2019年7月30日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會回顧
香港民研第二次發放民意調查
特別宣佈
香港民意研究計劃（香港民研）前身為香港大學民意研究計劃（港大民研）。公報內的「香港民研」指的可以是香港民研或其前身港大民研。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 17-19/7/2019[5] |
| 調查方法 | ： | 由真實訪問員進行隨機抽樣電話訪問 |
| 訪問對象 | ： | 18歲或以上操粵語的香港居民 |
| 成功樣本數目[1] | ： | 1,002 (包括501個固網及501個手機號碼樣本)[5] |
| 實效回應比率[2] | ： | 59.8%[5] |
| 抽樣誤差[3] | ： | 在95%置信水平下，百分比誤差不超過+/-4%，淨值誤差不超過+/-8%，評分誤差不超過+/-3.3 |
| 加權方法[4] | ： | 按照政府統計處提供的統計數字以「反覆多重加權法」作出調整。全港人口年齡及性別分佈統計數字來自《二零一八年年中人口數字》，而教育程度（最高就讀程度）及經濟活動身分統計數字則來自《香港的女性及男性 - 主要統計數字》（2018年版）。 |
[1] 調查的固網及手機樣本比例於2018年4月更新為二比一，2019年7月再更新為一比一。
[2] 香港民研在2017年9月前以「整體回應比率」彙報樣本資料，2017年9月開始則以「實效回應比率」彙報。2018年7月，香港民研再調整實效回應比率的計算方法，因此改變前後的回應比率不能直接比較。
[3] 此公報中所有誤差數字均以95%置信水平計算。95%置信水平，是指倘若以不同隨機樣本重複進行有關調查100次，則95次各自計算出的誤差範圍會包含人口真實數字。由於調查數字涉及抽樣誤差，傳媒引用百分比數字時，應避免使用小數點，在引用評分數字時，則可以使用一個小數點。
[4] 過往，手機樣本會按照固網樣本中民情指數的基礎數據進行調整，再作統計，但由2018年7月起，香港民研再微調加權方法，不再將固網樣本及手機樣本分開處理，手機樣本亦不再按照固網樣本中民情指數的基礎數據作調整，整體效果是手機樣本的重要性略為提升。
[5] 提名階段調查日期為2-8/7/2019，成功樣本數目為1,025 (包括519個固網及506個手機號碼樣本)，實效回應比率為67.4%。
特首及政府民望
最新數據
以下是特首林鄭月娥的最新民望數字：
| 調查日期 | 6-9/5/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 1,018 | 1,013 | 1,006 | 1,015 | 1,025 | 1,002 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 63.2% | 61.9% | 60.4% | 58.7% | 67.4% | 59.8% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及 誤差 |
-- |
| 特首林鄭月娥評分 | 44.3[6] | 44.7 | 43.3 | 32.8[6] | 33.4 | 30.1+/-2.0 | -3.3[6] |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首支持率 | 32%[6] | 32% | 32% | 23%[6] | 26% | 21+/-3% | -4%[6] |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首反對率 | 56%[6] | 59% | 57% | 67%[6] | 66% | 70+/-3% | +4%[6] |
| 支持率淨值 | -24%[6] | -27% | -24% | -44%[6] | -40% | -49+/-5% | -9%[6] |
[6] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，表示有關變化在統計學上表面成立。不過，變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化是否有實際用途或意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
以下是特區政府的最新民望數字以及市民對社會狀況的評價：
| 調查日期 | 18-21/2/19 | 14-19/3/19 | 23-25/4/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目[7] | 1,001 | 1,024 | 1,031 | 1,013 | 1,015 | 1,002 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 72.1% | 73.1% | 66.1% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及 誤差 |
-- |
| 特區政府表現滿意率[8] | 29% | 31% | 30% | 27% | 18%[9] | 18+/-3% | -- |
| 特區政府表現不滿率[8] | 46% | 49% | 48% | 55%[9] | 72%[9] | 70+/-4% | -1% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -17% | -18% | -19% | -28% | -53%[9] | -52+/-7% | +1% |
| 平均量值[8] | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.5[9] | 2.0[9] | 2.0+/-0.1 | -- |
| 現時經濟狀況滿意率[8] | 36%[9] | 35% | 33% | 36% | 31%[9] | 28+/-3% | -3% |
| 現時經濟狀況不滿率[8] | 37% | 42%[9] | 40% | 41% | 45% | 47+/-3% | +3% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -1%[9] | -7% | -7% | -5% | -14%[9] | -19+/-5% | -5% |
| 平均量值[8] | 2.9[9] | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.7[9] | 2.6+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| 現時民生狀況滿意率[8] | 24% | 27% | 22%[9] | 26%[9] | 21%[9] | 21+/-3% | -- |
| 現時民生狀況不滿率[8] | 55% | 54% | 59%[9] | 56% | 62%[9] | 64+/-3% | +2% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -31% | -27% | -37%[9] | -30%[9] | -41%[9] | -43+/-5% | -2% |
| 平均量值[8] | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.4[9] | 2.5[9] | 2.3[9] | 2.2+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| 現時政治狀況滿意率[8] | 17% | 17% | 17% | 13%[9] | 7%[9] | 5+/-1% | -2% |
| 現時政治狀況不滿率[8] | 61% | 62% | 64% | 71%[9] | 81%[9] | 87+/-2% | +6%[9] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -44% | -45% | -48% | -58%[9] | -74%[9] | -82+/-3% | -7%[9] |
| 平均量值[8] | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.1[9] | 1.9[9] | 1.6[9] | 1.5+/-0.1 | -0.1[9] |
[7] 特區政府表現系列題目每次只涉及有關調查的次樣本。是次調查的次樣本為546。
[8] 數字採自五等量尺。平均量值是把答案按照正面程度，以1分最低5分最高量化成為1、2、3、4、5分，再求取樣本平均數值。
[9] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，表示有關變化在統計學上表面成立。不過，變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化是否有實際用途或意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
以下是市民對特區政府信任程度的最新結果：
| 調查日期 | 15-19/11/18 | 21-24/1/19 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 553 | 532 | 639 | 686 | 623 | 555 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 67.9% | 59.0% | 72.2% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及 誤差 |
