2019年10月17日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會回顧
民研計劃發放施政報告即時調查結果
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
民研計劃於昨日（10月16日）在特首透過視像發表完其任內第三份施政報告後，隨即由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式，以及預先隨機抽樣的追蹤樣本以網上問卷或電話訪問方式，最終成功訪問了745名香港居民，當中包括157個固網樣本，147個手機樣本及441個追蹤樣本。結果顯示，撇除不清楚施政報告內容的被訪者後，17%表示滿意施政報告，65%不滿，滿意淨值為負47個百分點，平均分為29.7分，各項數字均創1997年有記錄以來最差。至於特首林鄭月娥，其民望在昨日發表施政報告後與十月初的數字比較變化不大，最新評分為22.7分，支持率為15%，反對率為79%，民望淨值為負64個百分點。此外，撇除不清楚施政報告內容的被訪者後，12%表示施政報告發表後對香港前途的信心有所增加，22%表示不變，表示減少的有61%，前途信心效應淨值為負49個百分點，數字創1998年有記錄以來最差。施政報告即時調查顯示了巿民的即時反應，後續反應則有待觀察。調查撇除追蹤樣本的實效回應比率為80.0%。在95%置信水平下，調查的百分比誤差不超過+/-4%，淨值誤差不超過+/-6%，評分誤差不超過+/-2.4。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 16/10/2019 |
| 調查方法 | ： | 由真實訪問員進行隨機抽樣電話訪問 以及 預先隨機抽樣的追蹤樣本以網上問卷或電話訪問方式進行 |
| 訪問對象 | ： | 18歲或以上操粵語的香港居民 |
| 成功樣本數目 | ： | 745 (包括157個固網樣本、147個手機樣本及441個追蹤樣本) |
| 撇除追蹤樣本 實效回應比率[1] |
： | 80.0% |
| 抽樣誤差[2] | ： | 在95%置信水平下，百分比誤差不超過+/-4%，淨值誤差不超過+/-6%，評分誤差不超過+/-2.4 |
| 加權方法 | ： | 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] 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。
[2] 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。
最新數據
以下是市民對本年度施政報告的滿意程度及往年的相關數字：
| 調查日期 | 樣本數目[3] | 對施政報告的評價 | |||||
| 滿意率[4] | 一半半 | 不滿率[4] | 滿意率淨值 | 平均量值[4] | 施政報告 評分 |
||
| 16/10/19 | 679 | 17+/-3%[6] | 8+/-2%[6] | 65+/-4%[6] | -47+/-6%[6] | 2.0+/-0.1[6] | 29.7+/-2.3[6] |
| 10/10/18 | 534 | 33%[6] | 24% | 34%[6] | -1%[6] | 2.9[6] | 48.5[6] |
| 11/10/17 | 526 | 48%[6] | 28%[6] | 14%[6] | 34%[6] | 3.5[6] | 62.4[6] |
| 18/1/17 | 512 | 34%[6] | 22% | 29%[6] | 5%[6] | 3.0[6] | 52.3[6] |
| 13/1/16 | 522 | 19%[6] | 23% | 39% | -20%[6] | 2.5[6] | 41.1[6] |
| 14/1/15 | 503 | 30%[6] | 24%[6] | 35% | -5%[6] | 2.8 | 49.5[6] |
| 15/1/14 | 611 | 36% | 30%[6] | 31%[6] | 5% | 3.0 | 54.1[6] |
| 16/1/13 | 759 | 36%[6] | 35% | 24%[6] | 11%[6] | 3.1 | 56.4[6] |
| 12/10/11 | 816 | 47%[6] | 32% | 18% | 28%[6] | 3.3 | 59.1 |
| 13/10/10 | 747 | 41%[6] | 33%[6] | 19%[6] | 22%[6] | 3.2 | 58.9[6] |
| 14/10/09 | 462 | 30% | 37% | 28% | 2% | 3.0 | 53.5 |
| 15/10/08 | 515 | 31%[6] | 35%[6] | 26%[6] | 4%[6] | 3.0 | 53.8[6] |
| 10/10/07 | 602 | 52%[6] | 29%[6] | 10%[6] | 42%[6] | 3.5 | 65.2[6] |
| 11/10/06 | 445 | 30%[6] | 37% | 22%[6] | 8%[6] | 3.0 | 55.8[6] |
| 12/10/05 | 377 | 48%[6] | 33% | 9%[6] | 39%[6] | 3.5 | 66.4[6] |
| 12/1/05 | 391 | 38%[6] | 30% | 20%[6] | 18%[6] | 3.2 | 56.3[6] |
| 7/1/04 | 381 | 25% | 26% | 33%[6] | -8% | 2.8 | 49.3 |
| 8/1/03[5] | 377 | 22%[6] | 29% | 27% | -5% | 2.8 | 51.6[6] |
| 10/10/01 | 433 | 29% | 33% | 28% | 1% | 3.0 | 56.7 |
| 11/10/00 | 262 | 25%[6] | 28% | 31% | -6%[6] | 2.9 | 55.2 |
| 6/10/99 | 236 | 31%[6] | 30% | 25%[6] | 6%[6] | 3.0 | 57.3 |
