2019年9月17日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會回顧
2019年9月17日 新聞公報
香港民研今日發放五大行政會議成員及十大政治團體評分
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。
公報簡要
香港民研於九月初由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式，分兩階段進行了五大行政會議成員及十大政治團體評分調查。調查顯示，市民對行政會議非官守議員的最新支持度排名，首位是任志剛，得44.2分；排第二位的是葉劉淑儀，評分為30.0分；而位列第三至第五位的是張宇人、羅范椒芬及湯家驊，評分分別為27.4、27.3及24.9分。市民對排名首五位行政會議非官守議員的平均分為30.8分。而所有行政會議成員的評分均是其納入調查以來的新低。
十大政治團體方面，市民對政治團體的最新支持度排名，民陣繼2006年後重新上榜，並以51.2分奪得首位；第二至五位是香港眾志、公民黨、民主黨及人民力量，分別得45.2、45.1、44.6及42.5分。社民連、自由黨、新民黨、工聯會和民建聯分別排第六至十位，得39.5、37.6、28.8、28.5及26.8分。市民對排名首五位政治團體的平均分為45.7分，而首十位則為39.0分。首十位中，民陣、香港眾志和人民力量的評分是其上榜以來的新高，而自由黨、新民黨、工聯會和民建聯則錄得歷來新低。評分調查的實效回應比率為69.9%。在95%置信水平下，調查的百分比誤差不超過+/-2%，評分誤差不超過+/-3.0。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 2-3/9/2019 (提名階段) 3-4/9/2019 (評分階段) |
| 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] | ： | 510 (提名階段；包括253個固網及257個手機號碼樣本) 536 (評分階段；包括265個固網及271手機號碼樣本) |
| 實效回應比率[2] | ： | 69.1% (提名階段) 69.9% (評分階段) |
| 抽樣誤差[3] | ： | 在95%置信水平下，百分比誤差不超過+/-2%，評分誤差不超過+/-3.0 |
| 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] 民研計劃在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，民研計劃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，民研計劃再微調加權方法，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。
五大行政會議成員評分
在9月2至3日進行的提名調查中，被訪者可在未經提示下說出最多5名最熟悉的行政會議非官守議員。以下是提名調查的結果，按提名比率倒序排列[5]：
| 調查日期 | 5-6/3/18 | 2-4/10/18 | 14-19/3/19 | 2-3/9/19 | 最新排名變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 501 | 543 | 606 | 510 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 57.7% | 46.8% | 73.1% | 69.1% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 葉劉淑儀 | 23%{1} | 18%{1} | 12%{2} | 31+/-2%{1} | ↑1 |
| 湯家驊 | 4%{4} | 7%{3} | 3%{3} | 19+/-2%{2} | ↑1 |
| 陳智思 | 9%{2} | 11%{2} | 14%{1} | 16+/-2%{3} | ↓2 |
| 羅范椒芬 | 6%{3} | 4%{4} | 2%{4} | 6+/-1%{4} | -- |
| 任志剛 | 3%{6} | 3%{5} | 2%{5} | 4+/-1%{5} | -- |
| 張宇人 | 1%{10} | 2%{7} | <1%{14} | 3+/-1%{6} | ↑8 |
| 葉國謙 | 1%{8} | 1%{9} | 1%{6} | 3+/-1%{7} | ↓1 |
| 李國章 | 3%{5} | 2%{6} | 1%{7} | 2+/-1%{8} | ↓1 |
| 史美倫 | 1%{9} | 1%{8} | 1%{8} | 2+/-1%{9} | ↓1 |
| 林正財 | -- | <1%{11} | 1%{11} | 1+/-<1%{10} | ↑1 |
| 黃國健 | 1%{12} | -- | 1%{10} | 1+/-<1%{11} | ↓1 |
| 林健鋒 | 1%{11} | -- | 1%{9} | 1+/-<1%{12} | ↓3 |
| 廖長江 | <1%{14} | -- | <1%{15} | <1+/-<1%{13} | ↑2 |
| 劉業強 | <1%{13} | 1%{10} | -- | <1+/-<1%{14} | -- |
| 張國鈞 | 2%{7} | <1%{13} | <1%{13} | <1+/-<1%{15} | ↓2 |
| 周松崗 | <1%{15} | <1%{12} | 1%{12} | <1+/-<1%{16} | ↓4 |
| 錯誤答案 | 14% | 12% | 17% | 17+/-2% | -- |
| 唔知／難講 | 65% | 68% | 70% | 54+/-2% | -- |
[5] 如四捨五入後的數字相同，則會再考慮小數點後的數字。
