2019年10月29日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會回顧
民研計劃發放特首及政府民望、立法會議員民望及民情指數
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
民研計劃於十月中由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式成功訪問了1,038名香港居民。結果顯示，特首林鄭月娥的評分為20.2分，民望淨值為負71個百分點，與施政報告發表當日比較，民望跌幅雖未超過抽樣誤差，但全部民望數字均再次創出其上任以來及歷屆特首的新低。特區政府的最新滿意率淨值為負69個百分點，是1997年有記錄以來新低，信任淨值則為負44個百分點，是1992年有記錄以來新低。市民對現時經濟、民生及政治狀況的滿意淨值分別為負42、負57及負85個百分點。三者當中，政治狀況和經濟狀況的滿意淨值分別創1992和2003年以來新低。立法會議員民望方面，6位最多人認識的議員分別是毛孟靜、陳淑莊、何君堯、鄺俊宇、李慧琼和楊岳橋，支持度排首位的是鄺俊宇，得59.0分，第二位是陳淑莊，得52.3分，然後是毛孟靜、李慧琼和何君堯，分別得48.8、25.3及17.1分，其中李慧琼的評分較上次調查錄得顯著跌幅。民情指數方面，最新數字為50.5，較十月上旬再下跌4.3點，創1992年有記錄以來新低。調查的實效回應比率為63.2%。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+/-7%，評分誤差不超過+/-3.3。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 17-23/10/2019[3] |
| 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 | ： | 1,038 (包括519個固網及519個手機樣本)[3] |
| 實效回應比率[1] | ： | 63.2%[3] |
| 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+/-7%，評分誤差不超過+/-3.3 |
| 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。
[3] 立法會議員提名階段調查日期為17-18/10/2019，成功樣本數目為512 (包括255個固網及257個手機樣本)，實效回應比率為63.7%；評分階段調查日期為21-23/10/2019，成功樣本數目為526 (包括264個固網及262個手機樣本)，實效回應比率為63.4%。
特首及政府民望
以下是特首林鄭月娥的最新民望數字：
| 調查日期 | 15-20/8/19 | 2-4/9/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 30/9-3/10/19 | 16/10/19 | 17-23/10/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 1,023 | 1,046 | 1,061 | 1,004 | 745 | 1,038 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 68.5% | 69.5% | 69.5% | 64.5% | 80.0% | 63.2% | -- |
| 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 | 24.6[4] | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 22.7 | 20.2+/-1.8 | -2.4 |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首支持率 | 17% | 19% | 18% | 15% | 15% | 11+/-2% | -3%[4] |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首反對率 | 76%[4] | 75% | 74% | 80%[4] | 79% | 82+/-2% | +3% |
| 支持率淨值 | -59%[4] | -55% | -57% | -65%[4] | -64% | -71+/-4% | -6% |
[4] 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 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 17-23/10/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目[5] | 1,013 | 1,015 | 1,002 | 1,023 | 1,061 | 1,038 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 69.5% | 63.2% | -- |
| 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[6] | 27% | 18%[7] | 18% | 14% | 12% | 10+/-2% | -2% |
| 特區政府表現不滿率[6] | 55%[7] | 72%[7] | 70% | 77%[7] | 76% | 79+/-3% | +3% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -28% | -53%[7] | -52% | -63%[7] | -63% | -69+/-5% | -5% |
| 平均量值[6] | 2.5[7] | 2.0[7] | 2.0 | 1.8[7] | 1.8 | 1.7+/-0.1 | -0.1[7] |
| 現時經濟狀況滿意率[6] | 36% | 31%[7] | 28% | 25% | 19%[7] | 19+/-2% | -- |
| 現時經濟狀況不滿率[6] | 41% | 45% | 47% | 53%[7] | 55% | 61+/-3% | +7%[7] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -5% | -14%[7] | -19% | -29%[7] | -35% | -42+/-5% | -7%[7] |
| 平均量值[6] | 2.8 | 2.7[7] | 2.6 | 2.5[7] | 2.4[7] | 2.3+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| 現時民生狀況滿意率[6] | 26%[7] | 21%[7] | 21% | 16%[7] | 13% | 14+/-2% | +1% |
| 現時民生狀況不滿率[6] | 56% | 62%[7] | 64% | 69%[7] | 70% | 71+/-3% | +1% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -30%[7] | -41%[7] | -43% | -54%[7] | -57% | -57+/-5% | -- |