| 7/10/98 | 508 | 22%[6] | 35%[6] | 35%[6] | -14%[6] | 2.8 | -- |
| 8/10/97 | 534 | 45% | 30%[6] | 14%[6] | 31% | 3.4 | -- |
[3] 已撇除未聞／不知道施政報告內容而沒有作答的被訪者。
[4] 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。
[5] 2003年施政報告的即時反應調查分2天進行，本表只列舉首天錄得的統計數字，以作直接比較分析之用。
[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。
撇除不清楚施政報告內容的被訪者後，17%表示滿意施政報告，65%不滿，滿意淨值為負47個百分點，平均量值為2.0分，即整體上接近「幾不滿」。以0至100分計，平均分則為29.7分。各項數字均創1997年有記錄以來最差。
以下是1997年至今，歷任特首在發表施政報告後的即時民望變化：
| 董建華民望 | ||||||||
| 施政報告發表日期 | 8/10/97 | 7/10/98 | 6/10/99 | 11/10/00 | 10/10/01 | 8/1/03 | 7/1/04 | 12/1/05 |
| 施政報告前特首評分 | 65.8 | 55.8 | 54.0 | 48.2 | 48.4 | 46.6 | 42.9 | 47.2 |
| 即時調查特首評分 | 66.1 | 56.1 | 54.3 | 50.7 | 50.6 | 47.3 | 44.6 | 48.4 |
| 特首評分變化 | +0.3 | +0.3 | +0.3 | +2.5[8] | +2.2[8] | +0.7 | +1.7[8] | +1.2 |
| 曾蔭權民望 | ||||||||
| 施政報告發表日期 | 12/10/05 | 11/10/06 | 10/10/07 | 15/10/08 | 14/10/09 | 13/10/10 | 12/10/11 | |
| 施政報告前特首評分 | 68.0 | 62.9 | 65.8 | 52.7 | 55.2 | 55.4 | 48.4 | |
| 即時調查特首評分 | 67.4 | 59.8 | 64.4 | 53.9 | 54.2 | 56.2 | 50.6 | |
| 特首評分變化 | -0.6 | -3.1[8] | -1.4[8] | +1.2 | -1.0 | +0.8 | +2.2[8] | |
| 施政報告前特首支持率淨值 | 68% | 48% | 48% | 5% | 7% | -1% | -45% | |
| 即時調查特首支持率淨值 | 65% | 36% | 48% | 10% | 8% | 0% | -41% | |
| 特首支持率淨值變化[7] | -3% | -12% [8] | -- | +5% | +1% | +1% | +4% | |
| 梁振英民望 | ||||||||
| 施政報告發表日期 | 16/1/13 | 15/1/14 | 14/1/15 | 13/1/16 | 18/1/17 | |||
| 施政報告前特首評分 | 48.9 | 45.6 | 40.6 | 37.5 | 41.3 | |||
| 即時調查特首評分 | 52.2 | 48.9 | 44.8 | 37.0 | 41.7 | |||
| 特首評分變化 | +3.3[8] | +3.3[8] | +4.2[8] | -0.5 | +0.4 | |||
| 施政報告前特首支持率淨值 | -20% | -31% | -39% | -44% | -44% | |||
| 即時調查特首支持率淨值 | -11% | -24% | -35% | -54% | -57% | |||
| 特首支持率淨值變化[7] | +9%[8] | +7%[8] | +4% | -10%[8] | -13%[8] | |||
| 林鄭月娥民望 | ||||||||
| 施政報告發表日期 | 11/10/17 | 10/10/18 | 16/10/19 | |||||
| 施政報告前特首評分 | 59.6 | 52.3 | 22.3+/-1.9 | |||||
| 即時調查特首評分 | 61.1 | 47.6 | 22.7+/-2.4 | |||||
| 特首評分變化 | +1.5 | -4.7[8] | +0.3 | |||||
| 施政報告前特首支持率淨值 | 10% | 4% | -65+/-5% | |||||
| 即時調查特首支持率淨值 | 23% | -10% | -64+/-5% | |||||
| 特首支持率淨值變化[7] | +13%[8] | -14%[8] | +1% | |||||
[7] 施政報告即時調查自2004年開始涵蓋特首支持率問題，因此沒有列入董建華施政報告調查系列。
[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。
以下是林鄭月娥在發表施政報告前後的民望走勢：
| 調查日期 | 1-6/8/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 2-4/9/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 30/9-3/10/19 | 16/10/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 1,015 | 1,023 | 1,046 | 1,061 | 1,004 | 745 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 62.8% | 68.5% | 69.5% | 69.5% | 64.5% | 80.0% | -- |