9月初的提名調查顯示，最多被訪者提及的議員是葉劉淑儀、湯家驊和陳智思，提名比率分別為31%、19%及16%。然後是羅范椒芬和任志剛，提名比率分別為6%及4%。然而，17%錯誤回答行政會議非官守議員名字，54%則表示未有認知。
獲得提名次數最多的6名議員進入評分調查。在9月3至4日進行的評分調查中，被訪者就個別議員以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，認知度最低的一名議員再被剔除，之後再按五名議員所得的支持度由高至低順序排列，得出五大行政會議成員。以下是五大行政會議成員的最新評分，按評分倒序排列[6]：
| 調查日期 | 15-20/3/18 | 11-12/10/18 | 8-11/4/19 | 3-4/9/19 | 最新變化 | |
| 樣本數目 | 567-643 | 503 | 557-655 | 536 | -- | |
| 回應比率 | 62.5% | 65.3% | 63.9% | 69.9% | -- | |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | 認知率 | -- |
| 任志剛 | 58.2{1} | 54.7{1}[7][8] | 58.1{1}[7] | 44.2+/-2.7{1} | 90.4% | -13.9[7] |
| 葉劉淑儀 | 49.7{2}[7] | 46.0{3}[7][8] | 48.3{2} | 30.0+/-2.8{2} | 99.1% | -18.3[7] |
| 張宇人 | -- | -- | -- | 27.4+/-2.5{3} | 81.7% | -- |
| 羅范椒芬 | 41.1{4} | 42.3{4} | 42.9{4} | 27.3+/-2.5{4} | 90.5% | -15.7[7] |
| 湯家驊 | 49.1{3} | 46.7{2} | 45.9{3} | 24.9+/-2.6{5} | 91.7% | -21.0[7] |
| 陳智思 | 49.4[9] | 49.3[9] | 52.8 [7][9] | 35.1+/-2.6[9] | 78.9% | -17.7[7] |
| 葉國謙 | -- | -- | 41.0{5} | -- | -- | -- |
| 李國章 | 37.8{5} | 40.4{5} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[6] 如四捨五入後的數字相同，則會再考慮小數點後的數字。
[7] 該等變化超過在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，數字變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化的實際用途和意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
[8] 該等變化超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，是由於加權方法改變。如果以新加權方法處理舊有數據，則變化並未超過抽樣誤差。
[9] 於評分調查認知率不入十大，故評分不計算在內。
最新評分調查顯示，市民對行政會議非官守議員的最新支持度排名，首位是任志剛，得44.2分；排第二位的是葉劉淑儀，評分為30.0分；而位列第三至第五位的是張宇人、羅范椒芬及湯家驊，評分分別為27.4、27.3及24.9分。市民對排名首五位行政會議非官守議員的平均分為30.8分。在最新調查中，陳智思得35.1分，但由於認知率較低而被剔除。而所有行政會議成員的評分均是其納入調查以來的新低。
十大政治團體評分
在9月2至3日進行的提名調查中，被訪者可在未經提示下說出最多10個最熟悉的政治團體，結果首5個最多被訪者提及的政治團體分別是民建聯、民主黨、公民黨、自由黨及工聯會，餘下名單請參閱載於香港民研網頁的有關數表，而獲得提名次數最多的12個政治團體則進入評分調查。在9月3至4日進行的評分調查中，被訪者就個別政治團體以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，認知度最低的兩個政治團體再被剔除，之後再按十個政治團體所得的支持度由高至低順序排列，得出十大政治團體。須要說明，由於香港沒有政黨法，政治團體的定義相當含糊，而該等團體亦經常消長更替，因此有關調查在提名階段經常出現一些不切實際的團體名稱。為免滲入主觀判斷，除了一些明顯地不存在或者已經解散的團體外，研究隊只會在提名階段後才核實入選團體是否屬於社會人士公認的政治團體。以下是十大政治團體的最新評分，按評分倒序排列[10]：
| 調查日期 | 16-19/4/18 | 2-4/10/18 | 23-25/4/19 | 3-4/9/19 | 最新變化 | |
| 樣本數目 | 549-639 | 524-574 | 537-698 | 536 | -- | |
| 回應比率 | 56.4% | 46.8% | 66.1% | 69.9% | -- | |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | 認知率 | -- |
| 民陣 | -- | -- | -- | 51.2+/-3.0{1} | 91.3% | -- |
| 香港眾志 | -- | -- | 38.2 [13] | 45.2+/-2.9{2} | 91.4% | +7.0[11] |
| 公民黨 | 46.5{1} | 47.1{2} | 46.6{1} | 45.1+/-2.6{3} | 91.9% | -1.5 |
| 民主黨 | 44.4{4} | 44.1{4} | 42.2{2} | 44.6+/-2.5{4} | 96.3% | +2.4 |
