TNAG-1599-FCO40-2192-Hong-Kong-1987-Review-of-Representative-Government-1987 — Page 136

- 8 -

indicates all too clearly

that this question is simply beyond

their comprehension.

Fourthly, as to the order in which these options

a ppe ar in the Section F3, experts have advised me that it is

unfair to present these options always in the s ame order SO

that every respondent would have heard the option: "no change"

before the others. I am told that it is normal survey practice

to rotate the order in which the options are presented to avoid

what is called "order bias". Otherwise the respondents would

inclined to accept the first option instead of the

be mo re

others.

This is particularly so when the entire interview took

a 1 ong time as in this case. As a result, the prejudice to

direct elections for 1988 is very great because the only option

which allowed for a "Yes" answer to the introduction of direct

elections in 1988 came last in the question.

Fifthly, experts have also told me

of another flaw

in the way the

interviewers were instructed

to deal with

another part of the Questionnaire, namely, Section F5. The

experts have called it "the wrong skip". According to Section

respondents who had chosen option (4) in Section

F. only

the

F3 would be asked further questions in Section F5 which

contained 6 options

as to what changes should be made to

Legislative Council in 1988, including the introduction of

direct

elections.

This

was wrong, because even

those