2019年10月2日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會回顧
2019年10月2日 新聞公報
民研計劃發放最新社會指標
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「民研計劃」指的可以是香港民研或其前身港大民研。
公報簡要
民研計劃於九月中由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式成功訪問了1,061名香港居民。結果顯示，受反修例事件影響，幾乎所有社會指標較四個月前都錄得顯著跌幅，並創回歸以來新低。首先，五項核心指標中，「民主」、「法治」和「安定」的評分全部低於5分，當中「安定」和「法治」分別大幅下跌2.24和1.79分。七項非核心指標中，「平等」、「治安」和「公平」得分低於5分，當中「治安」評分大跌2.47分，而「廉潔」、「公平」和「文明」的跌幅亦多於1分。十項自由次指標中有七項均錄得顯著跌幅，當中「遊行示威自由」的跌幅最大，下跌1.47至4.68分。法治方面，「法庭公正程度」和「司法制度公平程度」兩項評分亦告顯著下跌，而終審法院首席法官馬道立的最新支持度評分亦明顯下跌5.6分至57.1分，並創2011年有記錄以來新低。綜合各項指標，除「繁榮」、「效率」、「信仰自由」及「出版自由」之外，其他所有指標均錄得1997年有記錄以來的新低。調查的實效回應比率為69.5%。在95%置信水平下，調查的評分誤差不超過+/-2.2。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 16-19/9/2019 |
| 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] | ： | 1,061 (包括537個固網及524個手機號碼樣本) |
| 實效回應比率[2] | ： | 69.5% |
| 抽樣誤差[3] | ： | 在95%置信水平下，評分誤差不超過+/-2.2 |
| 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。
最新數據
以下是五項核心社會指標的最新數字：
| 調查日期 | 15-18/1/18 | 4-9/5/18 | 22-24/10/18[5] | 6-9/5/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 586-640 | 1,017 | 523-554 | 553-615 | 587-669 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 63.6% | 59.5% | 63.4% | 63.2% | 69.5% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 自由指標 | 6.72[6] | 7.11[6] | 6.57[6] | 6.60 | 6.00+/-0.23 | -0.60[6] |
| 繁榮指標 | 6.93 | 7.21[6] | 6.61[6] | 6.55 | 5.87+/-0.19 | -0.68[6] |
| 民主指標 | 5.74[6] | 5.65 | 5.10[6] | 5.42[6] | 4.55+/-0.25 | -0.87[6] |
| 法治指標 | 6.29[6] | 6.74[6] | 6.21[6] | 6.20 | 4.41+/-0.23 | -1.79[6] |
| 安定指標 | 6.65[6] | 6.59 | 6.61 | 6.29[6] | 4.05+/-0.20 | -2.24[6] |
[5] 2018年10月至12月，民研計劃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。
[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。
以下是七項非核心社會指標的最新數字：
| 調查日期 | 10-13/7/17 | 15-18/1/18 | 4-9/5/18 | 6-9/5/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 579-673[7] | 587-649 | 1,017 | 526-642 | 587-716 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 72.0% | 63.6% | 59.5% | 63.2% | 69.5% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 效率指標 | 6.81[8] | 6.72 | 6.66 | 6.36[8] | 5.88+/-0.19 | -0.47[8] |
| 文明指標 | 7.21[8] | 6.83[8] | 6.84 | 6.78 | 5.68+/-0.22 | -1.11[8] |
| 社會福利指標 | 6.55[8] | 6.12[8] | 6.24 | 5.79[8] | 5.55+/-0.21 | -0.25 |
| 廉潔指標 | 6.74[8] | 6.30[8] | 6.59[8] | 6.43 | 5.12+/-0.21 | -1.31[8] |
| 平等指標 | 6.33[8] | 5.87[8] | 5.82 | 5.69 | 4.71+/-0.21 | -0.98[8] |
| 治安指標 | 7.48[8] | 7.52 | 7.47 | 7.02[8] | 4.55+/-0.23 | -2.47[8] |
| 公平指標 | 5.96[8] | 5.47[8] | 5.77[8] | 5.47[8] | 4.20+/-0.22 | -1.27[8] |
[7] 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。