| 人民力量 | 36.3{10} | 35.4{10} | 37.7{10} | 42.5+/-2.8{5} | 88.2% | +4.8[11] |
| 社民連 | 40.2{9}[11] | 38.2{9} | 38.1{9} | 39.5+/-2.7{6} | 86.5% | +1.4 |
| 自由黨 | 44.2{5} | 44.7{3} | 41.9{4}[11] | 37.6+/-2.1{7} | 91.8% | -4.3[11] |
| 新民黨 | 41.2{6}[11] | 43.1{7} | 38.9{7}[11] | 28.8+/-2.7{8} | 84.9% | -10.2[11] |
| 工聯會 | 41.1{7}[11] | 47.3{1}[11] | 42.2{3}[11] | 28.5+/-2.6{9} | 95.4% | -13.7[11] |
| 民建聯 | 40.4{8} | 43.6{6} | 38.7{8}[11] | 26.8+/-2.9{10} | 96.8% | -11.9[11] |
| 職工盟 | -- | -- | -- | 38.6+/-2.5[13] | 82.3% | -- |
| 工黨 | 44.9{2} | 44.0{5} | 41.3{5} | 37.9+/-2.5[13] | 77.7% | -3.4[11] |
| 民協 | 44.6{3} | 41.4{8}[11][12] | 40.7{6} | -- | -- | -- |
| 經民聯 | 36.3[13] | 36.6[13] | 35.1 [13] | -- | -- | -- |
| 街工 | -- | 44.7[13] | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 青年新政 | 32.0[11][13] | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[10] 如四捨五入後的數字相同，則會再考慮小數點後的數字。
[11] 該等變化超過在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，數字變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化的實際用途和意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
[12] 該等變化超過在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，則變化並未超過抽樣誤差。
[13] 於評分調查認知率不入十大，故評分不計算在內。
最新調查顯示，市民對政治團體的最新支持度排名，民陣繼2006年後重新上榜，並以51.2分奪得首位；第二至五位是香港眾志、公民黨、民主黨及人民力量，分別得45.2、45.1、44.6及42.5分。社民連、自由黨、新民黨、工聯會和民建聯分別排第六至十位，得39.5、37.6、28.8、28.5及26.8分。市民對排名首五位政治團體的平均分為45.7分，而首十位則為39.0分。在最新調查中，職工盟和工黨分別得38.6及37.9分，但由於認知率較低而被剔除。首十位中，民陣、香港眾志和人民力量的評分是其上榜以來的新高，而自由黨、新民黨、工聯會和民建聯則錄得歷來新低。
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，經香港民研核實後成為「民意日誌」。
由於本新聞公報所涉及的調查項目，上次調查日期最早為14-19/3/2019，而今次調查日期則為3-4/9/2019，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：
| 4/9/19 | 林鄭月娥宣佈正式撤回修訂《逃犯條例》草案 |
| 3/9/19 | 港澳辦就反修例運動召開記者會 |
| 30/8/19 | 多名民主派議員及香港眾志成員被捕 |
| 27/8/19 | 林鄭月娥指政府有責任檢視所有法律以「止暴制亂」 |
| 20/8/19 | 林鄭月娥表示政府會構建對話平台，與香港市民溝通 |
| 18/8/19 | 民間人權陣線指約170萬人參與反修例集會 |
| 17/8/19 | 建制派於添馬公園舉行「守護香港」集會 |
| 15/8/19 | 政府公佈一系列紓困措施，預計開支合共約191億元 |
| 9/8/19 | 林鄭月娥指示威活動會影響香港經濟 |
| 20/7/19 | 建制派於添馬公園舉行「守護香港」集會 |
| 16/6/19 | 民間人權陣線指約200萬人參與反修例遊行 |
| 15/6/19 | 林鄭月娥宣佈暫緩修訂《逃犯條例》 |
| 14/6/19 | 多名行政會議成員建議暫緩修訂《逃犯條例》 |
| 9/6/19 | 民間人權陣線指約103萬人參與反修例遊行 |
| 11/5/19 | 建制和泛民立法會議員就《逃犯條例》修訂在會議室發生衝突 |
數據分析
九月初進行的調查顯示，市民對行政會議非官守議員的最新支持度排名，首位是任志剛，得44.2分；排第二位的是葉劉淑儀，評分為30.0分；而位列第三至第五位的是張宇人、羅范椒芬及湯家驊，評分分別為27.4、27.3及24.9分。市民對排名首五位行政會議非官守議員的平均分為30.8分。而所有行政會議成員的評分均是其納入調查以來的新低。
十大政治團體方面，市民對政治團體的最新支持度排名，民陣繼2006年後重新上榜，並以51.2分奪得首位；第二至五位是香港眾志、公民黨、民主黨及人民力量，分別得45.2、45.1、44.6及42.5分。社民連、自由黨、新民黨、工聯會和民建聯分別排第六至十位，得39.5、37.6、28.8、28.5及26.8分。市民對排名首五位政治團體的平均分為45.7分，而首十位則為39.0分。首十位中，民陣、香港眾志和人民力量的評分是其上榜以來的新高，而自由黨、新民黨、工聯會和民建聯則錄得歷來新低。