| 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 | 27.9 | 24.6[9] | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 22.7+/-2.4 | +0.3 |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首支持率 | 20% | 17% | 19% | 18% | 15% | 15+/-2% | -- |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首反對率 | 72% | 76%[9] | 75% | 74% | 80%[9] | 79+/-3% | -1% |
| 支持率淨值 | -51% | -59%[9] | -55% | -57% | -65%[9] | -64+/-5% | +1% |
[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。
即時調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的民望在昨日發表施政報告後與十月初比較變化不大，最新評分為22.7分，支持率為15%，反對率為79%，民望淨值為負64個百分點。
調查就特首林鄭月娥發表其施政報告後詢問市民對香港前途信心的轉變，結果如下：
| 調查日期 | 樣本數目[10] | 對香港前途的信心 | ||||
| 增加 | 不變 | 減少 | 唔知／難講 | 前途信心 效應淨值 |
||
| 16/10/19 | 679 | 12+/-2%[11] | 22+/-3% | 61+/-4%[11] | 6+/-2% | -49+/-5%[11] |
| 10/10/18 | 534 | 23%[11] | 25%[11] [12] | 45%[11] | 7%[11] | -22%[11] |
| 11/10/17 | 526 | 40%[11] | 39% | 19%[11] | 3%[11] | 21%[11] |
| 18/1/17 | 511 | 24%[11] | 36%[11] | 32%[11] | 7%[11] | -8%[11] |
| 13/1/16 | 521 | 16%[11] | 31% | 44%[11] | 10%[11] | -27%[11] |
| 14/1/15 | 501 | 22% | 35% | 38%[11] | 5% | -16% |
| 15/1/14 | 846 | 24%[11] | 38% | 32%[11] | 5%[11] | -9%[11] |
| 16/1/13 | 913 | 31% | 38%[11] | 23% | 7%[11] | 8% |
| 12/10/11 | 957 | 29% | 45% | 21% | 5% | 8%[11] |
| 13/10/10 | 914 | 31%[11] | 45% | 18%[11] | 6% | 14%[11] |
| 14/10/09 | 749 | 27%[11] | 47%[11] | 22%[11] | 5% | 5%[11] |
| 15/10/08 | 761 | 23%[11] | 38%[11] | 32%[11] | 7% | -9%[11] |
| 10/10/07 | 388 | 53%[11] | 31%/-5%[11] | 7%[11] | 9% | 46%[11] |
| 11/10/06 | 431 | 25%[11] | 51%[11] | 16%[11] | 8% | 9%[11] |
| 12/10/05 | 476 | 54%[11] | 33%[11] | 5%[11] | 8%[11] | 49%[11] |
| 12/1/05 | 658 | 34% | 41% | 12%[11] | 14% | 22%[11] |
| 7/1/04 | 602 | 32%[11] | 40% | 16%[11] | 12% | 16%[11] |
| 8/1/03[13] | 513 | 25% | 40%[11] | 22% | 14%[11] | 3% |
| 10/10/01 | 591 | 22% | 50%[11] | 21%[11] | 7%[11] | 1%[11] |
| 11/10/00 | 292 | 22%[11] | 40% | 15% | 22%[11] | 7%[11] |
| 6/10/99 | 233 | 40%[11] | 36%[11] | 16%[11] | 8% | 24%[11] |
| 7/10/98 | 505 | 21% | 52% | 22% | 5% | -1% |
[10] 已撇除未聞／不知道施政報告內容而沒有作答的被訪者。
[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。
[12] 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，則變化並未超過抽樣誤差。
[13] 2003年施政報告的即時反應調查分2天進行，本表只列舉首天錄得的統計數字，以作直接比較分析之用。
調查顯示，撇除不清楚施政報告內容的被訪者後，12%表示施政報告發表後對香港前途的信心有所增加，22%表示不變，表示減少的有61%，前途信心效應淨值為負49個百分點，數字創1998年有記錄以來最差。
數據分析
最新的施政報告即時調查顯示，撇除不清楚施政報告內容的被訪者後，17%表示滿意施政報告，65%不滿，滿意淨值為負47個百分點，平均分為29.7分，各項數字均創1997年有記錄以來最差。
至於特首林鄭月娥，其民望在昨日發表施政報告後與十月初的數字比較變化不大，最新評分為22.7分，支持率為15%，反對率為79%，民望淨值為負64個百分點。
此外，撇除不清楚施政報告內容的被訪者後，12%表示施政報告發表後對香港前途的信心有所增加，22%表示不變，表示減少的有61%，前途信心效應淨值為負49個百分點，數字創1998年有記錄以來最差。
施政報告即時調查顯示了巿民的即時反應，後續反應則有待觀察。
附加資料：「2019年施政報告即時調查的操作簡介」
- 特區政府定出發表施政報告日期後，民研計劃便開始策劃即時調查的流程。
- 約一星期前，民研計劃開始部署即時調查的人手調配和內部安排。
- 特首發表施政報告當日，民研計劃透過傳媒及互聯網緊貼施政報告的發表過程，並草擬調查問卷。