[8] 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。
以下是十項自由次指標的最新數字：
| 調查日期 | 10-13/7/17 | 15-18/1/18 | 4-9/5/18 | 6-9/5/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 526-653[9] | 589-673 | 1,017 | 525-651 | 609-700 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 72.0% | 63.6% | 59.5% | 63.2% | 69.5% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 自由指標 (重複顯示) | 7.00[10] | 6.72[10] | 7.11[10] | 6.60[11] | 6.00+/-0.23 | -0.60[10] |
| 信仰自由 | 8.68[10] | 8.55 | 8.51 | 8.12[10] | 7.79+/-0.18 | -0.33[10] |
| 出入境自由 | 8.37[10] | 8.00[10] | 8.14 | 7.77[10] | 7.14+/-0.20 | -0.63[10] |
| 文藝創作自由 | 7.32[10] | 6.99[10] | 7.10 | 6.93 | 6.54+/-0.22 | -0.40[10] |
| 學術研究自由 | 7.47[10] | 6.96[10] | 7.06 | 6.78 | 6.46+/-0.22 | -0.32[10] |
| 言論自由 | 7.20[10] | 6.65[10] | 6.80 | 6.20[10] | 5.85+/-0.24 | -0.35[10] |
| 出版自由 | 6.71[10] | 6.24[10] | 6.40 | 5.76[10] | 5.81+/-0.22 | +0.05 |
| 新聞自由 | 6.63[10] | 6.21[10] | 6.43[10] | 5.81[10] | 5.72+/-0.23 | -0.09 |
| 結社自由 | 6.68[10] | 6.47[10] | 6.42 | 5.38[10] | 5.13+/-0.25 | -0.25 |
| 罷工自由 | 6.80[10] | 6.31[10] | 6.25 | 5.86[10] | 5.04+/-0.25 | -0.82[10] |
| 遊行示威自由 | 6.72[10] | 6.54 | 6.79[10] | 6.15[10] | 4.68+/-0.28 | -1.47[10] |
[9] 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。
[10] 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。
[11] 核心指標與其他指標的調查頻率不一樣，同步變化應以同步週期的數字比較。
以下是兩項法治次指標及終審法院首席法官評分的最新數字：
| 調查日期 | 10-13/7/17 | 15-18/1/18 | 4-9/5/18 | 6-9/5/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 602-654[12] | 629-726 | 1,017 | 527-688 | 642-690 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 72.0% | 63.6% | 59.5% | 63.2% | 69.5% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 法治指標 (重複顯示) | 6.98[13] | 6.29[13] | 6.74[13] | 6.20[14] | 4.41+/-0.23 | -1.79[13] |
| 法庭公正程度 | 6.89[13] | 6.54[13] | 6.84[13] | 6.20[13] | 5.52+/-0.21 | -0.68[13] |
| 司法制度公平程度 | 6.81[13] | 6.05[13] | 6.35[13] | 5.63[13] | 4.37+/-0.22 | -1.26[13] |
| 馬道立支持度評分 | 66.8 | 65.1[13] | 69.6[13] | 62.7[13] | 57.1+/-2.2 | -5.6[13] |
[12] 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。
[13] 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。
[14] 核心指標與其他指標的調查頻率不一樣，同步變化應以同步週期的數字比較。
最新調查顯示，幾乎全部社會指標較四個月前錄得顯著跌幅，並創1997年有記錄以來新低。核心指標方面，以0至10分評價，市民對「自由」和「繁榮」的評分較高，分別得6.00和5.87分；「民主」、「法治」和「安定」則低於5分，分別得4.55、4.41和4.05分。相比五月初的調查，五項指標全部錄得顯著跌幅，當中「安定」和「法治」的跌幅相當大。另外，「繁榮」指標創2003年10月以來新低，其餘四項更創1997年有記錄以來新低。
非核心指標方面，獲較高得分的有「效率」、「文明」、「社會福利」和「廉潔」，分別得5.88、5.68、5.55和5.12分；「平等」、「治安」和「公平」則低於5分，分別得4.71、4.55和4.20分。相比上次調查，除「社會福利」外全部指標均錄得顯著跌幅，當中「治安」、「廉潔」、「公平」和「文明」的跌幅相當大。另外，「效率」指標創2003年4月以來新低，其餘六項更創1997年有記錄以來新低。