Sep 17, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
HKPOP today releases ratings of the top 5 Executive Councillors and top 10 political groups
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.
Abstract
HKPOP conducted a double stage survey on the ratings of the top 5 Executive Councillors and top 10 political groups in early September by means of random telephone surveys conducted by real interviewers. Results show that Joseph Yam was the most popularly supported non-official Executive Councillor, attaining 44.2 marks. Regina Ip ranked 2nd, with 30.0 marks. The 3rd to 5th ranks went to Tommy Cheung, Fanny Law and Ronny Tong, who attained 27.4, 27.3 and 24.9 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by these top 5 non-official Executive Councillors was 30.8 marks. All of these Executive Councillors’ ratings are at their record lows.
As for the top 10 political groups, Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) re-entered the list since 2006 and became the most popularly supported political group, attaining 51.2 marks. Demosistō, Civic Party, Democratic Party and People Power ranked the 2nd to 5th with 45.2, 45.1, 44.6 and 42.5 marks correspondingly. The 6th to 10th ranks went to League of Social Democrats (LSD), Liberal Party, New People’s Party, Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) which attained 39.5, 37.6, 28.8, 28.5 and 26.8 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by the top 5 political groups was 45.7 marks, while that for the top 10 was 39.0 marks. Among the top 10, the ratings of CHRF, Demosistō and People Power are now at their record highs while those of Liberal Party, New People’s Party, FTU and DAB drop to their record lows since they first appeared on the list. The effective response rate of the rating survey is 69.9%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-2% and that of ratings is +/-3.0 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 2-3/9/2019 (Naming stage) 3-4/9/2019 (Rating stage) |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 510 (Naming stage; including 253 landline and 257 mobile samples) 536 (Rating stage; including 265 landline and 271 mobile samples) |
| Effective response rate[2] | : | 69.1% (Naming stage) 69.9% (Rating stage) |
| Sampling error[3] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-2% and that of ratings not more than +/-3.0 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, POP 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, POP 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.