| 平均量值[6] | 2.5[7] | 2.3[7] | 2.2 | 2.1[7] | 2.0 | 2.0+/-0.1 | -- |
| 現時政治狀況滿意率[6] | 13%[7] | 7%[7] | 5% | 5% | 3%[7] | 3+/-1% | -- |
| 現時政治狀況不滿率[6] | 71%[7] | 81%[7] | 87%[7] | 88% | 85% | 88+/-2% | +3% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -58%[7] | -74%[7] | -82%[7] | -83% | -82% | -85+/-3% | -3% |
| 平均量值[6] | 1.9[7] | 1.6[7] | 1.5[7] | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4+/-0.1 | -- |
[5] 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668。
[6] 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。
[7] 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 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 17-23/10/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 639 | 686 | 623 | 555 | 632 | 623 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 72.2% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 63.2% | -- |
| 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[8] | 34%[9] | 36% | 28%[9] | 29% | 27% | 23+/-3% | -4% |
| 不信任特區政府比率[8] | 46%[9] | 50% | 60%[9] | 60% | 64% | 68+/-4% | +4% |
| 信任淨值 | -12%[9] | -14% | -32%[9] | -31% | -37% | -44+/-7% | -8% |
| 平均量值[8] | 2.7[9] | 2.7 | 2.4[9] | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.1+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
[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。
最新調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的評分為20.2分，其支持率為11%，反對率為82%，民望淨值為負71個百分點，與施政報告發表當日比較，民望跌幅雖未超過抽樣誤差，但全部民望數字均再次創出其上任特首以來新低。
特區政府方面，最新滿意率為10%，不滿率為79%，滿意率淨值為負69個百分點，是1997年有記錄以來新低，平均量值為1.7分，即整體上介乎「幾不滿」及「好不滿」之間。信任程度方面，最新的信任比率為23%，不信任比率為68%，信任淨值為負44個百分點，是1992年有記錄以來新低，平均量值為2.1分，即整體上接近「幾不信任」。
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19%、14%及3%，而滿意淨值就分別為負42、負57及負85個百分點。經濟狀況的平均量值為2.3，即整體上介乎「一半半」及「幾不滿」之間；民生狀況的平均量值為2.0，即整體上接近「幾不滿」；政治狀況的平均量值為1.4，即整體上介乎「幾不滿」及「好不滿」之間。三者當中，政治狀況的滿意淨值創1992年有記錄以來新低，而經濟狀況的滿意淨值則創2003年12月以來新低。
立法會議員民望
在提名調查中，被訪者可在未經提示下說出最多10名最熟悉的議員，結果首6位最多被訪者提及的議員分別是毛孟靜、陳淑莊、何君堯、鄺俊宇、李慧琼和楊岳橋，他們於是被納入評分調查。在評分調查中，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，認知度最低的再被剔除，之後再按支持度由高至低順序排列，得出五大立法會議員。以下是五大立法會議員的最新評分，按評分倒序排列[10]：
| 調查日期 | 1-6/11/18 | 14-19/3/19 | 5-8/7/19 | 21-23/10/19 | 最新變化 | |
| 樣本數目 | 520-555 | 582-697 | 514 | 526 | -- | |
| 回應比率 | 58.9% | 73.1% | 69.1% | 63.4% | -- | |
| 最新結果[11] | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | 認知率 | -- |
| 鄺俊宇 | -- | -- | 61.6[13] | 59.0+/-3.3{1} | 81.1% | -2.7 |
| 陳淑莊 | 49.4{3} | 47.4{5} | -- | 52.3+/-3.3{2} | 91.9% | -- |
| 毛孟靜 | 45.3{6} | 44.5{7} | 47.4{2} | 48.8+/-3.1{3} | 93.2% | +1.4 |
| 李慧琼 | 43.1{8} | 43.4{8} | 33.5{3}[12] | 25.3+/-2.7{4} | 87.2% | -8.2[12] |
| 何君堯 | -- | -- | -- | 17.1+/-2.6{5} | 93.5% | -- |
| 楊岳橋 | 52.2[13] | 49.4[13] | 57.4{1}[12] | 57.7+/-3.2[13] | 79.3% | +0.3 |
| 葉劉淑儀 | 48.4{4} | 48.3{4} | 33.1{4}[12] | -- | -- | -- |
| 梁美芬 | 36.6{9}[12] | 38.9{9} | 27.1{5}[12] | -- | -- | -- |
| 田北辰 | 57.0{1} | 55.1{1} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 涂謹申 | 52.4{2} | 52.1{2} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 朱凱廸 | 50.7[13] | 48.7{3} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 謝偉俊 | 44.1{7} | 45.5{6} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 周浩鼎 | -- | 35.5{10} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 陳志全 | -- | 44.5[13] | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 梁耀忠 | 46.8{5} | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 蔣麗芸 | 33.6{10}[12] | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[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] 括弧{ }內數字為排名。