-- |
| 信任特區政府比率[10] | 45%[11] | 44% | 34%[11] | 36% | 28%[11] | 29+/-4% | +2% |
| 不信任特區政府比率[10] | 39% | 37% | 46%[11] | 50% | 60%[11] | 60+/-4% | -- |
| 信任淨值 | 6% | 7% | -12%[11] | -14% | -32%[11] | -31+/-8% | +1% |
| 平均量值[10] | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.7[11] | 2.7 | 2.4[11] | 2.3+/-0.1 | -- |
[10] 數字採自五等量尺。平均量值是把答案按照正面程度，以1分最低5分最高量化成為1、2、3、4、5分，再求取樣本平均數值。2018年10月至12月，港大民研為不同量尺描述程度的字眼進行測試，表中數字為綜合結果。詳情請參閱網站。
[11] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，表示有關變化在統計學上表面成立。不過，變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化是否有實際用途或意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
最新調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的評分為30.1分，其支持率為21%，反對率為70%，民望淨值為負49個百分點，全部數字均較兩星期前顯著轉差，並再創其上任特首以來新低。
特區政府方面，民望與一個月前相若，最新滿意率為18%，不滿率為70%，滿意率淨值為負52個百分點，平均量值為2.0分，即「幾不滿」。信任程度方面，最新的信任比率為29%，不信任比率為60%，信任淨值為負31個百分點，平均量值為2.3分，即整體上介乎「一半半」及「幾不信任」之間。
至於市民對現時經濟、民生及政治狀況的滿意程度，最新滿意率分別為28%、21%及5%，而滿意淨值就分別為負19、負43及負82個百分點。經濟及民生狀況的平均量值為2.6及2.2，即整體上介乎「一半半」及「幾不滿」之間。政治狀況的平均量值為1.5，即整體上介乎「幾不滿」及「好不滿」之間。三者當中，民生狀況和政治狀況的滿意淨值均下跌至1992年有紀錄以來新低。
民意日誌
香港民研於2007年開始與慧科訊業有限公司合作，由慧科訊業按照香港民研設計的分析方法，將每日大事紀錄傳送至香港民研，經香港民研核實後隨即上載到「民意日誌」。
由於本新聞公報所涉及的調查項目，其中一些項目的上次調查日期為17-20/6/2019，而今次調查日期則為17-19/7/2019，因此是次公報中的「民意日誌」項目便以上述日期為依歸，讓讀者作出比較。以涵蓋率不下25%本地報章每日頭條新聞和報社評論計，在上述期間發生的相關大事包括以下事件，讀者可以自行判斷有關事件有否影響各項民調數字，又或參閱「民意日誌」內所有大事紀錄後，再作判斷：
| 14/7/19 | 沙田反修例遊行演變成警民衝突 |
| 13/7/19 | 上水反水貨遊行演變成警民衝突 |
| 11/7/19 | 中聯辦主任王志民指中央政府支持林鄭月娥施政 |
| 9/7/19 | 林鄭月娥指《逃犯條例》草案已「壽終正寢」 |
| 7/7/19 | 反修例示威者於九龍區遊行 |
| 1/7/19 | 反修例示威者佔領立法會 |
| 30/6/19 | 何君堯及香港政研會發起撐警集會 |
| 28/6/19 | 二十國集團領導人峰會於日本舉行 |
| 24/6/19 | 反修例示威者堵塞稅務大樓及入境事務大樓 |
| 21/6/19 | 反修例示威者包圍警察總部及多幢政府大樓 |
| 20/6/19 | 反修例示威者宣佈將行動升級 |
| 18/6/19 | 林鄭月娥就《逃犯條例》爭議向市民道歉 |
| 17/6/19 | 警務處長盧偉聰指沒有說整個6月12日的衝突事件是暴動 |
兩岸政治人物民望
在提名調查中，被訪者可在未經提示下說出最多10名最熟悉的當今中國及台灣領導人，首12位最多被訪者提及的則被納入評分調查。在評分調查中，被訪者就個別政治人物以0至100分進行評分，0分代表絕對不支持，100分代表絕對支持，50分為一半半。統計結果後，認知度最低的再被剔除，之後再按支持度由高至低順序排列，得出十大兩岸政治人物。以下是十大兩岸政治人物的最新評分，按評分倒序排列[12]：
| 調查日期 | 27-30/3/17 | 17-20/7/17 | 20-23/7/18 | 17-19/7/19 | 最新變化 | |
| 樣本數目 | 537-702 | 732-816[16] | 500 | 557-690 | -- | |
| 回應比率 | 70.6% | 63.9% | 50.8% | 59.8% | -- | |
| 最新結果[13] | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | 認知率 | -- |
| 朱鎔基 | 70.8{1} | 67.5{1}[15] | 66.8{1} | 65.3+/-2.1{1} | 83.0% | -1.4 |
| 溫家寶 | 63.8{3} | 58.7{2}[15] | 59.1{3} | 57.2+/-2.1{2} | 91.6% | -1.8 |
| 馬英九 | 59.1{5} | 53.0{6}[15] | 56.7{5}[15] | 53.2+/-1.9{3} | 89.9% | -3.5[15] |
| 胡錦濤 | 58.8{6} | 54.9{4}[15] | 56.2{6} | 53.0+/-2.1{4} | 88.9% | -3.3[15] |
| 李克強 | 60.8{4} | 54.2{5}[15] | 57.3{4} | 50.5+/-2.3{5} | 84.9% | -6.8[15] |
| 蔡英文 | 48.1{8} | 45.4{7}[15] | 43.0{8} | 47.4+/-2.4{6} | 90.5% | +4.4[15] |
| 習近平 | 65.5{2} | 57.6{3}[15] | 59.3{2} | 47.1+/-3.0{7} | 94.6% | -12.3[15] |
| 江澤民 | 48.6{7} | 44.6{8}[15] | 45.9{7} | 43.8+/-2.3{8} | 87.1% | -2.1 |
| 李登輝 | 42.4{9} | 39.1[14] [15] | 39.9[14] | 38.2+/-2.2{9} | 79.8% | -1.8 |
| 陳水扁 | 25.0{10} | 24.9{10} | 24.7{10} | 22.8+/-1.9{10} | 88.6% | -1.8 |
| 韓正 | -- | -- | -- | 41.9+/-3.3[14] | 48.3% | -- |
| 韓國瑜 | -- | -- | -- | 40.1+/-2.4[14] | 68.5% | -- |
| 李鵬 | -- | 38.4{9} | 38.5{9} | -- | -- | -- |
| 王岐山 | -- | -- | 56.2[14] | -- | -- | -- |
| 張德江 | 49.0[14] | 41.8[14] [15] | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 連戰 | 50.6[14] | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[12] 如四捨五入後的數字相同，則會再考慮小數點後的數字。
[13] 括弧{ }內數字為排名。
[14] 於評分調查認知率較低。
[15] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，表示有關變化在統計學上表面成立。不過，變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化是否有實際用途或意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
[16] 該調查結果公佈時尚未包括手機樣本。上表結果已更新為固網樣本及手機樣本的合併統計數字，惟於判斷變化是否超過抽樣誤差時仍然使用首次公佈的數字計算。更新統計數字後，胡錦濤的評分超越李克強，於該次調查中排名第四。
最新調查顯示，在十位香港市民最熟悉的當今中國及台灣領導人之中，以支持度排名，朱鎔基名列首位，得65.3分；溫家寶、馬英九、胡錦濤和李克強名列第二至五位，得57.2、53.2、53.0及50.5分；蔡英文、習近平和江澤民分別得47.4、47.1及43.8分，位列第六至八位。李登輝和陳水扁則分別得38.2及22.8分，佔第九至十位。韓正和韓國瑜分別得41.9及40.1分，但由於認知率較低而被剔除。
從認知角度看，十大兩岸政治人物與上次調查大致相同。相比上次調查，習近平、李克強、馬英九和胡錦濤的評分錄得顯著跌幅。當中，習近平的評分跌至2008年3月其上榜以來新低，而胡錦濤的評分亦跌至1999年5月其上榜以來新低。相反，蔡英文的評分則錄得顯著升幅。另外，雖然朱鎔基和溫家寶的評分變化未超過抽樣誤差，但朱鎔基的評分就跌至1998年1月以來新低，溫家寶的評分則跌至2003年9月其上榜以來新低。
須要說明，躋身「十大兩岸政治人物」的先決條件是香港巿民的熟悉程度，然後再按支持度排名。「十大」以外的兩岸政治人物，支持度可以很高或很低，但由於並非巿民最熟悉的人物，所以不在榜內。
香港巿民對各地人民及政府的觀感
