4.8% 5.5% 6.5% 


Support for the ICAC #* 

- Deserved 97.9% 97.1% 98.0% 98.7% 

- Not deserved 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 


Notes 

1 



2 




# 



^ Since 2010, a four-point scale (i.e. very effective, quite effective, not quite effective, very ineffective) was used in 

this question. This was consistent with all other questions involving ratings in the surveys since 2010. Before 

2010, a five-point scale was used in this question (i.e. very effective, effective, average, ineffective, very 

ineffective). Therefore the findings since 2010 cannot be directly compared with those of 2009. 

xiii


Aspects of work the ICAC should strengthen 

1.36 With regard to the aspects of work that the ICAC should strengthen, more than half of the 

respondents (52.3%) mentioned “publicity and education work for anti-corruption” and 23.4% 

of the respondents mentioned “law enforcement work”. 

1.37 For those respondents who said that the ICAC should strengthen “publicity and education work 

for anti-corruption”, the major reason was “to enhance public awareness of anti-corruption” 

(52.1%). The second most common reason was “insufficient publicity work” (28.7%). 

1.38 On the other hand, the main reasons cited by respondents who considered that the ICAC should 

strengthen “law enforcement work” were “to raise the effectiveness of investigation” (66.8%), 

“to keep the society corruption-free which will enhance the society’s reputation and image” 

(10.8%) and “to enhance deterrent effect” (9.4%). 

Target groups that the ICAC should strengthen prevention and education work 

1.39 Among the respondents, 39.1% of them indicated that the ICAC should strengthen corruption 

prevention and education work for “students”. The next top target groups were “government 

departments/civil servants/councillors” (32.5%), real estate/construction industries (13.4%), 

“youth” (13.4%) and “new arrivals” (9.2%). 

1.40 “Conducting talks/seminars” was the most commonly cited format for the ICAC to strengthen 

corruption prevention and education work for such target groups. 

xiv

ICAC Annual Survey 2012 Executive Summary

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?