[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，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。
[13] 於評分調查認知率較低。
最新調查顯示，市民對立法會議員的最新支持度排名，首位是鄺俊宇，得59.0分，第二位是陳淑莊，得52.3分，然後是毛孟靜、李慧琼和何君堯，分別得48.8、25.3及17.1分，其中李慧琼的評分較上次調查顯著下跌。在最新調查中，楊岳橋得57.7分，但由於認知率較低而被剔除。另外，毛孟靜和楊岳橋的評分創2017年有記錄以來新高，李慧琼的評分創2015年有記錄以來新低，陳淑莊的評分則創2012年中以來新高。
須要說明，躋身「五大議員」的先決條件是巿民的熟悉程度，然後再按支持度排名。「五大」以外的議員，支持度可以很高或很低，但由於並非巿民最熟悉的議員，所以不在榜內。
民情指數
民研計劃制定「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：50.5 (-4.3) | 政評數值：49.9 (-5.3) | 社評數值：54.2 (-2.4) |
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 | 6/8/19 | 20/8/19 | 4/9/19 | 19/9/19 | 3/10/19 | 23/10/19 | 最新變化 |
| 民情指數 | 66.6 | 58.0 | 58.5 | 55.9 | 54.7 | 50.5 | -4.3 |
| 政評數值 | 63.4 | 56.5 | 57.3 | 57.3 | 55.1 | 49.9 | -5.3 |
| 特首評分 | 27.9 | 24.6 | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 20.2 | -2.1 |
| 特首民望淨值 | -51% | -59% | -55% | -57% | -65% | -71% | -6% |
| 政府滿意程度平均量值 | 2.0[14] | 1.8 | 1.8[14] | 1.8 | 1.8[14] | 1.7 | -0.1 |
| 政府信任程度平均量值 | 2.3[14] | 2.2 | 2.2[14] | 2.2[14] | 2.2[14] | 2.1 | -0.1 |
| 社評數值 | 69.6[14] | 61.1 | 61.1[14] | 56.6 | 56.6[14] | 54.2 | -2.4 |
| 政治狀況滿意程度 | 1.5[14] | 1.4 | 1.4[14] | 1.4 | 1.4[14] | 1.4 | -- |
| 政治狀況成份指標權數 | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | -- |
| 經濟狀況滿意程度 | 2.6[14] | 2.5 | 2.5[14] | 2.4 | 2.4[14] | 2.3 | -0.1 |
| 經濟狀況成份指標權數 | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | -- |
| 民生狀況滿意程度 | 2.2[14] | 2.1 | 2.1[14] | 2.0 | 2.0[14] | 2.0 | -- |
| 民生狀況成份指標權數 | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | -- |
[14] 當有關數字沒有更新時，民研計劃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 | |||
民情指數較十月上旬下跌4.3點至50.5，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5.3點至49.9，而反映市民對整體社會狀況評價的社評數值則下跌2.4點至54.2。兩者均可以視為過去逾二十年來最差的1個百分比。民情指數、政評數值和社評數值均創1992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，上次調查日期最早為5-8/7/2019，而今次調查日期則為17-23/10/2019，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：
| 23/10/19 | 陳同佳刑滿出獄 |
| 22/10/19 | 台灣要求派員來港押解陳同佳到台灣受審 |
| 20/10/19 | 九龍區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 16/10/19 | 林鄭月娥發表2019年施政報告 |
| 13/10/19 | 全港多區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 6/10/19 | 反《蒙面法》遊行演變成多區警民衝突 |
| 5/10/19 | 反《蒙面法》遊行演變成多區警民衝突 |
| 4/10/19 | 政府正式引用《緊急法》訂立《禁蒙面法》 |
| 1/10/19 | 全港多區出現示威及警民衝突，警方在荃灣使用實彈射傷一名示威者 |
| 29/9/19 | 反極權大遊行演變成多區警民衝突 |
| 28/9/19 | 民間人權陣線於添馬公園舉行集會，紀念雨傘運動五周年 |
| 26/9/19 | 林鄭月娥出席首場社區對話 |
| 22/9/19 | 沙田及全港多區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 21/9/19 | 屯門及元朗出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 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 |
| 4/9/19 | 林鄭月娥宣佈正式撤回修訂《逃犯條例》草案 |
| 2/9/19 | 中學及大學學生於開學日罷課 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 12/8/19 | 反修例示威者到香港國際機場集會 |
| 11/8/19 | 全港多區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 10/8/19 | 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 |
| 4/8/19 | 全港多區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 3/8/19 | 全港多區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 30/7/19 | 中上環衝突中44人被控暴動 |
