2019年11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、施政報告次輪跟進調查結果及民情指數
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
民研計劃於十一月中由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式分別成功訪問了1,008名和519名香港居民。結果顯示，特首林鄭月娥的最新評分為19.7分，民望淨值為負72個百分點，數字與兩星期前分別不大，但民望淨值就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66個百分點，信任淨值為負41個百分點。市民對現時經濟、民生及政治狀況的滿意淨值分別為負37、負52及負79個百分點。施政報告發表一個月後的次輪跟進調查顯示，市民對施政報告的評價與報告發表一兩天後的首輪跟進調查結果相若，滿意率淨值為負66個百分點，滿意度評分則為23.2分，兩者分別再創1997年和1999年有紀錄以來新低。另外，市民對特首施政方針的評價亦與首輪跟進調查時相若，滿意率淨值為負70個百分點，亦再創1998年有紀錄以來新低。民情指數方面，最新數字為54.2，較十一月上旬上升4.0點。兩項調查的實效回應比率分別為74.1%和70.4%。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+/-2.4。
樣本資料
| 特首及政府民望 | 施政報告次輪跟進調查 | ||
| 調查日期 | ： | 15-21/11/2019 | 11-14/11/2019 |
| 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 | ： | 1,008 (包括504個固網及 504個手機號碼樣本) |
519 (包括258個固網及 261個手機號碼樣本) |
| 實效回應比率[1] | ： | 74.1% | 70.4% |
| 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+/-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。
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 | 16-19/9/19 | 30/9-3/10/19 | 16/10/19 | 17-23/10/19 | 1-8/11/19 | 15-21/11/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 1,061 | 1,004 | 745 | 1,038 | 1,016 | 1,008 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 69.5% | 64.5% | 80.0% | 63.2% | 69.4% | 74.1% | -- |
| 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 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 22.7 | 20.2 | 19.5 | 19.7+/-1.8 | +0.2 |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首支持率 | 18% | 15% | 15% | 11%[3] | 11% | 11+/-2% | -1% |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首反對率 | 74% | 80%[3] | 79% | 82% | 82% | 82+/-2% | -- |
| 支持率淨值 | -57% | -65%[3] | -64% | -71% | -71% | -72+/-4% | -1% |
[3] 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 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 17-23/10/19 | 15-21/11/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目[4] | 1,015 | 1,002 | 1,023 | 1,061 | 1,038 | 1,008 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 69.5% | 63.2% | 74.1% | -- |
| 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[5] | 18%[6] | 18% | 14% | 12% | 10% | 11+/-3% | +1% |
| 特區政府表現不滿率[5] | 72%[6] | 70% | 77%[6] | 76% | 79% | 77+/-3% | -2% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -53%[6] | -52% | -63%[6] | -63% | -69% | -66+/-6% | +3% |
| 平均量值[5] | 2.0[6] | 2.0 | 1.8[6] | 1.8 | 1.7[6] | 1.7+/-0.1 | -- |
| 現時經濟狀況滿意率[5] | 31%[6] | 28% | 25% | 19%[6] | 19% | 20+/-3% | -- |
| 現時經濟狀況不滿率[5] | 45% | 47% | 53%[6] | 55% | 61%[6] | 57+/-3% | -4%[6] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -14%[6] | -19% | -29%[6] | -35% | -42%[6] | -37+/-5% | +5% |
| 平均量值[5] | 2.7[6] | 2.6 | 2.5[6] | 2.4[6] | 2.3 | 2.3+/-0.1 | -- |
| 現時民生狀況滿意率[5] | 21%[6] | 21% | 16%[6] | 13% | 14% | 17+/-2% | +3% |
| 現時民生狀況不滿率[5] | 62%[6] | 64% | 69%[6] | 70% | 71% | 69+/-3% | -2% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -41%[6] | -43% | -54%[6] | -57% | -57% | -52+/-5% | +5% |
| 平均量值[5] | 2.3[6] | 2.2 | 2.1[6] | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.1+/-0.1 | +0.1[6] |
| 現時政治狀況滿意率[5] | 7%[6] | 5% | 5% | 3%[6] | 3% | 4+/-1% | +1% |
| 現時政治狀況不滿率[5] | 81%[6] | 87%[6] | 88% | 85% | 88% | 83+/-2% | -5%[6] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -74%[6] | -82%[6] | -83% | -82% | -85% | -79+/-3% | +6%[6] |
| 平均量值[5] | 1.6[6] | 1.5[6] | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5+/-0.1 | +0.1[6] |
[4] 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591。