Ratings of the Top 5 Executive Councillors
In the naming survey conducted from September 2 to 3, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 5 non-official Executive Councillors whom they knew best. The findings of the naming survey are summarized below, in descending order of naming rates [5]:
| Date of survey | 5-6/3/18 | 2-4/10/18 | 14-19/3/19 | 2-3/9/19 | Latest change in ranking |
| Sample size | 501 | 543 | 606 | 510 | -- |
| Response rate | 57.7% | 46.8% | 73.1% | 69.1% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Regina Ip | 23%{1} | 18%{1} | 12%{2} | 31+/-2%{1} | ↑1 |
| Ronny Tong | 4%{4} | 7%{3} | 3%{3} | 19+/-2%{2} | ↑1 |
| Bernard Chan | 9%{2} | 11%{2} | 14%{1} | 16+/-2%{3} | ↓2 |
| Fanny Law | 6%{3} | 4%{4} | 2%{4} | 6+/-1%{4} | -- |
| Joseph Yam | 3%{6} | 3%{5} | 2%{5} | 4+/-1%{5} | -- |
| Tommy Cheung | 1%{10} | 2%{7} | <1%{14} | 3+/-1%{6} | ↑8 |
| Ip Kwok-him | 1%{8} | 1%{9} | 1%{6} | 3+/-1%{7} | ↓1 |
| Arthur Li | 3%{5} | 2%{6} | 1%{7} | 2+/-1%{8} | ↓1 |
| Laura Cha | 1%{9} | 1%{8} | 1%{8} | 2+/-1%{9} | ↓1 |
| Lam Ching-choi | -- | <1%{11} | 1%{11} | 1+/-<1%{10} | ↑1 |
| Wong Kwok-kin | 1%{12} | -- | 1%{10} | 1+/-<1%{11} | ↓1 |
| Jeffrey Lam | 1%{11} | -- | 1%{9} | 1+/-<1%{12} | ↓3 |
| Martin Liao | <1%{14} | -- | <1%{15} | <1+/-<1%{13} | ↑2 |
| Kenneth Lau | <1%{13} | 1%{10} | -- | <1+/-<1%{14} | -- |
| Cheung Kwok-kwan | 2%{7} | <1%{13} | <1%{13} | <1+/-<1%{15} | ↓2 |
| Chow Chung-kong | <1%{15} | <1%{12} | 1%{12} | <1+/-<1%{16} | ↓4 |
| Wrong answer | 14% | 12% | 17% | 17+/-2% | -- |
| Don’t know/ hard to say |
65% | 68% | 70% | 54+/-2% | -- |
[5] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
The naming survey conducted in early September showed that Regina Ip, Ronny Tong and Bernard Chan were named most frequently with naming rates of 31%, 19% and 16% respectively. Fanny Law and Joseph Yam followed, with naming rates of 6% and 4%. However, 17% made a wrong attempt at citing non-official Executive Councillors while 54% had no clue.
Those 6 who were named most frequently then entered the rating survey. In the rating survey conducted from September 3 to 4, respondents were asked to rate individual councillors using a 0-100 scale, where 0 indicates absolutely no support, 100 indicates absolute support and 50 means half-half. After calculation, the bottom 1 councillor in terms of recognition rate was dropped; the remaining 5 were then ranked according to their support ratings to become the top 5 Executive Councillors. Recent ratings of the top 5 Executive Councillors are summarized below, in descending order of their ratings [6]:
| Date of survey | 15-20/3/18 | 11-12/10/18 | 8-11/4/19 | 3-4/9/19 | Latest change | |
| Sample size | 567-643 | 503 | 557-655 | 536 | -- | |
| Response rate | 62.5% | 65.3% | 63.9% | 69.9% | -- | |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | Recognition rate | -- |
| Joseph Yam | 58.2{1} | 54.7{1}[7][8] | 58.1{1}[7] | 44.2+/-2.7{1} | 90.4% | -13.9[7] |
| Regina Ip | 49.7{2}[7] | 46.0{3}[7][8] | 48.3{2} | 30.0+/-2.8{2} | 99.1% | -18.3[7] |
| Tommy Cheung | -- | -- | -- | 27.4+/-2.5{3} | 81.7% | -- |
| Fanny Law | 41.1{4} | 42.3{4} | 42.9{4} | 27.3+/-2.5{4} | 90.5% | -15.7[7] |
| Ronny Tong | 49.1{3} | 46.7{2} | 45.9{3} | 24.9+/-2.6{5} | 91.7% | -21.0[7] |
| Bernard Chan | 49.4[9] | 49.3[9] | 52.8 [7][9] | 35.1+/-2.6[9] | 78.9% | -17.7[7] |
| Ip Kwok-him | -- | -- | 41.0{5} | -- | -- | -- |
| Arthur Li | 37.8{5} | 40.4{5} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[6] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[7] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are 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.