自由次指標方面，獲較高得分的有「信仰自由」、「出入境自由」、「文藝創作自由」和「學術研究自由」，分別得7.79、7.14、6.54和6.46分；其次為「言論自由」、「出版自由」、「新聞自由」、「結社自由」和「罷工自由」，分別得5.85、5.81、5.72、5.13和5.04分；「遊行示威自由」則只得4.68分。相比上次調查，除「出版自由」、「新聞自由」和「結社自由」外的其餘七項指標均錄得顯著跌幅，當中「遊行示威自由」的跌幅最大。另外，「信仰自由」指標創2001年5月以來新低，「出版自由」以外的其餘八項更創1997年有記錄以來新低。
至於兩項法治次指標，法庭公正程度得5.52分，司法制度公平程度則得4.37分，兩者均錄得顯著跌幅，亦創1997年有記錄以來新低。而終審法院首席法官馬道立的最新評分，以0至100分評價，則有57.1分，同樣錄得顯著跌幅，並創2011年有記錄以來新低。
民意日誌
民研計劃於2007年開始與慧科訊業有限公司合作，由慧科訊業按照民研計劃設計的分析方法，將每日大事記錄傳送至民研計劃，經民研計劃核實後成為「民意日誌」。
由於本新聞公報所涉及的調查項目，上次調查日期為6-9/5/2019，而今次調查日期則為16-19/9/2019，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」內所有大事記錄後，再作判斷：
| 18/9/19 | 賽馬會以安全為由取消晚間賽事 |
| 15/9/19 | 港島遊行演變成警民衝突 |
| 14/9/19 | 手持國旗者與反修例者發生衝突 |
| 10/9/19 | 港鐵公開8.31閉路電視片段截圖 |
| 8/9/19 | 支持通過《香港人權及民主法案》的集會演變成警民衝突 |
| 7/9/19 | 反修例示威者發起堵塞機場及周邊道路 |
| 6/9/19 | 惠譽降低香港信貸評級 |
| 4/9/19 | 林鄭月娥宣佈正式撤回修訂《逃犯條例》草案 |
| 1/9/19 | 反修例示威者到香港國際機場附近集會 |
| 31/8/19 | 全港多區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 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」 |
| 25/8/19 | 荃灣反修例遊行演變成警民衝突，有警員向天開槍示警 |
| 24/8/19 | 觀塘反修例遊行演變成警民衝突 |
| 24/8/19 | 港鐵因應反修例遊行暫停部分列車服務 |
| 20/8/19 | 林鄭月娥表示政府會構建對話平台與市民溝通 |
| 18/8/19 | 民間人權陣線指約170萬人參與反修例集會 |
| 16/8/19 | 國泰行政總裁和顧客及商務總裁請辭 |
| 13/8/19 | 機場反修例集會演變成警民衝突 |
| 11/8/19 | 全港多區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 9/8/19 | 中國民航局向國泰航空發出重大航空安全風險警示 |
| 5/8/19 | 全港多區舉行罷工集會並發生警民衝突 |
| 30/7/19 | 中上環衝突中44人被控暴動 |
| 27/7/19 | 「光復元朗」遊行演變成警民衝突 |
| 25/7/19 | 警方反對7月27日「光復元朗」遊行 |
| 22/7/19 | 元朗昨夜有白衣人無差別襲擊市民 |
| 14/7/19 | 沙田反修例遊行演變成警民衝突 |
| 9/7/19 | 林鄭月娥指《逃犯條例》草案已「壽終正寢」 |
| 1/7/19 | 反修例示威者佔領立法會 |
| 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》 |
| 12/6/19 | 反修例集會演變成警民衝突，警方使用催淚彈、布袋彈和橡膠子彈 |
| 9/6/19 | 民間人權陣線指約103萬人參與反修例遊行 |
數據分析
最新調查顯示，受反修例事件影響，幾乎所有社會指標較四個月前都錄得顯著跌幅，並創回歸以來新低。首先，五項核心指標中，「民主」、「法治」和「安定」的評分全部低於5分，當中「安定」和「法治」分別大幅下跌2.24和1.79分。七項非核心指標中，「平等」、「治安」和「公平」得分低於5分，當中「治安」評分大跌2.47分，而「廉潔」、「公平」和「文明」的跌幅亦多於1分。十項自由次指標中有七項均錄得顯著跌幅，當中「遊行示威自由」的跌幅最大，下跌1.47至4.68分。法治方面，「法庭公正程度」和「司法制度公平程度」兩項評分亦告顯著下跌，而終審法院首席法官馬道立的最新支持度評分亦明顯下跌5.6分至57.1分，並創2011年有記錄以來新低。綜合各項指標，除「繁榮」、「效率」、「信仰自由」及「出版自由」之外，其他所有指標均錄得1997年有記錄以來的新低。
Oct 2, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
POP releases the latest social indicators
Special Announcement
The predecessor of Hong Kong Public Opinion Program (HKPOP) was The Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP). “POP” in this release can refer to HKPOP or its predecessor HKUPOP.
Abstract
