Lies, damned lies – and surveys

“There are three kinds of lies—lies, damned lies, and statistics,” wrote the 19th century American author and humorist Mark Twain, popularizing an aphorism mouthed by many in his day. The line may well apply to some modern-day surveys and how they are made to say things or make judgments they are never meant to do.

Thus, from 2006 to 2008, Social Weather Stations (SWS) did surveys asking respondents if they favored or opposed removing term limits on the President and other officials, as provided in the Constitution.
Two-thirds always said no to lifting the limits.

SWS then declared that most Filipinos were “opposed to amending the Constitution to allow” cited leaders to run again. Media then headlined year after year that two-thirds of Filipinos opposed Charter Change, period.

This despite a Pulse Asia poll in 2006 which clearly asked if respondents favored or opposed Cha Cha without mentioning any other issue—and found nearly 60 percent of Filipinos to be either positive or open toward constitutional amendments.

Charter change proponents protested that the SWS surveys unfairly linked amendments to term limits. But the polling outfit argued that it did no such thing, since its survey questions never mentioned amending the Constitution. Yet its own press releases on the results used the words “the majority . . . are opposed to amending the Constitution,” prompting media to repeatedly echo that.

The recurring episode underscored the power of opinion polls and how they can mislead the public.

Last week it happened again. SWS reported that 52 percent of Filipinos agreed with the Supreme Court decision to let the House impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez proceed. Now, impeachment advocates are trumpeting the survey as proof of popular backing for her removal.

It doesn’t take a statistics PhD to see that respondents could agree with the Supreme Court decision to let the House proceedings continue, but not want the Ombudsman impeached or removed. Yet every impeachment advocate from Mala-cañang to the House Speaker’s SARO line has conveniently ignored that fact, and promptly urged the Senate to heed the survey results and convict Gutierrez. As if public opinion could manufacture the hard evidence on which senators must base their votes.

In fact, what the High Court allowed and the survey majority supported was not a particular impeachment result, but just the House proceedings with full due process: a careful weighing of charges and evidence, ample time for opposing sides to be presented and deliberated, and a House vote based on the merits with no Palace pressure. Or did the Supreme Court and the people have in mind congressmen voting after they read threatening text messages but little evidence?

There’s more. This week the latest Pulse Asia survey on government corruption singled out the Armed Forces of the Philippines as the most corrupt agency, as chosen by 48 percent of respondents, six times the February 2009 figure. Anyone familiar with current events would not be surprised at the five-fold leap in the AFP’s rating, what with weekly Congress hearings alleging pasalubong, pabaon and other payolas to top brass, plus the diversion of billions of pesos in military funds.

The past survey topnotchers suddenly saw their corruption ratings fall.

Once rated the most corrupt agency by one in three respondents, the Department of Public Works and Highways’ score dropped to less than one in five. The Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs got 7.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively, less than half their 2009 ratios.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) saw its minuscule most-corrupt score of 0.05 percent in 2009 rise 50-fold to 2.5 percent, amid the same AFP corruption hearings. Legislators then lambasted the OMB’s plea bargain with former AFP comptroller Carlos Garcia, even though it is only the Sandiganbayan which has the authority and the case information to make a judgment on the validity and propriety of the plea bargain.

So there you have it: any corruption-prone agency wanting to improve its image may wish to arrange for a legislator to excoriate another agency in a privilege speech, hold nationally televised hearings with self-styled witnesses, immunity from prosecution but little hard evidence, then conduct a corruption survey soon after.

The accusers don’t even have to be particularly credible for corruption charges to stick. Reports Pulse Asia: “None of six personalities involved in the issue of military corruption—whether accuser or accused—is able to clearly establish his or her credibility, with practically one in two Filipinos (47 percent) saying all these individuals are equally not believable.” Those six include former state auditor Heidi Mendoza and former AFP budget officer Col. George Rabusa.

Survey distortions stirred by media coverage escalate when they go international. In the late 2000s, the Philippines was repeatedly headlined as the most corrupt nation in Asia due to an annual regional poll done by Hong Kong’s Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (perc). PERC asked business people in several countries whether corruption was a key factor in their enterprises and decisions.

The survey did not ask respondents to rate corruption. PERC also repeatedly stressed in their press releases that the results were not comparable between countries, since no single set of respondents was asked to rate all of them. Rather, each nation had a different set of respondents doing business there to answer the survey. Moreover, PERC pointed out, media restrictions in certain places like China and Vietnam would affect the public’s perceptions of corruption there.

No dice. The “Most Corrupt in Asia” headline was just too juicy to resist for Manila dailies, despite all the caveats from the survey company itself. Indeed, in the 2007 survey, where the Philippines first scored highest in the region, PERC even noted that there was no significant increase in actual corruption on the ground to warrant the leap in ratings. But media was not to be denied its sensational headline.