在提名調查中，被訪者可在未經提示下說出最多10個除了香港、大陸、台灣和澳門以外最熟悉的國家或地區政府，首5位最多被訪者提及的則被納入第二階段調查。在第二階段調查中，被訪者就香港、大陸、台灣和澳門以及該五個國家或地區的人民及政府分別作出評價。以下是香港市民對兩岸四地人民及政府的觀感：
| 調查日期 | 15-18/5/17 | 16-21/8/17 | 18-19/7/18 | 17-19/7/19 | |||
| 樣本數目 | 586-642 | 763-811[20] | 502 | 592-633 | |||
| 回應比率 | 71.5% | 63.9% | 47.4% | 59.8% | |||
| 最新結果[17] | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | 最新變化 | 人民/政府 淨值差異 |
|
| 香港 | 人民好感 | 41% | 46%[18] | 50% | 63+/-4% | +13%[18] | +82% |
| 人民反感 | 13% | 13% | 14% | 12+/-3% | -1% | ||
| 淨值 | 28% | 34%[18] | 36% | 51+/-6% | +14%[18] | ||
| 政府好感 | 28%[18] | 40%[18] | 38% | 26+/-4% | -12%[18] | -82% | |
| 政府反感 | 37% | 32%[18] | 34% | 58+/-4% | +24%[18] | ||
| 淨值 | -9%[18] | 9%[18] | 4% | -32+/-7% | -36%[18] | ||
| 大陸 | 人民好感 | 30% | 32% | 31% | 30+/-4% | -2% | +22% |
| 人民反感 | 29% | 27% | 29% | 34+/-4% | +5% | ||
| 淨值 | 1%[18] | 4% | 2% | -4+/-7% | -7% | ||
| 政府好感 | 30% | 32% | 31% | 25+/-4% | -6%[18] | -22% | |
| 政府反感 | 37% | 35% | 39% | 51+/-4% | +12%[18] | ||
| 淨值 | -8% | -3% | -8% | -26+/-7% | -19%[18] | ||
| 台灣 | 人民好感 | 65%[18] | 60%[18] | 67%[18] [19] | 76+/-3% | +10%[18] | +41% |
| 人民反感 | 4% | 4% | 5% | 2+/-1% | -3%[18] | ||
| 淨值 | 61%[18] | 56% | 62% | 75+/-4% | +13%[18] | ||
| 政府好感 | 32% | 24%[18] | 34%[18] | 52+/-4% | +18%[18] | -41% | |
| 政府反感 | 19%[18] | 22%[18] | 25% | 19+/-3% | -6%[18] | ||
| 淨值 | 12% | 2%[18] | 9% | 33+/-6% | +25%[18] | ||
| 澳門 | 人民好感 | 50% | 44%[18] | 51%[18] | 62+/-4% | +11%[18] | +40% |
| 人民反感 | 2% | 4%[18] | 4% | 3+/-1% | -2% | ||
| 淨值 | 48% | 40%[18] | 47%[18] | 60+/-4% | +13%[18] | ||
| 政府好感 | 36%[18] | 34% | 37% | 43+/-4% | +6%[18] | -40% | |
| 政府反感 | 18%[18] | 17% | 22%[18] [19] | 23+/-3% | +1% | ||
| 淨值 | 18%[18] | 18% | 15% | 20+/-6% | +5% | ||
[17] 數字採自五等量尺。
[18] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，表示有關變化在統計學上表面成立。不過，變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化是否有實際用途或意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
[19] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，是由於加權方法改變。如果以舊有加權方法處理數據，則差異並未超過抽樣誤差。
[20] 該調查結果公佈時尚未包括手機樣本。上表結果已更新為固網樣本及手機樣本的合併統計數字，惟於判斷變化是否超過抽樣誤差時仍然使用首次公佈的數字計算。
以下是香港市民對部分其他國家或地區的人民及政府的觀感，按對人民好感淨值倒序排列：
| 調查日期 | 15-18/5/17 | 16-21/8/17 | 18-19/7/18 | 17-19/7/19 | |||
| 樣本數目 | 548-660 | 765-807[23] | 502 | 598-616 | |||
| 回應比率 | 71.5% | 63.9% | 47.4% | 59.8% | |||
| 最新結果[21] | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | 最新變化 | 人民/政府 淨值差異 |
|
| 日本 | 人民好感 | 62%[22] | 59%[22] | 68%[22] | 76+/-3% | +8%[22] | +61% |
| 人民反感 | 9% | 7% | 6% | 3+/-1% | -3%[22] | ||
| 淨值 | 53%[22] | 52% | 63%[22] | 73+/-4% | +10%[22] | ||
| 政府好感 | 25%[22] | 21% | 33%[22] | 39+/-4% | +6%[22] | -61% | |
| 政府反感 | 39% | 39% | 31%[22] | 27+/-4% | -4% | ||
| 淨值 | -13%[22] | -18% | 2%[22] | 12+/-6% | +10%[22] | ||
| 英國 | 人民好感 | 50% | 46% | 54%[22] | 63+/-4% | +9%[22] | +24% |
| 人民反感 | 3%[22] | 5% | 6% | 5+/-2% | -1% | ||
| 淨值 | 47%[22] | 42% | 48% | 58+/-5% | +10%[22] | ||
| 政府好感 | 46%[22] | 38%[22] | 46%[22] | 51+/-4% | +4% | -24% | |
| 政府反感 | 8%[22] | 12%[22] | 14% | 17+/-3% | +3% | ||
| 淨值 | 38%[22] | 26%[22] | 32% | 34+/-6% | +2% | ||
| 德國 | 人民好感 | 48% | 38%[22] | 52%[22] | 56+/-4% | +4% | +7% |
| 人民反感 | 3% | 2% | 2% | 2+/-1% | +1% | ||
| 淨值 | 45% | 36%[22] | 50%[22] | 53+/-4% | +3% | ||
| 政府好感 | 47%[22] | 39%[22] | 48%[22] | 53+/-4% | +5% | -7% | |
| 政府反感 | 4% | 4% | 3% | 7+/-2% | +4%[22] | ||
| 淨值 | 43%[22] | 34%[22] | 45%[22] | 46+/-5% | +1% | ||
| 美國 | 人民好感 | 39%[22] | 34% | 39% | 48+/-4% | +8%[22] | +63% |
| 人民反感 | 12% | 11% | 15%[22] | 9+/-2% | -6%[22] | ||
| 淨值 | 27% | 23% | 24% | 39+/-5% | +15%[22] | ||
| 政府好感 | 19% | 14%[22] | 15% | 24+/-3% | +9%[22] | -63% | |
| 政府反感 | 35%[22] | 49%[22] | 56%[22] | 48+/-4% | -8%[22] | ||
| 淨值 | -16%[22] | -35%[22] | -41% | -24+/-7% | +17%[22] | ||
| 法國 | 人民好感 | 35% | 34% | 41%[22] | 42+/-4% | +2% | +13% |
| 人民反感 | 7% | 7% | 5% | 6+/-2% | +1% | ||
| 淨值 | 27% | 28% | 35%[22] | 36+/-5% | +1% | ||
| 政府好感 | 28%[22] | 26% | 34%[22] | 33+/-4% | -1% | -13% | |
| 政府反感 | 5% | 7% | 5% | 10+/-3% | +6%[22] | ||
| 淨值 | 23%[22] | 19% | 29%[22] | 23+/-5% | -7% | ||
[21] 數字採自五等量尺。
[22] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，表示有關變化在統計學上表面成立。不過，變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化是否有實際用途或意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