- 調查於下午約一時開始，動員約六十名訪員及其他工作人員。原本目標樣本數目為500個或以上，訪問於晚上約八時結束，最終共錄得745個成功個案。
- 工作人員隨即核實數據及進行定量分析，於晚上約九時發放初步結果，及草擬新聞公報初稿。
- 翌日，工作人員再次確認調查數字、調整網站設計及審議新聞公報內容，並舉行傳媒發布會向外公佈詳細結果。
Press Conference Live
Press Release on October 17, 2019
POP releases findings of Policy Address instant poll
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 745 Hong Kong residents (including 157 landline, 147 mobile and 441 panel samples) after CE Carrie Lam delivered her third Policy Address speech by video yesterday. The survey was conducted by random telephone survey by real interviewers, as well as by online or telephone survey for previously recruited random panel samples. Results show that after excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 17% said they were satisfied with it, 65% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 47 percentage points, while the average rating is 29.7 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All figures are at their worst since records began in 1997. As for CE Carrie Lam, as compared to early October, her popularities have not changed much after she delivered her Policy Address yesterday. Her latest support rating now stands at 22.7 marks, approval rate 15% and disapproval 79%, giving a net approval rate of negative 64 percentage points. Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 12% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 22% said there was no change, while 61% said their confidence had decreased, giving a net effect of negative 49 percentage points on people’s confidence. The net figure is also at its worst since record began in 1998. The instant poll describes people’s instant reaction toward the Policy Address. Their reactions later remain to be seen. The effective response rate of the survey excluding panel samples is 80.0%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-6% and that of ratings is +/-2.4 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 16/10/2019 |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers, as well as online or telephone survey for previously recruited random panel samples |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size | : | 745 (including 157 landline, 147 mobile and 441 panel samples) |
| Effective response rate excluding panel samples[1] | : | 80.0% |
| Sampling error[2] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, that of net values not more than +/-6% and that of ratings not more than +/-2.4 at 95% confidence level |
| Weighting method | : | 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] 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.
[2] 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.