POP successfully interviewed 1,061 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in mid-September. Results show that, affected by the incident of anti-extradition bill, almost all social indicators have dropped significantly and registered all-time lows since handover. First of all, among the five core indicators, ratings of “democracy”, “rule of law” and “stability” all score lower than 5 marks. Among them, “stability” and “rule of law” have plunged by 2.24 and 1.79 marks respectively. As for the seven non-core social indicators, ratings of “equality”, “public order” and “fairness” score lower than 5 marks. Among them, the drop in “public order” is as large as 2.47 marks, while those of “corruption-free practices”, “fairness” and “civilization” are more than 1 mark. Seven out of ten freedom sub-indicators have registered significant drops. Among them, “freedom of procession and demonstration” has the biggest drop, by 1.47 marks down to 4.68. In the area of rule of law, ratings of both “impartiality of the courts” and “fairness of the judicial system” have dropped significantly. The latest support rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma has also dropped significantly by 5.6 marks to 57.1, and registered his all-time low since records began in 2011. All in all, apart from “prosperity”, “efficiency”, freedoms of “religious belief” and “publication”, all other indicators have registered all-time lows since the surveys began in 1997. The effective response rate of the survey is 69.5%. The maximum sampling error of ratings is +/-2.2 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 16-19/9/2019 |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 1,061 (including 537 landline and 524 mobile samples) |
| Effective response rate[2] | : | 69.5% |
| Sampling error[3] | : | Sampling error of ratings not more than +/-2.2 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.
Latest Figures
Herewith the latest figures of the five core social indicators:
| Date of survey | 15-18/1/18 | 4-9/5/18 | 22-24/10/18[5] | 6-9/5/19 | 16-19/9/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 586-640 | 1,017 | 523-554 | 553-615 | 587-669 | -- |
| Response rate | 63.6% | 59.5% | 63.4% | 63.2% | 69.5% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Degree of freedom | 6.72[6] | 7.11[6] | 6.57[6] | 6.60 | 6.00+/-0.23 | -0.60[6] |
| Degree of prosperity | 6.93 | 7.21[6] | 6.61[6] | 6.55 | 5.87+/-0.19 | -0.68[6] |
| Degree of democracy | 5.74[6] | 5.65 | 5.10[6] | 5.42[6] | 4.55+/-0.25 | -0.87[6] |
| Compliance with the rule of law | 6.29[6] | 6.74[6] | 6.21[6] | 6.20 | 4.41+/-0.23 | -1.79[6] |
| Degree of stability | 6.65[6] | 6.59 | 6.61 | 6.29[6] | 4.05+/-0.20 | -2.24[6] |
[5] From October to December 2018, POP conducted tests on the wordings used in different rating scales. Figures in the table are the combined results. Please visit our website for details.