[23] 該調查結果公佈時尚未包括手機樣本。上表結果已更新為固網樣本及手機樣本的合併統計數字，惟於判斷變化是否超過抽樣誤差時仍然使用首次公佈的數字計算。
最新調查顯示，香港巿民對各地人民的好感淨值，全部都高於對當地政府的好感淨值。對各地人民觀感方面，按好感淨值由高至低排列，分別是台灣、日本、澳門、英國、德國、香港、美國、法國和中國，當中只有對中國人民的好感淨值為負數。對各地政府觀感方面，按好感淨值由高至低排列，分別是德國、英國、台灣、法國、澳門、日本、美國、中國和香港，當中對美國、中國和香港政府的好感淨值為負數。
相比一年前的數字，香港巿民對香港人民、台灣人民及政府、澳門人民、日本人民及政府、英國人民、美國人民及政府的好感淨值顯著上升，而對香港政府和大陸政府的好感淨值則顯著下跌。兩岸四地人民及政府之中，香港市民對香港人民的好感淨值創2008年5月以來新高，對香港政府和大陸政府的好感淨值創1997年4月有紀錄以來新低，而對台灣人民和澳門人民的好感淨值則創2007年12月有紀錄以來新高。
須要說明，躋身是次調查範圍的國家和地區，先決條件是香港巿民的熟悉程度。調查範圍以外的國家或地區，在香港巿民心目中的好感程度可以很高或很低，但由於並非香港巿民最熟悉的國家或地區，所以不在調查之列。
民情指數
港大民研制定「民情指數」（PSI），目的在於量化香港市民對香港社會的情緒反應，以解釋及預視社會出現集體行動的可能性。民情指數包涵了「政通」和「人和」兩個概念，分別以「政評數值（GA）」和「社評數值（SA）」顯示。「政評數值（GA）」泛指市民對整體政府管治的表現評價，而「社評數值（SA）」則泛指市民對整體社會狀況的評價，分別由四及六項民意數字組合而成。指數本身及兩項數值均以0至200顯示，100代表正常。
以下為民情指數、政評數值及社評數值走勢圖：
| 最新數值 | 民情指數：67.4 (-4.5) | 政評數值：64.8 (-3.1) | 社評數值：69.6 (-4.9) |
以下是民情指數、政評數值、社評數值，及十項基礎民意數字的近期數值：
| 截數日期 | 12/5/19 | 26/5/19 | 9/6/19 | 23/6/19 | 8/7/19 | 19/7/19 | 最新變化 |
| 民情指數 | 90.3 | 89.4 | 89.1 | 71.5 | 71.9 | 67.4 | -4.5 |
| 政評數值 | 88.0 | 85.5 | 85.0 | 67.2 | 67.9 | 64.8 | -3.1 |
| 特首評分 | 44.3 | 44.7 | 43.3 | 32.8 | 33.4 | 30.1 | -3.3 |
| 特首民望淨值 | -24% | -27% | -24% | -44% | -40% | -49% | -9% |
| 政府滿意程度平均量值 | 2.6[24] | 2.5 | 2.5[24] | 2.0 | 2.0[24] | 2.0 | -- |
| 政府信任程度平均量值 | 2.7[24] | 2.7 | 2.7[24] | 2.4 | 2.4[24] | 2.3 | -- |
| 社評數值 | 87.4[24] | 88.3 | 88.3[24] | 74.5 | 74.5[24] | 69.6 | -4.9 |
| 政治狀況滿意程度 | 2.1[24] | 1.9 | 1.9[24] | 1.6 | 1.6[24] | 1.5 | -0.1 |
| 政治狀況成份指標權數 | 0.30[24] | 0.30[24] | 0.30[24] | 0.32 | 0.32[24] | 0.32[24] | -- |
| 經濟狀況滿意程度 | 2.8[24] | 2.8 | 2.8[24] | 2.7 | 2.7[24] | 2.6 | -0.1 |
| 經濟狀況成份指標權數 | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | 0.34 | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | -- |
| 民生狀況滿意程度 | 2.4[24] | 2.5 | 2.5[24] | 2.3 | 2.3[24] | 2.2 | -0.1 |
| 民生狀況成份指標權數 | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | 0.35 | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | -- |
[24] 當有關數字沒有更新時，港大民研會採用最近一次已公佈的數字替代。
各項指數的具體數值，可按下表理解：
| 指數得分 | 百分位數 | 指數得分 | 百分位數 |
| 140-200 | 最高1% | 0-60 | 最低1% |
| 125 | 最高5% | 75 | 最低5% |
| 120 | 最高10% | 80 | 最低10% |
| 110 | 最高25% | 90 | 最低25% |
| 100為正常數值，即半數在上，半數在下 | |||
民情指數較七月上旬下跌4.5點至67.4，數字可以視為過去逾二十年來最差的1個百分比。民情指數的兩個成份數值中，反映市民對整體政府管治表現評價的政評數值下跌3.1點至64.8，而反映市民對整體社會狀況評價的社評數值則下跌4.9點至69.6。兩者分別可以視為過去逾二十年來最差的1及2個百分比。
數據分析
於7月21日元朗白衣人襲擊市民事件前完成的民意調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的民望再創新低。其支持度評分為30.1分，支持率為21%，反對率為70%，民望淨值為負49個百分點。特區政府方面，民望與一個月前相若，最新滿意率淨值為負52個百分點，信任淨值為負31個百分點。現時經濟、民生及政治狀況的滿意淨值就分別為負19、負43及負82個百分點。三者當中，民生狀況和政治狀況的滿意淨值均下跌至1992年有紀錄以來新低。
在十位香港市民最熟悉的當今中國及台灣領導人之中，以支持度排名，朱鎔基名列首位，得65.3分；第二至第十位分別為溫家寶、馬英九、胡錦濤、李克強、蔡英文、習近平、江澤民、李登輝和陳水扁。當中，習近平的評分跌至2008年3月其上榜以來新低，胡錦濤的評分亦跌至1999年5月其上榜以來新低，朱鎔基的評分就跌至1998年1月以來新低，溫家寶的評分則跌至2003年9月其上榜以來新低。
香港巿民對各地人民及政府的觀感方面，整體而言，香港巿民對各地人民的好感淨值，全部都高於對當地政府的好感淨值。兩岸四地人民及政府之中，香港市民對香港人民的好感淨值創2008年5月以來新高，對香港政府和大陸政府的好感淨值則是1997年4月有紀錄以來新低，而對台灣人民和澳門人民的好感淨值則創2007年12月有紀錄以來新高。
民情指數方面，最新數字為67.4，較七月上旬下跌4.5點。
Jul 30, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
Hong Kong Public Opinion Program releases results of the second survey
Special Announcement
The predecessor of Hong Kong Public Opinion Program (HKPOP) was The Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP). “HKPOP” in this release can refer to HKPOP or its predecessor HKUPOP.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 17-19/7/2019[5] |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 1,002 (including 501 landline and 501 mobile samples)[5] |
| Effective response rate[2] | : | 59.8%[5] |
| Sampling error[3] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, that of net values not more than +/-8% and that of ratings not more than +/-3.3 at 95% confidence level |
| Weighting method[4] | : | Rim-weighted according to figures provided by the Census and Statistics Department. The gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population came from “Mid-year population for 2018”, while the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and economic activity status distribution came from “Women and Men in Hong Kong - Key Statistics (2018 Edition)”. |
[1] The landline and mobile sample ratio was revised to 2 to 1 in April 2018 and further revised to 1 to 1 in July 2019.