| 28/7/19 | 港島追究警暴集會演變成警民衝突 |
| 27/7/19 | 「光復元朗」遊行演變成警民衝突 |
| 22/7/19 | 元朗昨夜有白衣人無差別襲擊市民 |
| 21/7/19 | 反修例示威者包圍中聯辦 |
| 20/7/19 | 建制派於添馬公園舉行「守護香港」集會 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
數據分析
最新調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的評分為20.2分，民望淨值為負71個百分點，與施政報告發表當日比較，民望跌幅雖未超過抽樣誤差，但全部民望數字均再次創出其上任以來及歷屆特首的新低。特區政府的最新滿意率淨值為負69個百分點，是1997年有記錄以來新低，信任淨值則為負44個百分點，是1992年有記錄以來新低。市民對現時經濟、民生及政治狀況的滿意淨值分別為負42、負57及負85個百分點。三者當中，政治狀況和經濟狀況的滿意淨值分別創1992和2003年以來新低。
立法會議員民望方面，6位最多人認識的議員分別是毛孟靜、陳淑莊、何君堯、鄺俊宇、李慧琼和楊岳橋，支持度排首位的是鄺俊宇，得59.0分，第二位是陳淑莊，得52.3分，然後是毛孟靜、李慧琼和何君堯，分別得48.8、25.3及17.1分，其中李慧琼的評分較上次調查錄得顯著跌幅。
民情指數方面，最新數字為50.5，較十月上旬再下跌4.3點，創1992年有記錄以來新低。
Oct 29, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
POP releases findings of popularity of CE and the government,
popularity of Legislative Councillors and Public Sentiment Index
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 1,038 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in mid-October. Results show that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 20.2 marks. Her net popularity is negative 71 percentage points. Although her popularity has not dropped beyond sampling errors since the Policy Address was delivered, all popularity figures have registered new record lows since she took office and also across all CEs in history. The latest net satisfaction of the HKSAR Government stands at negative 69 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1997. The net trust value is negative 44 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1992. People’s net satisfaction rates with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions are negative 42, negative 57 and negative 85 percentage points respectively. The net satisfaction rates of political and economic conditions have registered historical lows since records began in 1992 and 2003 respectively. As for the popularity of Legislative Councillors, Claudia Mo, Tanya Chan, Junius Ho, Roy Kwong, Starry Lee and Alvin Yeung are the six councillors that top people’s mind now. In terms of rating, Roy Kwong tops the list with 59.0 marks. Tanya Chan ranks the 2nd with 52.3 marks. Claudia Mo, Starry Lee and Junius Ho followed behind with 48.8, 25.3 and 17.1 marks respectively. Among them, the rating of Starry Lee has dropped significantly compared with the last survey. As for the PSI, the latest figure is 50.5, further down by 4.3 points from early October, registering an all-time low since record began in 1992. The effective response rate of the survey is 63.2%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-7% and that of ratings is +/-3.3 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 17-23/10/2019[3] |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size | : | 1,038 (including 519 landline and 519 mobile samples)[3] |
| Effective response rate[1] | : | 63.2%[3] |
| Sampling error[2] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, that of net values not more than +/-7% and that of ratings not more than +/-3.3 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.