[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.
Herewith the latest figures of the seven non-core social indicators:
| Date of survey | 10-13/7/17 | 15-18/1/18 | 4-9/5/18 | 6-9/5/19 | 16-19/9/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 579-673[7] | 587-649 | 1,017 | 526-642 | 587-716 | -- |
| Response rate | 72.0% | 63.6% | 59.5% | 63.2% | 69.5% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Degree of efficiency | 6.81[8] | 6.72 | 6.66 | 6.36[8] | 5.88+/-0.19 | -0.47[8] |
| Degree of civilization | 7.21[8] | 6.83[8] | 6.84 | 6.78 | 5.68+/-0.22 | -1.11[8] |
| Degree of social welfare sufficiency | 6.55[8] | 6.12[8] | 6.24 | 5.79[8] | 5.55+/-0.21 | -0.25 |
| Degree of corruption-free practices | 6.74[8] | 6.30[8] | 6.59[8] | 6.43 | 5.12+/-0.21 | -1.31[8] |
| Degree of equality | 6.33[8] | 5.87[8] | 5.82 | 5.69 | 4.71+/-0.21 | -0.98[8] |
| Degree of public order | 7.48[8] | 7.52 | 7.47 | 7.02[8] | 4.55+/-0.23 | -2.47[8] |
| Degree of fairness | 5.96[8] | 5.47[8] | 5.77[8] | 5.47[8] | 4.20+/-0.22 | -1.27[8] |
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
Herewith the latest figures of the ten freedom sub-indicators:
| Date of survey | 10-13/7/17 | 15-18/1/18 | 4-9/5/18 | 6-9/5/19 | 16-19/9/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 526-653[9] | 589-673 | 1,017 | 525-651 | 609-700 | -- |
| Response rate | 72.0% | 63.6% | 59.5% | 63.2% | 69.5% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Degree of freedom (repeated listing) | 7.00[10] | 6.72[10] | 7.11[10] | 6.60[11] | 6.00+/-0.23 | -0.60[10] |
| Freedom of religious belief | 8.68[10] | 8.55 | 8.51 | 8.12[10] | 7.79+/-0.18 | -0.33[10] |
| Freedom to enter or leave Hong Kong | 8.37[10] | 8.00[10] | 8.14 | 7.77[10] | 7.14+/-0.20 | -0.63[10] |
| Freedom to engage in artistic and literary creation |
7.32[10] | 6.99[10] | 7.10 | 6.93 | 6.54+/-0.22 | -0.40[10] |
| Freedom to engage in academic research |
7.47[10] | 6.96[10] | 7.06 | 6.78 | 6.46+/-0.22 | -0.32[10] |
| Freedom of speech | 7.20[10] | 6.65[10] | 6.80 | 6.20[10] | 5.85+/-0.24 | -0.35[10] |
| Freedom of publication | 6.71[10] | 6.24[10] | 6.40 | 5.76[10] | 5.81+/-0.22 | +0.05 |
| Freedom of press | 6.63[10] | 6.21[10] | 6.43[10] | 5.81[10] | 5.72+/-0.23 | -0.09 |
| Freedom of association | 6.68[10] | 6.47[10] | 6.42 | 5.38[10] | 5.13+/-0.25 | -0.25 |
| Freedom to strike | 6.80[10] | 6.31[10] | 6.25 | 5.86[10] | 5.04+/-0.25 | -0.82[10] |
| Freedom of procession and demonstration | 6.72[10] | 6.54 | 6.79[10] | 6.15[10] | 4.68+/-0.28 | -1.47[10] |
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] The frequency of core social indicators is different from other indicators. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the same intervals.