[2] Before September 2017, “overall response rate” was used to report surveys’ contact information. Starting from September 2017, “effective response rate” was used. In July 2018, HKPOP further revised the calculation of effective response rate. Thus, the response rates before and after the change cannot be directly compared.
[3] All error figures in this release are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times with different random samples, we would expect 95 times having the population parameter within the respective error margins calculated. Because of sampling errors, when quoting percentages, journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, whereas one decimal place can be used when quoting rating figures.
[4] In the past, the mobile sample would be rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample. In July 2018, HKPOP further refined the weighting method. The landline sample and the mobile sample would no longer be processed separately. The mobile sample would also no longer be adjusted using the basic PSI figures collected in the landline sample. The overall effect is that the importance of the mobile sample would be increased.
[5] For the naming stage, the date of survey is 2-8/7/2019, the sample size is 1,025 (including 519 landline and 506 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 67.4%.
Popularity of CE and the Government
Latest Figures
Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 6-9/5/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 17-19/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 1,018 | 1,013 | 1,006 | 1,015 | 1,025 | 1,002 | -- |
| Response rate | 63.2% | 61.9% | 60.4% | 58.7% | 67.4% | 59.8% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Rating of CE Carrie Lam | 44.3[6] | 44.7 | 43.3 | 32.8[6] | 33.4 | 30.1+/-2.0 | -3.3[6] |
| Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 32%[6] | 32% | 32% | 23%[6] | 26% | 21+/-3% | -4%[6] |
| Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 56%[6] | 59% | 57% | 67%[6] | 66% | 70+/-3% | +4%[6] |
| Net approval rate | -24%[6] | -27% | -24% | -44%[6] | -40% | -49+/-5% | -9%[6] |
[6] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Recent popularity figures of the HKSAR Government as well as people’s appraisal of society's conditions are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 18-21/2/19 | 14-19/3/19 | 23-25/4/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size[7] | 1,001 | 1,024 | 1,031 | 1,013 | 1,015 | 1,002 | -- |
| Response rate | 72.1% | 73.1% | 66.1% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Satisfaction rate of SARG performance[8] | 29% | 31% | 30% | 27% | 18%[9] | 18+/-3% | -- |
| Dissatisfaction rate of SARG performance[8] | 46% | 49% | 48% | 55%[9] | 72%[9] | 70+/-4% | -1% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -17% | -18% | -19% | -28% | -53%[9] | -52+/-7% | +1% |
| Mean value[8] | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.5[9] | 2.0[9] | 2.0+/-0.1 | -- |
| Current economic condition: Satisfaction rate[8] |
36%[9] | 35% | 33% | 36% | 31%[9] | 28+/-3% | -3% |
| Current economic condition: Dissatisfaction rate[8] |
37% | 42%[9] | 40% | 41% | 45% | 47+/-3% | +3% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -1%[9] | -7% | -7% | -5% | -14%[9] | -19+/-5% | -5% |
| Mean value[8] | 2.9[9] | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.7[9] | 2.6+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| Current livelihood condition: Satisfaction rate[8] |
24% | 27% | 22%[9] | 26%[9] | 21%[9] | 21+/-3% | -- |
| Current livelihood condition: Dissatisfaction rate[8] |
55% | 54% | 59%[9] | 56% | 62%[9] | 64+/-3% | +2% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -31% | -27% | -37%[9] | -30%[9] | -41%[9] | -43+/-5% | -2% |
| Mean value[8] | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.4[9] | 2.5[9] | 2.3[9] | 2.2+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| Current political condition: Satisfaction rate[8] |
17% | 17% | 17% | 13%[9] | 7%[9] | 5+/-1% | -2% |
| Current political condition: Dissatisfaction rate[8] |
61% | 62% | 64% | 71%[9] | 81%[9] | 87+/-2% | +6%[9] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -44% | -45% | -48% | -58%[9] | -74%[9] | -82+/-3% | -7%[9] |
| Mean value[8] | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.1[9] | 1.9[9] | 1.6[9] | 1.5+/-0.1 | -0.1[9] |
[7] The question on the satisfaction of SARG performance only uses sub-samples of the surveys concerned. The sub-sample size for this survey is 546.
[8] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[9] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Recent figures regarding people’s trust in the HKSAR Government are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 15-19/11/18 | 21-24/1/19 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 553 | 532 | 639 | 686 | 623 | 555 | -- |
| Response rate | 67.9% | 59.0% | 72.2% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Trust in HKSAR Government[10] | 45%[11] | 44% | 34%[11] | 36% | 28%[11] | 29+/-4% | +2% |
| Distrust in HKSAR Government[10] | 39% | 37% | 46%[11] | 50% | 60%[11] | 60+/-4% | -- |
| Net trust | 6% | 7% | -12%[11] | -14% | -32%[11] | -31+/-8% | +1% |
| Mean value[10] | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.7[11] | 2.7 | 2.4[11] | 2.3+/-0.1 | -- |
[10] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean. From October to December 2018, HKUPOP conducted tests on the wordings used in different rating scales. Figures in the table are the combined results. Please visit the HKU POP Site for details.
[11] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 30.1 marks. Her approval rate is 21%, disapproval rate 70%, giving a net popularity of negative 49 percentage points. All popularity figures have worsened significantly from two weeks ago, and registered record lows again since she became CE.
Regarding people’s appraisal of the overall performance of the HKSAR Government, the latest figures revealed that 18% were satisfied, whereas 70% were dissatisfied, thus net satisfaction stands at negative 52 percentage points. The mean score is 2.0, meaning “quite dissatisfied”. Regarding people’s trust in the HKSAR Government, 29% of the respondents expressed trust, 60% expressed not trust. The net trust value is negative 31 percentage points, while the mean score is 2.3, meaning between “half-half” and “quite distrust” in general.