So yesterday, one leading newspaper capitalized on the Pulse Asia survey to tar the AFP as most corrupt, despite the clear skewing of results due to recent media coverage. Meanwhile, a more credible survey result was nowhere on its front page: the sharp drop of President Benigno Aquino’s net satisfaction rating in Social Weather Stations’ March survey from its previous poll last November.

The fall of 13 percentage points to +51 percent in NSR mutually corroborates last week’s Pulse Asia approval and trust ratings, which also fell from October 2010 (see March 23 column). Satisfaction with the President’s performance fell in all regions but the Visayas, in urban areas, and among all income classes, according to SWS. Those results mirrored Pulse Asia’s which showed declines in trust and approval ratings in all three main regions of the country and all social strata.

Unlike surveys on corruption, which are often wrongly portrayed as measures of actual rather than perceived graft, the public trust, approval and satisfaction ratings are reported for what they are: the respondents’ sentiments and views, which may or may not necessarily reflect how well the President is performing. In sum, the Pulse Asia and SWS surveys measure public support for national leaders, not their actual work.

With his latest drop to +51 percent, PNoy is now well below the NSR of his mother Cory (+72 percent), her successor Fidel Ramos (+66 percent), and former President Joseph Estrada (+69 percent) after the same six-month post-election period. This despite a much stronger economy left to PNoy by his predecessor than those that the other chief executives faced. Cory had to deal with the Marcos-era downturn, while Ramos struggled with the brownout-plagued Cory years, and Erap the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 to 1998.

The Palace rightly pointed out that survey ratings normally drop when election euphoria wears off, though not as fast as it did for PNoy. And polls can never, of course, substitute for hard evidence, sound judgment, solid facts, and effective governance. Ever tried exonerating a suspect or stopping an earthquake with opinion polls showing overwhelming belief that the accused is innocent and a tremor won’t happen?

Whatever the surveys may say, the government must still deliver on livelihood, cost of living, law and order, and integrity day in, day out. And if properly reported in media, sooner or later, the quality of a leader’s performance will show up in his trust, approval and satisfaction ratings.

Ricardo Saludo heads the Center for Strategy, Enterprise & Intelligence (ric.saludo@censeisolutions.com), providing expertise in strategy and management, enterprise development, intelligence, Internet and mediaLies, damned lies – and surveys
By Ricardo Saludo

“There are three kinds of lies—lies, damned lies, and statistics,” wrote the 19th century American author and humorist Mark Twain, popularizing an aphorism mouthed by many in his day. The line may well apply to some modern-day surveys and how they are made to say things or make judgments they are never meant to do.

Thus, from 2006 to 2008, Social Weather Stations (SWS) did surveys asking respondents if they favored or opposed removing term limits on the President and other officials, as provided in the Constitution.
Two-thirds always said no to lifting the limits.

SWS then declared that most Filipinos were “opposed to amending the Constitution to allow” cited leaders to run again. Media then headlined year after year that two-thirds of Filipinos opposed Charter Change, period.

This despite a Pulse Asia poll in 2006 which clearly asked if respondents favored or opposed Cha Cha without mentioning any other issue—and found nearly 60 percent of Filipinos to be either positive or open toward constitutional amendments.

Charter change proponents protested that the SWS surveys unfairly linked amendments to term limits. But the polling outfit argued that it did no such thing, since its survey questions never mentioned amending the Constitution. Yet its own press releases on the results used the words “the majority . . . are opposed to amending the Constitution,” prompting media to repeatedly echo that.

The recurring episode underscored the power of opinion polls and how they can mislead the public.

Last week it happened again. SWS reported that 52 percent of Filipinos agreed with the Supreme Court decision to let the House impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez proceed. Now, impeachment advocates are trumpeting the survey as proof of popular backing for her removal.

It doesn’t take a statistics PhD to see that respondents could agree with the Supreme Court decision to let the House proceedings continue, but not want the Ombudsman impeached or removed. Yet every impeachment advocate from Mala-cañang to the House Speaker’s SARO line has conveniently ignored that fact, and promptly urged the Senate to heed the survey results and convict Gutierrez. As if public opinion could manufacture the hard evidence on which senators must base their votes.

In fact, what the High Court allowed and the survey majority supported was not a particular impeachment result, but just the House proceedings with full due process: a careful weighing of charges and evidence, ample time for opposing sides to be presented and deliberated, and a House vote based on the merits with no Palace pressure. Or did the Supreme Court and the people have in mind congressmen voting after they read threatening text messages but little evidence?