[5] 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。
[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。
以下是市民對特區政府信任程度的最新結果：
| 調查日期 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 17-23/10/19 | 15-21/11/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 686 | 623 | 555 | 632 | 623 | 607 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 63.2% | 74.1% | -- |
| 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[7] | 36% | 28%[8] | 29% | 27% | 23% | 23+/-3% | -1% |
| 不信任特區政府比率[7] | 50% | 60%[8] | 60% | 64% | 68% | 64+/-4% | -4% |
| 信任淨值 | -14% | -32%[8] | -31% | -37% | -44% | -41+/-7% | +3% |
| 平均量值[7] | 2.7 | 2.4[8] | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.2+/-0.1 | +0.1 |
[7] 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。
[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。
最新調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的評分為19.7分，其支持率為11%，反對率為82%，民望淨值為負72個百分點，全部數字與兩星期前分別不大，但民望淨值就再次創出其上任以來及歷屆特首的新低。
特區政府方面，最新滿意率為11%，不滿率為77%，滿意率淨值為負66個百分點，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64%，信任淨值為負41個百分點，平均量值為2.2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20%、17%及4%，而滿意淨值就分別為負37、負52及負79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2.1，即整體上接近「幾不滿」；政治狀況的平均量值為1.5，即整體上介乎「幾不滿」及「好不滿」之間。
施政報告次輪跟進調查
以下是2017至2019年施政報告的次輪跟進調查結果，與同年即時調查和首輪跟進調查結果並列：
| 即時調查[9] | 首輪跟進調查 | 次輪跟進調查 | 變化 | |
| 2019年度 | ||||
| 調查日期 | 16/10/19 | 17-18/10/19 | 11-14/11/19 | -- |
| 樣本數目 | 679 | 512 | 519 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 80.0% | 63.7% | 70.4% | -- |
| 施政報告：滿意率[10] | 17% | 11%[11] | 9+/-3% | -2% |
| 施政報告：不滿率[10] | 65% | 73%[11] | 75+/-4% | +2% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -47% | -62%[11] | -66+/-6% | -4% |
| 平均量值[10] | 2.0 | 1.8[11] | 1.7+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| 施政報告滿意度評分 | 29.7 | 23.3[11] | 23.2+/-2.4 | -0.1 |
| 施政方針：滿意率[10] | -- | 11% | 9+/-3% | -2% |
| 施政方針：不滿率[10] | -- | 78% | 79+/-4% | +1% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -- | -67% | -70+/-5% | -3% |
| 平均量值[10] | -- | 1.7 | 1.7+/-0.1 | -- |
| 2018年度 | ||||
| 調查日期 | 10/10/18 | 11-12/10/18 | 22-24/10/18 | -- |
| 樣本數目 | 534 | 503 | 1,006 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 65.9% | 65.3% | 63.4% | -- |
| 施政報告：滿意率[10] | 33% | 32% | 30% | -2% |
| 施政報告：不滿率[10] | 34% | 33% | 39% | +6%[11] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -1% | -1% | -9% | -8% |
| 平均量值[10] | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.8 | -0.1 |
| 施政報告滿意度評分 | 48.5 | 50.5 | 49.7 | -0.8 |
| 施政方針：滿意率[10] | -- | 42% | 39% | -3% |
| 施政方針：不滿率[10] | -- | 35% | 36% | +1% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -- | 7% | 2% | -5% |
| 平均量值[10] | -- | 3.0 | 2.9 | -- |
| 2017年度 | ||||
| 調查日期 | 11/10/17 | 12-13/10/17 | 6-7/11/17 | -- |
| 樣本數目 | 526 | 508 | 501 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 63.5% | 60.8% | 59.5% | -- |
| 施政報告：滿意率[10] | 48% | 43%[11] | 39% | -4% |
| 施政報告：不滿率[10] | 14% | 24%[11] | 32% | +8%[11] |
| 滿意率淨值 | 34% | 18%[11] | 7% | -11%[11] |
| 平均量值[10] | 3.5 | 3.3[11] | 3.0 | -0.3[11] |
| 施政報告滿意度評分 | 62.4 | 60.6 | 54.2 | -6.4[11] |
| 施政方針：滿意率[10] | -- | 50% | 41% | -9%[11] |
| 施政方針：不滿率[10] | -- | 22% | 30% | +8%[11] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -- | 28% | 12% | -16%[11] |
| 平均量值[10] | -- | 3.4 | 3.1 | -0.3[11] |
[9] 即時調查的題目會撇除未聞／不知道施政報告內容的被訪者，表內數字已是次樣本數目。
[10] 數字採自五等量尺。平均量值是把答案按照正面程度，以1分最低5分最高量化成為1、2、3、4、5分，再求取樣本平均數值。
[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。