Latest Figures
People’s satisfaction figures with this year’s Policy Address are summarized below together with the previous findings:
| Date of survey | Sample size[3] | Appraisal of Policy Address | |||||
| Satisfaction rate[4] | Half-half | Dissatisfaction rate[4] | Net satisfaction rate | Mean value[4] | Rating of Policy Address |
||
| 16/10/19 | 679 | 17+/-3%[6] | 8+/-2%[6] | 65+/-4%[6] | -47+/-6%[6] | 2.0+/-0.1[6] | 29.7+/-2.3[6] |
| 10/10/18 | 534 | 33%[6] | 24% | 34%[6] | -1%[6] | 2.9[6] | 48.5[6] |
| 11/10/17 | 526 | 48%[6] | 28%[6] | 14%[6] | 34%[6] | 3.5[6] | 62.4[6] |
| 18/1/17 | 512 | 34%[6] | 22% | 29%[6] | 5%[6] | 3.0[6] | 52.3[6] |
| 13/1/16 | 522 | 19%[6] | 23% | 39% | -20%[6] | 2.5[6] | 41.1[6] |
| 14/1/15 | 503 | 30%[6] | 24%[6] | 35% | -5%[6] | 2.8 | 49.5[6] |
| 15/1/14 | 611 | 36% | 30%[6] | 31%[6] | 5% | 3.0 | 54.1[6] |
| 16/1/13 | 759 | 36%[6] | 35% | 24%[6] | 11%[6] | 3.1 | 56.4[6] |
| 12/10/11 | 816 | 47%[6] | 32% | 18% | 28%[6] | 3.3 | 59.1 |
| 13/10/10 | 747 | 41%[6] | 33%[6] | 19%[6] | 22%[6] | 3.2 | 58.9[6] |
| 14/10/09 | 462 | 30% | 37% | 28% | 2% | 3.0 | 53.5 |
| 15/10/08 | 515 | 31%[6] | 35%[6] | 26%[6] | 4%[6] | 3.0 | 53.8[6] |
| 10/10/07 | 602 | 52%[6] | 29%[6] | 10%[6] | 42%[6] | 3.5 | 65.2[6] |
| 11/10/06 | 445 | 30%[6] | 37% | 22%[6] | 8%[6] | 3.0 | 55.8[6] |
| 12/10/05 | 377 | 48%[6] | 33% | 9%[6] | 39%[6] | 3.5 | 66.4[6] |
| 12/1/05 | 391 | 38%[6] | 30% | 20%[6] | 18%[6] | 3.2 | 56.3[6] |
| 7/1/04 | 381 | 25% | 26% | 33%[6] | -8% | 2.8 | 49.3 |
| 8/1/03[5] | 377 | 22%[6] | 29% | 27% | -5% | 2.8 | 51.6[6] |
| 10/10/01 | 433 | 29% | 33% | 28% | 1% | 3.0 | 56.7 |
| 11/10/00 | 262 | 25%[6] | 28% | 31% | -6%[6] | 2.9 | 55.2 |
| 6/10/99 | 236 | 31%[6] | 30% | 25%[6] | 6%[6] | 3.0 | 57.3 |
| 7/10/98 | 508 | 22%[6] | 35%[6] | 35%[6] | -14%[6] | 2.8 | -- |
| 8/10/97 | 534 | 45% | 30%[6] | 14%[6] | 31% | 3.4 | -- |
[3] Respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address have been excluded.
[4] 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.
[5] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis.
[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.
After excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 17% said they were satisfied with it, 65% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 47 percentage points. The mean score is 2.0, meaning close to “quite dissatisfied” in general, while the average rating is 29.7 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All figures are at their worst since records began in 1997.