There’s more. This week the latest Pulse Asia survey on government corruption singled out the Armed Forces of the Philippines as the most corrupt agency, as chosen by 48 percent of respondents, six times the February 2009 figure. Anyone familiar with current events would not be surprised at the five-fold leap in the AFP’s rating, what with weekly Congress hearings alleging pasalubong, pabaon and other payolas to top brass, plus the diversion of billions of pesos in military funds.

The past survey topnotchers suddenly saw their corruption ratings fall.

Once rated the most corrupt agency by one in three respondents, the Department of Public Works and Highways’ score dropped to less than one in five. The Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs got 7.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively, less than half their 2009 ratios.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) saw its minuscule most-corrupt score of 0.05 percent in 2009 rise 50-fold to 2.5 percent, amid the same AFP corruption hearings. Legislators then lambasted the OMB’s plea bargain with former AFP comptroller Carlos Garcia, even though it is only the Sandiganbayan which has the authority and the case information to make a judgment on the validity and propriety of the plea bargain.

So there you have it: any corruption-prone agency wanting to improve its image may wish to arrange for a legislator to excoriate another agency in a privilege speech, hold nationally televised hearings with self-styled witnesses, immunity from prosecution but little hard evidence, then conduct a corruption survey soon after.

The accusers don’t even have to be particularly credible for corruption charges to stick. Reports Pulse Asia: “None of six personalities involved in the issue of military corruption—whether accuser or accused—is able to clearly establish his or her credibility, with practically one in two Filipinos (47 percent) saying all these individuals are equally not believable.” Those six include former state auditor Heidi Mendoza and former AFP budget officer Col. George Rabusa.

Survey distortions stirred by media coverage escalate when they go international. In the late 2000s, the Philippines was repeatedly headlined as the most corrupt nation in Asia due to an annual regional poll done by Hong Kong’s Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (perc). PERC asked business people in several countries whether corruption was a key factor in their enterprises and decisions.

The survey did not ask respondents to rate corruption. PERC also repeatedly stressed in their press releases that the results were not comparable between countries, since no single set of respondents was asked to rate all of them. Rather, each nation had a different set of respondents doing business there to answer the survey. Moreover, PERC pointed out, media restrictions in certain places like China and Vietnam would affect the public’s perceptions of corruption there.

No dice. The “Most Corrupt in Asia” headline was just too juicy to resist for Manila dailies, despite all the caveats from the survey company itself. Indeed, in the 2007 survey, where the Philippines first scored highest in the region, PERC even noted that there was no significant increase in actual corruption on the ground to warrant the leap in ratings. But media was not to be denied its sensational headline.

So yesterday, one leading newspaper capitalized on the Pulse Asia survey to tar the AFP as most corrupt, despite the clear skewing of results due to recent media coverage. Meanwhile, a more credible survey result was nowhere on its front page: the sharp drop of President Benigno Aquino’s net satisfaction rating in Social Weather Stations’ March survey from its previous poll last November.

The fall of 13 percentage points to +51 percent in NSR mutually corroborates last week’s Pulse Asia approval and trust ratings, which also fell from October 2010 (see March 23 column). Satisfaction with the President’s performance fell in all regions but the Visayas, in urban areas, and among all income classes, according to SWS. Those results mirrored Pulse Asia’s which showed declines in trust and approval ratings in all three main regions of the country and all social strata.

Unlike surveys on corruption, which are often wrongly portrayed as measures of actual rather than perceived graft, the public trust, approval and satisfaction ratings are reported for what they are: the respondents’ sentiments and views, which may or may not necessarily reflect how well the President is performing. In sum, the Pulse Asia and SWS surveys measure public support for national leaders, not their actual work.

With his latest drop to +51 percent, PNoy is now well below the NSR of his mother Cory (+72 percent), her successor Fidel Ramos (+66 percent), and former President Joseph Estrada (+69 percent) after the same six-month post-election period. This despite a much stronger economy left to PNoy by his predecessor than those that the other chief executives faced. Cory had to deal with the Marcos-era downturn, while Ramos struggled with the brownout-plagued Cory years, and Erap the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 to 1998.

The Palace rightly pointed out that survey ratings normally drop when election euphoria wears off, though not as fast as it did for PNoy. And polls can never, of course, substitute for hard evidence, sound judgment, solid facts, and effective governance. Ever tried exonerating a suspect or stopping an earthquake with opinion polls showing overwhelming belief that the accused is innocent and a tremor won’t happen?

Whatever the surveys may say, the government must still deliver on livelihood, cost of living, law and order, and integrity day in, day out. And if properly reported in media, sooner or later, the quality of a leader’s performance will show up in his trust, approval and satisfaction ratings.

Ricardo Saludo heads the Center for Strategy, Enterprise & Intelligence (ric.saludo@censeisolutions.com), providing expertise in strategy and management, enterprise development, intelligence, Internet and media. –Ricardo Saludo, Manila Times