Herewith the latest figures of the two rule of law sub-indicators and the rating of the Chief Justice:
| Date of survey | 10-13/7/17 | 15-18/1/18 | 4-9/5/18 | 6-9/5/19 | 16-19/9/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 602-654[12] | 629-726 | 1,017 | 527-688 | 642-690 | -- |
| Response rate | 72.0% | 63.6% | 59.5% | 63.2% | 69.5% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Compliance with the rule of law (repeated listing) | 6.98[13] | 6.29[13] | 6.74[13] | 6.20[14] | 4.41+/-0.23 | -1.79[13] |
| Impartiality of the courts | 6.89[13] | 6.54[13] | 6.84[13] | 6.20[13] | 5.52+/-0.21 | -0.68[13] |
| Fairness of the judicial system | 6.81[13] | 6.05[13] | 6.35[13] | 5.63[13] | 4.37+/-0.22 | -1.26[13] |
| Support rating of Geoffrey Ma | 66.8 | 65.1[13] | 69.6[13] | 62.7[13] | 57.1+/-2.2 | -5.6[13] |
[12] 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.
[13] 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.
[14] The frequency of core social indicators is different from other indicators. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the same intervals.
The latest survey shows that almost all social indicators have dropped significantly as compared to four months ago, and registered all-time lows since handover. Regarding the core indicators, on a scale of 0 to 10, people’s ratings on “freedom” and “prosperity” are relatively higher, with 6.00 and 5.87 marks respectively. Ratings on “democracy”, “rule of law” and “stability” score lower than 5 marks, with 4.55, 4.41 and 4.05 respectively. Compared with the survey in early May, all five indicators have dropped significantly. Among them, the drops in “stability” and “rule of law” are rather big. Meanwhile, the rating on “prosperity” has registered record low since October 2003, while the other four have registered all-time lows since surveys began in 1997.
As for the non-core indicators, “efficiency”, “civilization”, “social welfare sufficiency” and “corruption-free practices” got higher ratings, with 5.88, 5.68, 5.55 and 5.12 marks respectively. Ratings on “equality”, “public order” and “fairness” score lower than 5 marks, with 4.71, 4.55 and 4.20 respectively. Compared with the previous survey, all indicators except “social welfare sufficiency” have dropped significantly. Among them, the drops in “public order”, “corruption-free practices”, “fairness” and “civilization” are rather big. Meanwhile, the rating on “efficiency” has registered record low since April 2003, while the other six have registered all-time lows since surveys began in 1997.
As for the freedom sub-indicators, freedoms of “religious belief”, “entering or leaving Hong Kong”, “artistic and literary creation” and “academic research” got higher ratings, with 7.79, 7.14, 6.54 and 6.46 marks respectively, followed by freedoms of “speech”, “publication”, “press”, “association” and “freedom to strike”, with 5.85, 5.81, 5.72, 5.13 and 5.04 marks respectively, while freedom of “procession and demonstration” only score 4.68 marks. Compared with the previous survey, seven indicators (except freedoms of “publication”, “press” and “association”) have dropped significantly. Among them, the drop in freedom of “procession and demonstration” is the biggest. Meanwhile, the rating on freedom of “religious belief” has registered record low since May 2001, while the other eight (except freedom of “publication”) have registered all-time lows since handover.
As for the two rule of law sub-indicators, “impartiality of the courts” got 5.52 marks, while “fairness of the judicial system” got 4.37 marks. Both have dropped significantly, and registered all-time lows since surveys began in 1997. As for Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, his latest rating is 57.1 on a scale of 0 to 100, which has also dropped significantly and registered his all-time low since records began in 2011.
Opinion Daily
In 2007, POP started collaborating with Wisers Information Limited whereby Wisers supplies to POP a record of significant events of that day according to the research method designed by POP. These daily entries would then become “Opinion Daily” after they are verified by POP.