Figures on various Chief Executives’ popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech since 1997 are summarized as follows:
| Popularity of Tung Chee-hwa | ||||||||
| Date of PA Speech | 8/10/97 | 7/10/98 | 6/10/99 | 11/10/00 | 10/10/01 | 8/1/03 | 7/1/04 | 12/1/05 |
| CE’s rating before the PA |
65.8 | 55.8 | 54.0 | 48.2 | 48.4 | 46.6 | 42.9 | 47.2 |
| CE’s rating at PA instant poll |
66.1 | 56.1 | 54.3 | 50.7 | 50.6 | 47.3 | 44.6 | 48.4 |
| Change in CE’s rating |
+0.3 | +0.3 | +0.3 | +2.5[8] | +2.2[8] | +0.7 | +1.7[8] | +1.2 |
| Popularity of Donald Tsang | ||||||||
| Date of Policy Address Speech | 12/10/05 | 11/10/06 | 10/10/07 | 15/10/08 | 14/10/09 | 13/10/10 | 12/10/11 | |
| CE’s rating before the PA | 68.0 | 62.9 | 65.8 | 52.7 | 55.2 | 55.4 | 48.4 | |
| CE’s rating at PA instant poll | 67.4 | 59.8 | 64.4 | 53.9 | 54.2 | 56.2 | 50.6 | |
| Change in CE’s rating | -0.6 | -3.1[8] | -1.4[8] | +1.2 | -1.0 | +0.8 | +2.2[8] | |
| CE’s net approval rate before the PA |
68% | 48% | 48% | 5% | 7% | -1% | -45% | |
| CE’s net approval rate at PA instant poll |
65% | 36% | 48% | 10% | 8% | 0% | -41% | |
| Change in CE’s net approval rate[7] |
-3% | -12% [8] | -- | +5% | +1% | +1% | +4% | |
| Popularity of CY Leung | ||||||||
| Date of Policy Address Speech | 16/1/13 | 15/1/14 | 14/1/15 | 13/1/16 | 18/1/17 | |||
| CE’s rating before the PA | 48.9 | 45.6 | 40.6 | 37.5 | 41.3 | |||
| CE’s rating at PA instant poll | 52.2 | 48.9 | 44.8 | 37.0 | 41.7 | |||
| Change in CE’s rating | +3.3[8] | +3.3[8] | +4.2[8] | -0.5 | +0.4 | |||
| CE’s net approval rate before the PA |
-20% | -31% | -39% | -44% | -44% | |||
| CE’s net approval rate at PA instant poll |
-11% | -24% | -35% | -54% | -57% | |||
| Change in CE’s net approval rate[7] | +9%[8] | +7%[8] | +4% | -10%[8] | -13%[8] | |||
| Popularity of Carrie Lam | ||||||||
| Date of Policy Address Speech | 11/10/17 | 10/10/18 | 16/10/19 | |||||
| CE’s rating before the PA | 59.6 | 52.3 | 22.3+/-1.9 | |||||
| CE’s rating at PA instant poll | 61.1 | 47.6 | 22.7+/-2.4 | |||||
| Change in CE’s rating | +1.5 | -4.7[8] | +0.3 | |||||
| CE’s net approval rate before the PA |
10% | 4% | -65+/-5% | |||||
| CE’s net approval rate at PA instant poll |
23% | -10% | -64+/-5% | |||||
| Change in CE’s net approval rate[7] | +13%[8] | -14%[8] | +1% | |||||
[7] Instant polls on Policy Address included CE’s approval rate since 2004, so it is not listed under Tung’s series.
[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.
Recent figures on Carrie Lam’s popularity before and after the Policy Address speech are as follows:
| Date of survey | 1-6/8/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 2-4/9/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 30/9-3/10/19 | 16/10/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 1,015 | 1,023 | 1,046 | 1,061 | 1,004 | 745 | -- |
| Response rate | 62.8% | 68.5% | 69.5% | 69.5% | 64.5% | 80.0% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Rating of CE Carrie Lam | 27.9 | 24.6[9] | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 22.7+/-2.4 | +0.3 |
| Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 20% | 17% | 19% | 18% | 15% | 15+/-2% | -- |
| Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 72% | 76%[9] | 75% | 74% | 80%[9] | 79+/-3% | -1% |
| Net approval rate | -51% | -59%[9] | -55% | -57% | -65%[9] | -64+/-5% | +1% |
[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.
Instant poll shows that CE Carrie Lam’s popularity has not changed much since early October after she delivered her Policy Address yesterday. Her latest support rating is 22.7 marks, approval rate 15% and disapproval 79%, giving a net approval rate of negative 64 percentage points.