As or people’s satisfaction with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions, the latest satisfaction rates were 28%, 21% and 5% respectively, while their net satisfaction rates in these conditions were negative 19, negative 43 and negative 82 percentage points. The mean scores of the economic and livelihood conditions were 2.6 and 2.2, meaning between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied” in general. The mean score of the political condition was 1.5, meaning between “quite dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. The net satisfaction rates of livelihood and political conditions have registered all-time low since records began in 1992.
Opinion Daily
In 2007, HKPOP started collaborating with Wisers Information Limited whereby Wisers supplies to HKPOP a record of significant events of that day according to the research method designed by HKPOP. These daily entries would then be uploaded to “Opinion Daily” after they are verified by HKPOP.
For some of the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from 17 to 20 June, 2019 while this survey was conducted from 17 to 19 July, 2019. During this period, herewith the significant events selected from counting newspaper headlines and commentaries on a daily basis and covered by at least 25% of the local newspaper articles. Readers can make their own judgment if these significant events have any impacts to different polling figures.
| 14/7/19 | Protest against extradition bill in Shatin turns into conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 13/7/19 | Protest against parallel trading in Sheung Shui turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 11/7/19 | Director of the Liaison Office Wang Zhimin says the central government supports Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s governance. |
| 9/7/19 | Carrie Lam says the extradition bill “is dead”. |
| 7/7/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters rally in Kowloon. |
| 1/7/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters occupy the Legislative Council Complex. |
| 30/6/19 | Junius Ho and Politihk Social Strategic organize a rally in support of the police force. |
| 28/6/19 | G20 leaders’ summit begins in Japan. |
| 24/6/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters block the Revenue Tower and Immigration Tower. |
| 21/6/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters surround police headquarters and several government buildings. |
| 20/6/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters announce escalation of actions. |
| 18/6/19 | Carrie Lam apologizes to the people regarding the extradition bill controversies. |
| 17/6/19 | Commissioner of Police Stephen Lo says he did not mean the entire conflict on June 12 was a riot. |
Popularity of Cross-Strait Political Figures
In the naming survey, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 contemporary leaders in China or Taiwan whom they knew best. The top 12 nominees then entered the rating survey. In the rating survey, respondents were asked to rate individual political figures using a 0-100 scale, where 0 indicates absolutely no support, 100 indicates absolute support and 50 means half-half. After calculation, the bottom ones in terms of recognition rate were dropped; the remaining 10 were then ranked according to their support ratings to become the top 10 cross-strait political figures. Recent ratings of the top 10 cross-strait political figures are summarized below, in descending order of support ratings[12]:
| Date of survey | 27-30/3/17 | 17-20/7/17 | 20-23/7/18 | 17-19/7/19 | Latest change | |
| Sample size | 537-702 | 732-816[16] | 500 | 557-690 | -- | |
| Response rate | 70.6% | 63.9% | 50.8% | 59.8% | -- | |
| Latest findings[13] | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | Recognition rate | -- |
| Zhu Rongji | 70.8{1} | 67.5{1}[15] | 66.8{1} | 65.3+/-2.1{1} | 83.0% | -1.4 |
| Wen Jiabao | 63.8{3} | 58.7{2}[15] | 59.1{3} | 57.2+/-2.1{2} | 91.6% | -1.8 |
| Ma Ying-jeou | 59.1{5} | 53.0{6}[15] | 56.7{5}[15] | 53.2+/-1.9{3} | 89.9% | -3.5[15] |
| Hu Jintao | 58.8{6} | 54.9{4}[15] | 56.2{6} | 53.0+/-2.1{4} | 88.9% | -3.3[15] |
| Li Keqiang | 60.8{4} | 54.2{5}[15] | 57.3{4} | 50.5+/-2.3{5} | 84.9% | -6.8[15] |
| Tsai Ing-wen | 48.1{8} | 45.4{7}[15] | 43.0{8} | 47.4+/-2.4{6} | 90.5% | +4.4[15] |
| Xi Jinping | 65.5{2} | 57.6{3}[15] | 59.3{2} | 47.1+/-3.0{7} | 94.6% | -12.3[15] |
| Jiang Zemin | 48.6{7} | 44.6{8}[15] | 45.9{7} | 43.8+/-2.3{8} | 87.1% | -2.1 |
| Lee Teng-hui | 42.4{9} | 39.1[14] [15] | 39.9[14] | 38.2+/-2.2{9} | 79.8% | -1.8 |
| Chen Shui-bian | 25.0{10} | 24.9{10} | 24.7{10} | 22.8+/-1.9{10} | 88.6% | -1.8 |
| Han Zheng | -- | -- | -- | 41.9+/-3.3[14] | 48.3% | -- |
| Han Kuo-yu | -- | -- | -- | 40.1+/-2.4[14] | 68.5% | -- |
| Li Peng | -- | 38.4{9} | 38.5{9} | -- | -- | -- |
| Wang Qishan | -- | -- | 56.2[14] | -- | -- | -- |
| Zhang Dejiang | 49.0[14] | 41.8[14] [15] | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Lien Chan | 50.6[14] | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[12] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[13] Numbers in curly brackets { } indicate the rankings.
[14] Recognition rates were comparatively low in the rating survey.
[15] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
[16] The mobile sample was not included when survey results were released. The figures in the table above have been updated to reflect the results based on the combined landline and mobile sample. However, whether changes have gone beyond sampling errors is still determined based on the figures in the first release. After the update, the rating of Hu Jintao surpasses that of Li Keqiang and should be ranked the fourth in that survey.
Latest survey revealed that, among the ten most well-known political figures in Mainland China and Taiwan, in terms of popularity rating, Zhu Rongji ranked first, attaining 65.3 marks. The 2nd to 5th ranks went to Wen Jiabao, Ma Ying-jeou, Hu Jintao and Li Keqiang with scores of 57.2, 53.2, 53.0 and 50.5 marks respectively. Tsai Ing-wen, Xi Jinping and Jiang Zemin occupied the 6th to 8th ranks with 47.4, 47.1 and 43.8 marks correspondingly. The 9th to 10th ranks fell to Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian with respective scores of 38.2 and 22.8 marks. For this latest survey, Han Zheng and Han Kuo-yu obtained support ratings of 41.9 and 40.1 marks respectively, but they were dropped due to their relatively low recognition rates.
On the awareness level, the top 10 cross-strait political figures are almost the same as in the previous survey. In terms of support rating, the rating of Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang, Ma Ying-jeou and Hu Jintao have changed significantly. Among them, that of Xi Jinping has dropped to its record low since he entered the list in March 2008, while that of Hu Jintao has dropped to its record low since he entered the list in May 1999. On the other hand, the rating of Tsai Ing-wen has increased significantly. Meanwhile, the ratings of Zhu Rongji and Wen Jiabao have changed within sampling errors, but they have dropped to record low since they entered the list in January 1998 and September 2003 respectively.
It should be noted that our list of “top 10 cross-strait political figures” only includes those best known to the Hong Kong public, ranked according to their support ratings. Other political figures may have very high or low support ratings, but they are excluded from the list because they are relatively less well-known.