[8] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level because of a change in the weighting method. If the new weighting method was used on the previous dataset, the changes would not have gone beyond the sampling errors.
[9] Ratings with recognition rates not reaching top 10 in the rating survey are not counted.
Latest rating survey showed that Joseph Yam was the most popularly supported non-official Executive Councillor, attaining 44.2 marks. Regina Ip ranked 2nd, with 30.0 marks. The 3rd to 5th ranks went to Tommy Cheung, Fanny Law and Ronny Tong, who attained 27.4, 27.3 and 24.9 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by these top 5 non-official Executive Councillors was 30.8 marks. All of these Executive Councillors’ ratings are at their record lows.
Ratings of the Top 10 Political Groups
In the naming survey conducted from September 2 to 3, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 political groups which they knew best. Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), Democratic Party, Civic Party, Liberal Party and Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) were the top 5 political groups mentioned most frequently. Please refer to the relevant table at the website of HKPOP for the rest of the list. Those 12 which were named most frequently then entered the rating survey. In the rating survey conducted from September 3 to 4, respondents were asked to rate individual political groups using a 0-100 scale, where 0 indicates absolutely no support, 100 indicates absolute support and 50 means half-half. After calculation, the bottom 2 political groups in terms of recognition rate were dropped; the remaining 10 were then ranked according to their support ratings to become the top 10 political groups. It should be noted that because political groups are not yet legal entities in Hong Kong, such definitions are rather vague, and so-called political groups are constantly evolving. As a result, strange names may appear in the list of groups mentioned by respondents in the naming survey. In order to avoid personal bias, our research team will eliminate groups which fall outside the popular definition only after the naming survey. Recent ratings of the top 10 political groups are summarized below, in descending order of support ratings [10]:
| Date of survey | 16-19/4/18 | 2-4/10/18 | 23-25/4/19 | 3-4/9/19 | Latest change | |
| Sample size | 549-639 | 524-574 | 537-698 | 536 | -- | |
| Response rate | 56.4% | 46.8% | 66.1% | 69.9% | -- | |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | Recognition rate | -- |
| CHRF | -- | -- | -- | 51.2+/-3.0{1} | 91.3% | -- |
| Demosistō | -- | -- | 38.2 [13] | 45.2+/-2.9{2} | 91.4% | +7.0[11] |
| Civic Party | 46.5{1} | 47.1{2} | 46.6{1} | 45.1+/-2.6{3} | 91.9% | -1.5 |
| Democratic Party | 44.4{4} | 44.1{4} | 42.2{2} | 44.6+/-2.5{4} | 96.3% | +2.4 |
| People Power | 36.3{10} | 35.4{10} | 37.7{10} | 42.5+/-2.8{5} | 88.2% | +4.8[11] |
| LSD | 40.2{9}[11] | 38.2{9} | 38.1{9} | 39.5+/-2.7{6} | 86.5% | +1.4 |
| Liberal Party | 44.2{5} | 44.7{3} | 41.9{4}[11] | 37.6+/-2.1{7} | 91.8% | -4.3[11] |
| New People’s Party | 41.2{6}[11] | 43.1{7} | 38.9{7}[11] | 28.8+/-2.7{8} | 84.9% | -10.2[11] |
| FTU | 41.1{7}[11] | 47.3{1}[11] | 42.2{3}[11] | 28.5+/-2.6{9} | 95.4% | -13.7[11] |
| DAB | 40.4{8} | 43.6{6} | 38.7{8}[11] | 26.8+/-2.9{10} | 96.8% | -11.9[11] |
| HKCTU | -- | -- | -- | 38.6+/-2.5[13] | 82.3% | -- |
| Labour Party | 44.9{2} | 44.0{5} | 41.3{5} | 37.9+/-2.5[13] | 77.7% | -3.4[11] |
| ADPL | 44.6{3} | 41.4{8}[11][12] | 40.7{6} | -- | -- | -- |
| BPA | 36.3[13] | 36.6[13] | 35.1 [13] | -- | -- | -- |
| NWS | -- | 44.7[13] | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Youngspiration | 32.0[11][13] | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[10] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[11] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are 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.