施政報告發表一個月後的次輪跟進調查顯示，9%對施政報告表示滿意，75%表示不滿，滿意率淨值為負66個百分點，平均量值為1.7，即整體上介乎「幾不滿／唔係幾滿意」及「非常不滿」之間，滿意度評分則為23.2分，全部數字與首輪跟進調查時相若，但滿意率淨值及評分就分別再創1997年和1999年有紀錄以來新低。
調查亦顯示，9%被訪市民滿意林鄭月娥的施政方針，而表示不滿的，則佔79%，滿意率淨值為負70個百分點，全部數字同樣與首輪跟進調查時相若，亦再創1998年有紀錄以來新低，而平均量值為1.7，即整體上介乎「幾不滿／唔係幾滿意」及「非常不滿」之間。
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：54.2 (+4.0) | 政評數值：51.1 (+1.7) | 社評數值：59.7 (+5.5) |
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 | 4/9/19 | 19/9/19 | 3/10/19 | 23/10/19 | 8/11/19 | 21/11/19 | 最新變化 |
| 民情指數 | 58.5 | 55.9 | 54.7 | 50.5 | 50.2 | 54.2 | +4.0 |
| 政評數值 | 57.3 | 57.3 | 55.1 | 49.9 | 49.4 | 51.1 | +1.7 |
| 特首評分 | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 20.2 | 19.5 | 19.7 | +0.2 |
| 特首民望淨值 | -55% | -57% | -65% | -71% | -71% | -72% | -1% |
| 政府滿意程度平均量值 | 1.8[13] | 1.8 | 1.8[13] | 1.7 | 1.7[13] | 1.7 | -- |
| 政府信任程度平均量值 | 2.2[13] | 2.2[13] | 2.2[13] | 2.1 | 2.1[13] | 2.2 | +0.1 |
| 社評數值 | 61.1[13] | 56.6 | 56.6[13] | 54.2 | 54.2[13] | 59.7 | +5.5 |
| 政治狀況滿意程度 | 1.4[13] | 1.4 | 1.4[13] | 1.4 | 1.4[13] | 1.5 | +0.1 |
| 政治狀況成份指標權數 | 0.32[13] | 0.32[13] | 0.32[13] | 0.32[13] | 0.32[13] | 0.32[13] | -- |
| 經濟狀況滿意程度 | 2.5[13] | 2.4 | 2.4[13] | 2.3 | 2.3[13] | 2.3 | -- |
| 經濟狀況成份指標權數 | 0.34[13] | 0.34[13] | 0.34[13] | 0.34[13] | 0.34[13] | 0.34[13] | -- |
| 民生狀況滿意程度 | 2.1[13] | 2.0 | 2.0[13] | 2.0 | 2.0[13] | 2.1 | +0.1 |
| 民生狀況成份指標權數 | 0.35[13] | 0.35[13] | 0.35[13] | 0.35[13] | 0.35[13] | 0.35[13] | -- |
[12] 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 | |||
民情指數較十一月上旬上升4.0點至54.2，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上升1.7點至51.1，而反映市民對整體社會狀況評價的社評數值則上升5.5點至59.7。兩者均可以視為過去逾二十年來最差的1個百分比。
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17-18/10/2019，而今次調查日期則為15-21/11/2019，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：
| 20/11/19 | 美國參議院通過《香港人權與民主法案》 |
| 19/11/19 | 警察繼續圍堵理工大學 |
| 19/11/19 | 《禁蒙面法》被裁定違憲 |
| 18/11/19 | 警察繼續圍堵理工大學 |
| 17/11/19 | 警察圍堵理工大學並與示威者激烈衝突 |
| 16/11/19 | 解放軍出動清理路障 |
| 15/11/19 | 示威者於理工大學留守 |
| 14/11/19 | 習近平就香港局勢表態 |
| 13/11/19 | 衝突持續，教育局宣布將停課 |
| 12/11/19 | 中文大學出現激烈警民衝突 |
| 11/11/19 | 交通警於西灣河開三槍擊中示威者 |
| 10/11/19 | 全港多區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 8/11/19 | 將軍澳墮樓科大學生不治 |
| 6/11/19 | 國務院副總理韓正會見林鄭月娥 |
| 6/11/19 | 何君堯被持刀襲擊 |
| 2/11/19 | 香港島發生示威衝突 |
| 1/11/19 | 第十九屆四中全會新聞發布會舉行 |
| 29/10/19 | 黃之鋒被裁定區議會選舉提名無效 |
| 28/10/19 | 記者於警方記者會抗議警察對記者使用暴力 |
| 25/10/19 | 高等法院頒發臨時禁制令禁止非法發布警員及其家屬的個人資料 |
| 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 |
數據分析
在區議會選舉前進行的最新調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的評分為19.7分，民望淨值為負72個百分點，數字與兩星期前分別不大，但民望淨值就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66個百分點，信任淨值為負41個百分點。市民對現時經濟、民生及政治狀況的滿意淨值分別為負37、負52及負79個百分點。
施政報告發表一個月後的次輪跟進調查顯示，市民對施政報告的評價與報告發表一兩天後的首輪跟進調查結果相若，滿意率淨值為負66個百分點，滿意度評分則為23.2分，兩者分別再創1997年和1999年有紀錄以來新低。另外，市民對特首施政方針的評價亦與首輪跟進調查時相若，滿意率淨值為負70個百分點，亦再創1998年有紀錄以來新低。
民情指數方面，最新數字為54.2，較十一月上旬上升4.0點。
Nov 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,
Policy Address second follow-up survey 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 1,008 and 519 Hong Kong residents by random telephone surveys conducted by real interviewers in mid-November. Results show that the latest popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 19.7 marks. Her net popularity is negative 72 percentage points. Her popularity figures have not changed much from two weeks ago. However, her net popularity has again registered a new record low since she took office and across all CEs in history. The latest