Hong Kong People’s Feelings towards Different Governments and Peoples
In the naming survey, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 governments of countries or regions that they knew best apart from Hong Kong, Mainland, Taiwan and Macau. The top 5 nominees then entered the second stage survey. In the second stage survey, respondents were asked to rate their feeling towards the governments and peoples of Hong Kong, Mainland, Taiwan, Macau and the five countries or regions respectively. Hong Kong people’s feelings towards different governments and peoples are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 15-18/5/17 | 16-21/8/17 | 18-19/7/18 | 17-19/7/19 | |||
| Sample size | 586-642 | 763-811[20] | 502 | 592-633 | |||
| Response rate | 71.5% | 63.9% | 47.4% | 59.8% | |||
| Latest findings[17] | Findings | Findings | Findings | Finding & error | Latest change | Net difference with gov’ts / peoples | |
| Hong Kong | People Positive | 41% | 46%[18] | 50% | 63+/-4% | +13%[18] | +82% |
| People Negative | 13% | 13% | 14% | 12+/-3% | -1% | ||
| Net value | 28% | 34%[18] | 36% | 51+/-6% | +14%[18] | ||
| Government Positive | 28%[18] | 40%[18] | 38% | 26+/-4% | -12%[18] | -82% | |
| Government Negative | 37% | 32%[18] | 34% | 58+/-4% | +24%[18] | ||
| Net value | -9%[18] | 9%[18] | 4% | -32+/-7% | -36%[18] | ||
| Mainland | People Positive | 30% | 32% | 31% | 30+/-4% | -2% | +22% |
| People Negative | 29% | 27% | 29% | 34+/-4% | +5% | ||
| Net value | 1%[18] | 4% | 2% | -4+/-7% | -7% | ||
| Government Positive | 30% | 32% | 31% | 25+/-4% | -6%[18] | -22% | |
| Government Negative | 37% | 35% | 39% | 51+/-4% | +12%[18] | ||
| Net value | -8% | -3% | -8% | -26+/-7% | -19%[18] | ||
| Taiwan | People Positive | 65%[18] | 60%[18] | 67%[18] [19] | 76+/-3% | +10%[18] | +41% |
| People Negative | 4% | 4% | 5% | 2+/-1% | -3%[18] | ||
| Net value | 61%[18] | 56% | 62% | 75+/-4% | +13%[18] | ||
| Government Positive | 32% | 24%[18] | 34%[18] | 52+/-4% | +18%[18] | -41% | |
| Government Negative | 19%[18] | 22%[18] | 25% | 19+/-3% | -6%[18] | ||
| Net value | 12% | 2%[18] | 9% | 33+/-6% | +25%[18] | ||
| Macau | People Positive | 50% | 44%[18] | 51%[18] | 62+/-4% | +11%[18] | +40% |
| People Negative | 2% | 4%[18] | 4% | 3+/-1% | -2% | ||
| Net value | 48% | 40%[18] | 47%[18] | 60+/-4% | +13%[18] | ||
| Government Positive | 36%[18] | 34% | 37% | 43+/-4% | +6%[18] | -40% | |
| Government Negative | 18%[18] | 17% | 22%[18] [19] | 23+/-3% | +1% | ||
| Net value | 18%[18] | 18% | 15% | 20+/-6% | +5% | ||
[17] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.
[18] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
[19] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level because of a change in the weighting method. If the previous weighting method was used, the difference would not have gone beyond the sampling error.
[20] The mobile sample was not included when survey results were released. The figures in the table above have been updated to reflect the results based on the combined landline and mobile sample. However, whether changes have gone beyond sampling errors is still determined based on the figures in the first release.
Hong Kong people’s feelings towards some other governments and peoples are summarized as follows, in descending order of net values towards the peoples:
| Date of survey | 15-18/5/17 | 16-21/8/17 | 18-19/7/18 | 17-19/7/19 | |||
| Sample size | 548-660 | 765-807[23] | 502 | 598-616 | |||
| Response rate | 71.5% | 63.9% | 47.4% | 59.8% | |||
| Latest findings[21] | Findings | Findings | Findings | Finding & error | Latest change | Net difference with peoples / gov’ts | |
| Japan | People Positive | 62%[22] | 59%[22] | 68%[22] | 76+/-3% | +8%[22] | +61% |
| People Negative | 9% | 7% | 6% | 3+/-1% | -3%[22] | ||
| Net value | 53%[22] | 52% | 63%[22] | 73+/-4% | +10%[22] | ||
| Government Positive | 25%[22] | 21% | 33%[22] | 39+/-4% | +6%[22] | -61% | |
| Government Negative | 39% | 39% | 31%[22] | 27+/-4% | -4% | ||
| Net value | -13%[22] | -18% | 2%[22] | 12+/-6% | +10%[22] | ||
| United Kingdom | People Positive | 50% | 46% | 54%[22] | 63+/-4% | +9%[22] | +24% |
| People Negative | 3%[22] | 5% | 6% | 5+/-2% | -1% | ||
| Net value | 47%[22] | 42% | 48% | 58+/-5% | +10%[22] | ||
| Government Positive | 46%[22] | 38%[22] | 46%[22] | 51+/-4% | +4% | -24% | |
| Government Negative | 8%[22] | 12%[22] | 14% | 17+/-3% | +3% | ||
| Net value | 38%[22] | 26%[22] | 32% | 34+/-6% | +2% | ||
| Germany | People Positive | 48% | 38%[22] | 52%[22] | 56+/-4% | +4% | +7% |
| People Negative | 3% | 2% | 2% | 2+/-1% | +1% | ||
| Net value | 45% | 36%[22] | 50%[22] | 53+/-4% | +3% | ||
| Government Positive | 47%[22] | 39%[22] | 48%[22] | 53+/-4% | +5% | -7% | |
| Government Negative | 4% | 4% | 3% | 7+/-2% | +4%[22] | ||
| Net value | 43%[22] | 34%[22] | 45%[22] | 46+/-5% | +1% | ||
| United States | People Positive | 39%[22] | 34% | 39% | 48+/-4% | +8%[22] | +63% |
| People Negative | 12% | 11% | 15%[22] | 9+/-2% | -6%[22] | ||
| Net value | 27% | 23% | 24% | 39+/-5% | +15%[22] | ||
| Government Positive | 19% | 14%[22] | 15% | 24+/-3% | +9%[22] | -63% | |
| Government Negative | 35%[22] | 49%[22] | 56%[22] | 48+/-4% | -8%[22] | ||
| Net value | -16%[22] | -35%[22] | -41% | -24+/-7% | +17%[22] | ||
| France | People Positive | 35% | 34% | 41%[22] | 42+/-4% | +2% | +13% |
| People Negative | 7% | 7% | 5% | 6+/-2% | +1% | ||
| Net value | 27% | 28% | 35%[22] | 36+/-5% | +1% | ||
| Government Positive | 28%[22] | 26% | 34%[22] | 33+/-4% | -1% | -13% | |
| Government Negative | 5% | 7% | 5% | 10+/-3% | +6%[22] | ||
| Net value | 23%[22] | 19% | 29%[22] | 23+/-5% | -7% | ||
[21] Collapsed from a 5-point scale.