[12] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level because of a change in the weighting method. If the previous weighting method was used, the changes would not have gone beyond the sampling errors.
[13] Ratings with recognition rates not reaching top 10 in the rating survey are not counted.
The latest survey showed that Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) re-entered the list since 2006 and became the most popularly supported political group, attaining 51.2 marks. Demosistō, Civic Party, Democratic Party and People Power ranked the 2nd to 5th with 45.2, 45.1, 44.6 and 42.5 marks correspondingly. The 6th to 10th ranks went to League of Social Democrats (LSD), Liberal Party, New People’s Party, Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) which attained 39.5, 37.6, 28.8, 28.5 and 26.8 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by the top 5 political groups was 45.7 marks, while that for the top 10 was 39.0 marks. For this latest survey, Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) and Labour Party obtained support ratings of 38.6 and 37.9 marks respectively, but they were dropped due to their relatively low recognition rates. Among the top 10, the ratings of CHRF, Demosistō and People Power are now at their record highs while those of Liberal Party, New People’s Party, FTU and DAB drop to their record lows since they first appeared on the list.
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 become “Opinion Daily” after they are verified by HKPOP.
For the polling items covered in this press release, the earliest previous survey was conducted from 14 to 19 March, 2019 while this survey was conducted from 3 to 4 September, 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.
| 4/9/19 | Carrie Lam announces the formal withdrawal of the extradition bill. |
| 3/9/19 | The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office holds a press conference regarding the anti-extradition bill movement. |
| 30/8/19 | Several pro-democracy Legislative Councilors and Demosistō members are arrested. |
| 27/8/19 | Carrie Lam says government is responsible for looking all laws in Hong Kong to stop chaos. |
| 20/8/19 | Carrie Lam announces the government would set up a platform for dialogue with Hong Kong citizens. |
| 18/8/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.7 million people participated in the rally against the extradition bill. |
| 17/8/19 | The pro-establishment camp organizes a “Safeguard Hong Kong” rally at Tamar Park. |
| 15/8/19 | The government announces a series of relief measures, which will cost $19.1 billion. |
| 9/8/19 | Carrie Lam says protests would affect Hong Kong’s economy. |
| 20/7/19 | The pro-establishment camp organizes a “Safeguard Hong Kong” rally at Tamar Park. |
| 16/6/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around two million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill. |
| 15/6/19 | Carrie Lam announces the suspension of the extradition bill. |
| 14/6/19 | Multiple Executive Council members suggest suspending the extradition bill. |
| 9/6/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.03 million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill. |
| 11/5/19 | Pro-establishment and pan-democrats Legislative councilors clash during a meeting on the proposed changes to the extradition bill. |
Data Analysis
The survey conducted in early September shows that Joseph Yam was the most popularly supported non-official Executive Councillor, attaining 44.2 marks. Regina Ip ranked 2nd, with 30.0 marks. The 3rd to 5th ranks went to Tommy Cheung, Fanny Law and Ronny Tong, who attained 27.4, 27.3 and 24.9 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by these top 5 non-official Executive Councillors was 30.8 marks. All of these Executive Councillors’ ratings are at their record lows.
As for the top 10 political groups, Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) re-entered the list since 2006 and became the most popularly supported political group, attaining 51.2 marks. Demosistō, Civic Party, Democratic Party and People Power ranked the 2nd to 5th with 45.2, 45.1, 44.6 and 42.5 marks correspondingly. The 6th to 10th ranks went to League of Social Democrats (LSD), Liberal Party, New People’s Party, Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) which attained 39.5, 37.6, 28.8, 28.5 and 26.8 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by the top 5 political groups was 45.7 marks, while that for the top 10 was 39.0 marks. Among the top 10, the ratings of CHRF, Demosistō and People Power are now at their record highs while those of Liberal Party, New People’s Party, FTU and DAB drop to their record lows since they first appeared on the list.