For the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from 6 to 9 May, 2019 while this survey was conducted from 16 to 19 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.
| 18/9/19 | The Jockey Club cancels night race due to safety concerns. |
| 15/9/19 | Protest on Hong Kong Island turns into conflicts between protestors and the police. |
| 14/9/19 | Conflicts occur between people with the national flag and those against the extradition bill. |
| 10/9/19 | MTR releases screenshots of 8.31 CCTV footage. |
| 8/9/19 | Rally in support of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act turns into conflicts between protestors and the police. |
| 7/9/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters call for blocking the airport and nearby roads. |
| 6/9/19 | Fitch Ratings downgrades Hong Kong‘s credit rating. |
| 4/9/19 | Carrie Lam announces the formal withdrawal of the extradition bill. |
| 1/9/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters hold a demonstration near Hong Kong International Airport. |
| 31/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 30/8/19 | Several pro-democracy Legislative Councillors and Demosistō members are arrested. |
| 27/8/19 | Carrie Lam says government is responsible for looking at all laws in Hong Kong to stop chaos. |
| 25/8/19 | Protest against extradition bill in Tsuen Wan turns into a conflict between protestors and the police, a police officer fires a warning shot into the air. |
| 24/8/19 | Protest against extradition bill in Kwun Tong turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 24/8/19 | MTR partially suspends train service due to protest against extradition bill. |
| 20/8/19 | Carrie Lam announces the government would set up a platform for dialogue with citizens. |
| 18/8/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.7 million people participated in the rally against the extradition bill. |
| 16/8/19 | Cathay Pacific CEO and the chief customer and commercial officer resign. |
| 13/8/19 | Protest against extradition bill at Hong Kong International Airport turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 11/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 9/8/19 | The Civil Aviation Administration of China issues a warning of major aviation safety risks to Cathay Pacific. |
| 5/8/19 | Rallies in multiple districts in Hong Kong are held during strike resulting in conflicts between protestors and the police. |
| 30/7/19 | 44 people are charged with rioting in the conflict in Central and Sheung Wan. |
| 27/7/19 | The “Reclaim Yuen Long” march turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 25/7/19 | Police object to the “Reclaim Yuen Long” march to be held on July 27. |
| 22/7/19 | Men dressed in white indiscriminately attacked citizens in Yuen Long last night. |
| 14/7/19 | Protest against extradition bill in Shatin turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 9/7/19 | Carrie Lam says the extradition bill is “dead”. |
| 1/7/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters occupy the Legislative Council Complex. |
| 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. |
| 12/6/19 | The police uses tear gas rounds, beanbag shots and rubber bullets as anti-extradition bill sit-ins turn into a conflict between protesters and the police. |
| 9/6/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.03 million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill. |
Data Analysis
The latest survey shows that, affected by the incident of anti-extradition bill, almost all social indicators have dropped significantly and registered all-time lows since handover. First of all, among the five core indicators, ratings of “democracy”, “rule of law” and “stability” all score lower than 5 marks. Among them, “stability” and “rule of law” have plunged by 2.24 and 1.79 marks respectively. As for the seven non-core social indicators, ratings of “equality”, “public order” and “fairness” score lower than 5 marks. Among them, the drop in “public order” is as large as 2.47 marks, while those of “corruption-free practices”, “fairness” and “civilization” are more than 1 mark. Seven out of ten freedom sub-indicators have registered significant drops. Among them, “freedom of procession and demonstration” has the biggest drop, by 1.47 marks down to 4.68. In the area of rule of law, ratings of both “impartiality of the courts” and “fairness of the judicial system” have dropped significantly. The latest support rating of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma has also dropped significantly by 5.6 marks to 57.1, and registered his all-time low since records began in 2011. All in all, apart from “prosperity”, “efficiency”, freedoms of “religious belief” and “publication”, all other indicators have registered all-time lows since the surveys began in 1997.