[3] For the naming stage of Legislative Councillors, the date of survey is 17-18/10/2019, the sample size is 512 (including 255 landline and 257 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 63.7%. For the rating stage, the date of survey is 21-23/10/2019, the sample size is 526 (including 264 landline and 262 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 63.4%.
Popularity of CE and the Government
Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 15-20/8/19 | 2-4/9/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 30/9-3/10/19 | 16/10/19 | 17-23/10/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 1,023 | 1,046 | 1,061 | 1,004 | 745 | 1,038 | -- |
| Response rate | 68.5% | 69.5% | 69.5% | 64.5% | 80.0% | 63.2% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Rating of CE Carrie Lam | 24.6[4] | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 22.7 | 20.2+/-1.8 | -2.4 |
| Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 17% | 19% | 18% | 15% | 15% | 11+/-2% | -3%[4] |
| Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 76%[4] | 75% | 74% | 80%[4] | 79% | 82+/-2% | +3% |
| Net approval rate | -59%[4] | -55% | -57% | -65%[4] | -64% | -71+/-4% | -6% |
[4] 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 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 17-23/10/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size[5] | 1,013 | 1,015 | 1,002 | 1,023 | 1,061 | 1,038 | -- |
| Response rate | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 69.5% | 63.2% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Satisfaction rate of SARG performance[6] | 27% | 18%[7] | 18% | 14% | 12% | 10+/-2% | -2% |
| Dissatisfaction rate of SARG performance[6] | 55%[7] | 72%[7] | 70% | 77%[7] | 76% | 79+/-3% | +3% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -28% | -53%[7] | -52% | -63%[7] | -63% | -69+/-5% | -5% |
| Mean value[6] | 2.5[7] | 2.0[7] | 2.0 | 1.8[7] | 1.8 | 1.7+/-0.1 | -0.1[7] |
| Current economic condition: Satisfaction rate[6] |
36% | 31%[7] | 28% | 25% | 19%[7] | 19+/-2% | -- |
| Current economic condition: Dissatisfaction rate[6] |
41% | 45% | 47% | 53%[7] | 55% | 61+/-3% | +7%[7] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -5% | -14%[7] | -19% | -29%[7] | -35% | -42+/-5% | -7%[7] |
| Mean value[6] | 2.8 | 2.7[7] | 2.6 | 2.5[7] | 2.4[7] | 2.3+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| Current livelihood condition: Satisfaction rate[6] |
26%[7] | 21%[7] | 21% | 16%[7] | 13% | 14+/-2% | +1% |
| Current livelihood condition: Dissatisfaction rate[6] |
56% | 62%[7] | 64% | 69%[7] | 70% | 71+/-3% | +1% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -30%[7] | -41%[7] | -43% | -54%[7] | -57% | -57+/-5% | -- |
| Mean value[6] | 2.5[7] | 2.3[7] | 2.2 | 2.1[7] | 2.0 | 2.0+/-0.1 | -- |
| Current political condition: Satisfaction rate[6] |
13%[7] | 7%[7] | 5% | 5% | 3%[7] | 3+/-1% | -- |
| Current political condition: Dissatisfaction rate[6] |
71%[7] | 81%[7] | 87%[7] | 88% | 85% | 88+/-2% | +3% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -58%[7] | -74%[7] | -82%[7] | -83% | -82% | -85+/-3% | -3% |
| Mean value[6] | 1.9[7] | 1.6[7] | 1.5[7] | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4+/-0.1 | -- |
[5] The question on the satisfaction of SARG performance only uses sub-samples of the surveys concerned. The sub-sample size for this survey is 668.