The survey also gauged the change of people’s confidence in the future of Hong Kong after CE Carrie Lam delivered her Policy Address. Results are as follows:
| Date of survey |
Sample size[10] |
Confidence in the future of Hong Kong | ||||
| Increased | Unchanged | Decreased | Don’t know / hard to say | Net effect on confidence | ||
| 16/10/19 | 679 | 12+/-2%[11] | 22+/-3% | 61+/-4%[11] | 6+/-2% | -49+/-5%[11] |
| 10/10/18 | 534 | 23%[11] | 25%[11] [12] | 45%[11] | 7%[11] | -22%[11] |
| 11/10/17 | 526 | 40%[11] | 39% | 19%[11] | 3%[11] | 21%[11] |
| 18/1/17 | 511 | 24%[11] | 36%[11] | 32%[11] | 7%[11] | -8%[11] |
| 13/1/16 | 521 | 16%[11] | 31% | 44%[11] | 10%[11] | -27%[11] |
| 14/1/15 | 501 | 22% | 35% | 38%[11] | 5% | -16% |
| 15/1/14 | 846 | 24%[11] | 38% | 32%[11] | 5%[11] | -9%[11] |
| 16/1/13 | 913 | 31% | 38%[11] | 23% | 7%[11] | 8% |
| 12/10/11 | 957 | 29% | 45% | 21% | 5% | 8%[11] |
| 13/10/10 | 914 | 31%[11] | 45% | 18%[11] | 6% | 14%[11] |
| 14/10/09 | 749 | 27%[11] | 47%[11] | 22%[11] | 5% | 5%[11] |
| 15/10/08 | 761 | 23%[11] | 38%[11] | 32%[11] | 7% | -9%[11] |
| 10/10/07 | 388 | 53%[11] | 31%/-5%[11] | 7%[11] | 9% | 46%[11] |
| 11/10/06 | 431 | 25%[11] | 51%[11] | 16%[11] | 8% | 9%[11] |
| 12/10/05 | 476 | 54%[11] | 33%[11] | 5%[11] | 8%[11] | 49%[11] |
| 12/1/05 | 658 | 34% | 41% | 12%[11] | 14% | 22%[11] |
| 7/1/04 | 602 | 32%[11] | 40% | 16%[11] | 12% | 16%[11] |
| 8/1/03[13] | 513 | 25% | 40%[11] | 22% | 14%[11] | 3% |
| 10/10/01 | 591 | 22% | 50%[11] | 21%[11] | 7%[11] | 1%[11] |
| 11/10/00 | 292 | 22%[11] | 40% | 15% | 22%[11] | 7%[11] |
| 6/10/99 | 233 | 40%[11] | 36%[11] | 16%[11] | 8% | 24%[11] |
| 7/10/98 | 505 | 21% | 52% | 22% | 5% | -1% |
[10] Respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address have been excluded.
[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.
[12] 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 changes would not have gone beyond the sampling errors.
[13] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis.
Results show that after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 12% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 22% said there was no change, while 61% said their confidence had decreased, giving a net effect of negative 49 percentage points on people’s confidence. The figure is at its worst since record began in 1998.
Data Analysis
Our latest Policy Address instant poll shows that after excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 17% said they were satisfied with it, 65% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 47 percentage points, while the average rating is 29.7 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All figures are at their worst since records began in 1997.
As for CE Carrie Lam, as compared to early October, her popularities have not changed much after she delivered her Policy Address yesterday. Her latest support rating now stands at 22.7 marks, approval rate 15% and disapproval 79%, giving a net approval rate of negative 64 percentage points.
Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 12% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 22% said there was no change, while 61% said their confidence had decreased, giving a net effect of negative 49 percentage points on people’s confidence. The net figure is also at its worst since record began in 1998.
The instant poll describes people’s instant reaction toward the Policy Address. Their reactions later remain to be seen.
Additional information: “Outline of our operation for the Policy Address instant survey of 2019”
- After the HKSAR government announced the date of Policy Address, we started our planning for the instant survey.
- About one week ago, we began our manpower deployment and internal preparation.
- On the day CE announced the Address, we monitored the media and the Internet closely, and drafted the questionnaire.
- Our survey began at around 1pm on that day, involving around sixty interviewers and other staff. Our original target was to conduct at least 500 successful cases. We stopped the poll at around 8pm, after collecting 745 samples.
- Data verification and quantitative analyses followed immediately. The preliminary results were released at around 9pm, at the same time we started to draft the press release.
- On the following day, the survey findings were verified again, while our website was re-designed. Our press release was finalized, and we held a press conference to announce the detailed findings to the public.