[22] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
[23] The mobile sample was not included when survey results were released. The figures in the table above have been updated to reflect the results based on the combined landline and mobile sample. However, whether changes have gone beyond sampling errors is still determined based on the figures in the first release.
Our latest survey shows that, in terms of net affinity, Hong Kong people feel more positively about all other peoples than their governments. As regards people’s feeling towards different peoples, from high to low net affinity, the order goes: Taiwan, Japan, Macau, the United Kingdom, Germany, Hong Kong, the United States, France and China. Among them, only the net affinity for Chinese people was negative. Regarding people’s feeling towards different governments, from high to low net affinity, the order goes: Germany, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, France, Macau, Japan, the United States, China and Hong Kong. Among them, the net affinity for the governments of the United States, China and Hong Kong were negative.
Compared to last year’s figures, the net affinity of Hong Kong people towards the people of Hong Kong, Macau and the United Kingdom, the people and governments of Taiwan, Japan and the United States have increased beyond sampling errors, while the net affinity of Hong Kong people towards the governments of Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China have dropped significantly. Regarding the four cross-strait societies, the net affinity of Hong Kong people towards fellow Hongkongers is now at its highest since May 2008, that towards the governments of Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China are at their lowest since the survey series started in April 1997, while that towards the people of Taiwan and Macau are at their highest since the survey series began in December 2007.
It should be noted, however, that our survey only covers regions and countries best known to Hong Kong people. Hong Kong people may well like or dislike other places much more, but because they are not the most well-known places, they do not appear on the list by design.
Public Sentiment Index
The Public Sentiment Index (PSI) compiled by HKUPOP aims at quantifying Hong Kong people’s sentiments, in order to explain and predict the likelihood of collective behaviour. PSI comprises 2 components: one being Government Appraisal (GA) Score and the other being Society Appraisal (SA) Score. GA refers to people’s appraisal of society’s governance while SA refers to people’s appraisal of the social environment. Both GA and SA scores are compiled from a respective of 4 and 6 opinion survey figures. All PSI, GA and SA scores range between 0 to 200, with 100 meaning normal.
The chart of PSI, GA and SA are shown below:
| Latest figure | Public Sentiment Index (PSI): 67.4 (-4.5) |
Government Appraisal (GA): 64.8 (-3.1) |
Society Appraisal (SA): 69.6 (-4.9) |
Recent values of PSI, GA, SA and 10 fundamental figures are tabulated as follows:
| Cut-off date | 12/5/19 | 26/5/19 | 9/6/19 | 23/6/19 | 8/7/19 | 19/7/19 | Latest change |
| Public Sentiment Index (PSI) | 90.3 | 89.4 | 89.1 | 71.5 | 71.9 | 67.4 | -4.5 |
| Government Appraisal (GA) | 88.0 | 85.5 | 85.0 | 67.2 | 67.9 | 64.8 | -3.1 |
| Rating of CE | 44.3 | 44.7 | 43.3 | 32.8 | 33.4 | 30.1 | -3.3 |
| Net approval rate of CE | -24% | -27% | -24% | -44% | -40% | -49% | -9% |
| Mean value of people’s satisfaction with SARG | 2.6[24] | 2.5 | 2.5[24] | 2.0 | 2.0[24] | 2.0 | -- |
| Mean value of people’s trust in SARG | 2.7[24] | 2.7 | 2.7[24] | 2.4 | 2.4[24] | 2.3 | -- |
| Society Appraisal (SA) | 87.4[24] | 88.3 | 88.3[24] | 74.5 | 74.5[24] | 69.6 | -4.9 |
| People’s satisfaction with political condition | 2.1[24] | 1.9 | 1.9[24] | 1.6 | 1.6[24] | 1.5 | -0.1 |
| Weighting index of political condition | 0.30[24] | 0.30[24] | 0.30[24] | 0.32 | 0.32[24] | 0.32[24] | -- |
| People’s satisfaction with economic condition | 2.8[24] | 2.8 | 2.8[24] | 2.7 | 2.7[24] | 2.6 | -0.1 |
| Weighting index of economic condition | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | 0.34 | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | -- |
| People’s satisfaction with livelihood condition | 2.4[24] | 2.5 | 2.5[24] | 2.3 | 2.3[24] | 2.2 | -0.1 |
| Weighting index of livelihood condition | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | 0.35 | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | -- |
[24] HKUPOP will adopt the latest published figures when there are no respective updates.
As for the meaning of the score values, please refer to the following:
| Score value | Percentile | Score value | Percentile |
| 140-200 | Highest 1% | 0-60 | Lowest 1% |
| 125 | Highest 5% | 75 | Lowest 5% |
| 120 | Highest 10% | 80 | Lowest 10% |
| 110 | Highest 25% | 90 | Lowest 25% |
| 100 being normal level, meaning half above half below | |||
The latest PSI stands at 67.4, down by 4.5 points from early July. It can be considered as among the worst 1% across the past 20 years or so. Among the two component scores of PSI, the Government Appraisal (GA) Score that reflects people’s appraisal of society’s governance goes down by 3.1 points to 64.8, whereas the Society Appraisal (SA) Score that reflects people’s appraisal of the social environment decreases by 4.9 points to 69.6. They can be considered as among the worst 1% and 2% respectively.
Data Analysis
Our latest survey conducted before the incident of men in white shirts attacking citizens in Yuen Long on July 21 shows that the popularity of CE Carrie Lam has reached another record low. Her rating now stands at 30.1 marks, approval rate 21%, disapproval rate 70%, giving a net popularity of negative 49 percentage points. For the HKSAR Government, its popularity is similar as one month ago, with net satisfaction at negative 52 percentage points and net trust value is negative 31 percentage points. The latest net satisfaction rates with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions are negative 19, negative 43 and negative 82 percentage points. Among them, those of livelihood and political conditions have registered all-time low since records began in 1992.
Among the ten Mainland China and Taiwan political figures most well-known to Hong Kong people, in terms of popularity rating, Zhu Rongji ranked first, attaining 65.3 marks. The 2nd to 10th ranks went to Wen Jiabao, Ma Ying-jeou, Hu Jintao, Li Keqiang. Tsai Ing-wen, Xi Jinping, Jiang Zemin, Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. Among them, that of Xi Jinping has dropped to its record low since he entered the list in March 2008, that of Hu Jintao has dropped to its record low since he entered the list in May 1999, that of Zhu Rongji has dropped to its record low since January 1998, and that of Wen Jiabao has dropped to record low since he entered the list in September 2003.
Regarding Hong Kong people’s feelings towards different governments and peoples, overall speaking, Hong Kong people feel more positively about all other peoples than their governments. As for the four cross-strait societies, the net affinity of Hong Kong people towards fellow Hongkongers is now at its highest since May 2008, that towards the governments of Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China are at their lowest since the survey series started in April 1997, while that towards the people of Taiwan and Macau are at their highest since the survey series began in December 2007.
The latest PSI stands at 67.4, down by 4.5 points from early July.