[6] 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.
[7] 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 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 17-23/10/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 639 | 686 | 623 | 555 | 632 | 623 | -- |
| Response rate | 72.2% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 63.2% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Trust in HKSAR Government[8] | 34%[9] | 36% | 28%[9] | 29% | 27% | 23+/-3% | -4% |
| Distrust in HKSAR Government[8] | 46%[9] | 50% | 60%[9] | 60% | 64% | 68+/-4% | +4% |
| Net trust | -12%[9] | -14% | -32%[9] | -31% | -37% | -44+/-7% | -8% |
| Mean value[8] | 2.7[9] | 2.7 | 2.4[9] | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.1+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
[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.
Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 20.2 marks. Her approval rate is 11%, disapproval rate 82%, giving a net popularity of negative 71 percentage points. Although her popularity has not dropped beyond sampling errors since the Policy Address was delivered, all popularity figures have registered record lows again since she became CE.
Regarding the HKSAR Government, the latest satisfaction rate is 10%, whereas 79% were dissatisfied, thus net satisfaction stands at negative 69 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1997. The mean score is 1.7, meaning between “quite dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. Regarding people’s trust in the HKSAR Government, 23% of the respondents expressed trust, 68% expressed distrust. The net trust value is negative 44 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1992. The mean score is 2.1, meaning close to “quite distrust” in general.
As for people’s satisfaction with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions, the latest satisfaction rates are 19%, 14% and 3% respectively, while the net satisfaction rates are negative 42, negative 57 and negative 85 percentage points respectively. The mean score of economic condition is 2.3, meaning between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied” in general; that of livelihood condition is 2.0, meaning close to “quite dissatisfied” in general; that of political condition is 1.4, meaning between “quite dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. The net satisfaction rate of political condition has registered all-time low since record began in 1992, while that of economic condition has registered record low since December 2003.
Popularity of Legislative Councillors
In the naming survey, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 councillors whom they knew best. Claudia Mo, Tanya Chan, Junius Ho, Roy Kwong, Starry Lee and Alvin Yeung were the top 6 councillors mentioned most frequently, they therefore entered the rating survey. In the rating survey, 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 councillor in terms of recognition rate was dropped; the remaining 5 were then ranked according to their support ratings to become the top 5 Legislative Councillors. Recent ratings of the top 5 Legislative Councillors are summarized below, in descending order of support ratings[10]:
| Date of survey | 1-6/11/18 | 14-19/3/19 | 5-8/7/19 | 21-23/10/19 | Latest change | |
| Sample size | 520-555 | 582-697 | 514 | 526 | -- | |
| Response rate | 58.9% | 73.1% | 69.1% | 63.4% | -- | |
| Latest findings[11] | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | Recognition rate | -- |
| Roy Kwong | -- | -- | 61.6[13] | 59.0+/-3.3{1} | 81.1% | -2.7 |
| Tanya Chan | 49.4{3} | 47.4{5} | -- | 52.3+/-3.3{2} | 91.9% | -- |
| Claudia Mo | 45.3{6} | 44.5{7} | 47.4{2} | 48.8+/-3.1{3} | 93.2% | +1.4 |
| Starry Lee | 43.1{8} | 43.4{8} | 33.5{3}[12] | 25.3+/-2.7{4} | 87.2% | -8.2[12] |
| Junius Ho | -- | -- | -- | 17.1+/-2.6{5} | 93.5% | -- |
| Alvin Yeung | 52.2[13] | 49.4[13] | 57.4{1}[12] | 57.7+/-3.2[13] | 79.3% | +0.3 |
| Regina Ip | 48.4{4} | 48.3{4} | 33.1{4}[12] | -- | -- | -- |
| Priscilla Leung | 36.6{9}[12] | 38.9{9} | 27.1{5}[12] | -- | -- | -- |
| Michael Tien | 57.0{1} | 55.1{1} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| James To | 52.4{2} | 52.1{2} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Eddie Chu | 50.7[13] | 48.7{3} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Paul Tse | 44.1{7} | 45.5{6} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Holden Chow | -- | 35.5{10} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Raymond Chan | -- | 44.5[13] | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Leung Yiu-chung | 46.8{5} | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Ann Chiang | 33.6{10}[12] | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[10] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[11] Numbers in curly brackets { } indicate the rankings.
[12] 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.
[13] Recognition rates were comparatively low in the rating survey.
The latest survey shows that Roy Kwong is the most popularly supported councillor, attaining 59.0 marks. Tanya Chan ranks the 2nd with 52.3 marks. Claudia Mo, Starry Lee and Junius Ho followed behind with 48.8, 25.3 and 17.1 marks respectively. Among them, the rating of Starry Lee has dropped significantly compared with the last survey. In the latest survey, Alvin Yeung obtained a rating of 57.7 marks, but was dropped due to his relatively low recognition rate. Meanwhile, the ratings of Claudia Mo and Alvin Yeung have registered record high since records began in 2017, that of Starry Lee has registered record low since record began in 2015, while that of Tanya Chan has registered record high since mid-2012.
It should be noted, however, that our list of “top 5” only includes LegCo members who are best known to the public, ranked according to their support ratings. Some of the other councillors may well have very high or low support ratings, but because they are not the most well-known councillors, they do not appear on the “top 5” list by design.
Public Sentiment Index
The Public Sentiment Index (PSI) compiled by POP 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): 50.5 (-4.3) |
Government Appraisal (GA): 49.9 (-5.3) |
Society Appraisal (SA): 54.2 (-2.4) |
Recent values of PSI, GA, SA and 10 fundamental figures are tabulated as follows:
| Cut-off date | 6/8/19 | 20/8/19 | 4/9/19 | 19/9/19 | 3/10/19 | 23/10/19 | Latest change |
| Public Sentiment Index (PSI) | 66.6 | 58.0 | 58.5 | 55.9 | 54.7 | 50.5 | -4.3 |
| Government Appraisal (GA) | 63.4 | 56.5 | 57.3 | 57.3 | 55.1 | 49.9 | -5.3 |
| Rating of CE | 27.9 | 24.6 | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 20.2 | -2.1 |
| Net approval rate of CE | -51% | -59% | -55% | -57% | -65% | -71% | -6% |
| Mean value of people’s satisfaction with SARG | 2.0[14] | 1.8 | 1.8[14] | 1.8 | 1.8[14] | 1.7 | -0.1 |
| Mean value of people’s trust in SARG | 2.3[14] | 2.2 | 2.2[14] | 2.2[14] | 2.2[14] | 2.1 | -0.1 |
| Society Appraisal (SA) | 69.6[14] | 61.1 | 61.1[14] | 56.6 | 56.6[14] | 54.2 | -2.4 |
| People’s satisfaction with political condition | 1.5[14] | 1.4 | 1.4[14] | 1.4 | 1.4[14] | 1.4 | -- |
| Weighting index of political condition | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | -- |
| People’s satisfaction with economic condition | 2.6[14] | 2.5 | 2.5[14] | 2.4 | 2.4[14] | 2.3 | -0.1 |
| Weighting index of economic condition | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | -- |
| People’s satisfaction with livelihood condition | 2.2[14] | 2.1 | 2.1[14] | 2.0 | 2.0[14] | 2.0 | -- |
| Weighting index of livelihood condition | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | -- |
[14] POP 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 50.5, down by 4.3 points from early October. 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 decreases by 5.3 points to 49.9, whereas the Society Appraisal (SA) Score that reflects people’s appraisal of the social environment decreases by 2.4 points to 54.2. They can both be considered as among the worst 1%. The PSI, GA and SA have all registered all-time low since records began in 1992.
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 earliest previous survey was conducted from 5 to 8 July, 2019 while this survey was conducted from 17 to 23 October, 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:
| 23/10/19 | Chan Tong-kai is released from prison. |
| 22/10/19 | Taiwan requests to send officers to Hong Kong to escort Chan Tong-kai to Taiwan for trial. |
| 20/10/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in Kowloon district. |
| 16/10/19 | Carrie Lam delivers the 2019 Policy Address. |
| 13/10/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 6/10/19 | Anti-mask law rally turns into conflicts between protestors and the police in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 5/10/19 | Anti-mask law rally turns into conflicts between protestors and the police in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 4/10/19 | The government officially enacts anti-mask law by invoking emergency law. |
| 1/10/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong, the police shoots a protester with a live bullet in Tsuen Wan. |
| 29/9/19 | Anti-totalitarianism rally turns into conflicts between protestors and the police in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 28/9/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front organizes a rally at Tamar Park to commemorate 5th anniversary of Umbrella Movement. |
| 26/9/19 | Carrie Lam attends the first Community Dialogue session. |
| 22/9/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in Shatin and multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 21/9/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long. |
| 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. |
| 4/9/19 | Carrie Lam announces the formal withdrawal of the extradition bill. |
| 2/9/19 | Secondary and tertiary students boycott class on first day of school. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 12/8/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters hold a demonstration at Hong Kong International Airport. |
| 11/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 10/8/19 | 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. |
| 4/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 3/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 30/7/19 | 44 people are charged with rioting in the conflict in Central and Sheung Wan. |
| 28/7/19 | Protest against police violence on Hong Kong Island turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 27/7/19 | The “Reclaim Yuen Long” march turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 22/7/19 | Men dressed in white indiscriminately attacked citizens in Yuen Long last night. |
| 21/7/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters surround the Liaison Office. |
| 20/7/19 | The pro-establishment camp organizes a “Safeguard Hong Kong” rally at Tamar Park. |
| 14/7/19 | Protest against extradition bill in Shatin turns into a 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. |
| 9/7/19 | Carrie Lam says the extradition bill is “dead”. |
| 7/7/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters rally in Kowloon. |
Data Analysis
Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 20.2 marks. Her net popularity is negative 71 percentage points. Although her popularity has not dropped beyond sampling errors since the Policy Address was delivered, all popularity figures have registered new record lows since she took office and also across all CEs in history. The latest net satisfaction of the HKSAR Government stands at negative 69 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1997. The net trust value is negative 44 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1992. People’s net satisfaction rates with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions are negative 42, negative 57 and negative 85 percentage points respectively. The net satisfaction rates of political and economic conditions have registered historical lows since records began in 1992 and 2003 respectively.
As for the popularity of Legislative Councillors, Claudia Mo, Tanya Chan, Junius Ho, Roy Kwong, Starry Lee and Alvin Yeung are the six councillors that top people’s mind now. In terms of rating, Roy Kwong tops the list with 59.0 marks. Tanya Chan ranks the 2nd with 52.3 marks. Claudia Mo, Starry Lee and Junius Ho followed behind with 48.8, 25.3 and 17.1 marks respectively. Among them, the rating of Starry Lee has dropped significantly compared with the last survey.
As for the PSI, the latest figure is 50.5, further down by 4.3 points from early October, registering an all-time low since record began in 1992.