net satisfaction of the HKSAR Government stands at negative 66 percentage points. The net trust value is negative 41 percentage points. People’s net satisfaction rates with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions are negative 37, negative 52 and negative 79 percentage points respectively. The second follow-up survey conducted a month after the Policy Address was delivered shows that people’s appraisal toward the Policy Address is similar to the results of the first follow-up survey conducted a day or two after it was delivered. The net satisfaction rate is negative 66 percentage points while the satisfaction rating is 23.2 marks, both at their lowest since records began in 1997 and 1999 respectively. Meanwhile, people’s appraisal toward CE’s policy direction is also similar to the results of the first follow-up survey that the net satisfaction rate is negative 70 percentage points, again the lowest since record began in 1998. As for the PSI, the latest figure is 54.2, up by 4.0 points from early November. The effective response rates of both surveys are 74.1% and 70.4% respectively. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-7% and that of ratings is +/-2.4 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Popularity of CE and the Government |
Policy Address Second Follow-up Survey |
||
| Date of survey | : | 15-21/11/2019 | 11-14/11/2019 |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers | |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above | |
| Sample size | : | 1,008 (including 504 landline and 504 mobile samples) |
519 (including 258 landline and 261 mobile samples) |
| Effective response rate[1] | : | 74.1% | 70.4% |
| 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 +/-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.
Popularity of CE and the Government
Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 16-19/9/19 | 30/9-3/10/19 | 16/10/19 | 17-23/10/19 | 1-8/11/19 | 15-21/11/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 1,061 | 1,004 | 745 | 1,038 | 1,016 | 1,008 | -- |
| Response rate | 69.5% | 64.5% | 80.0% | 63.2% | 69.4% | 74.1% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Rating of CE Carrie Lam | 24.9 | 22.3 | 22.7 | 20.2 | 19.5 | 19.7+/-1.8 | +0.2 |
| Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 18% | 15% | 15% | 11%[3] | 11% | 11+/-2% | -1% |
| Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 74% | 80%[3] | 79% | 82% | 82% | 82+/-2% | -- |
| Net approval rate | -57% | -65%[3] | -64% | -71% | -71% | -72+/-4% | -1% |
[3] 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 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 17-23/10/19 | 15-21/11/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size[4] | 1,015 | 1,002 | 1,023 | 1,061 | 1,038 | 1,008 | -- |
| Response rate | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 69.5% | 63.2% | 74.1% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Satisfaction rate of SARG performance[5] | 18%[6] | 18% | 14% | 12% | 10% | 11+/-3% | +1% |
| Dissatisfaction rate of SARG performance[5] | 72%[6] | 70% | 77%[6] | 76% | 79% | 77+/-3% | -2% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -53%[6] | -52% | -63%[6] | -63% | -69% | -66+/-6% | +3% |
| Mean value[5] | 2.0[6] | 2.0 | 1.8[6] | 1.8 | 1.7[6] | 1.7+/-0.1 | -- |
| Current economic condition: Satisfaction rate[5] |
31%[6] | 28% | 25% | 19%[6] | 19% | 20+/-3% | -- |
| Current economic condition: Dissatisfaction rate[5] |
45% | 47% | 53%[6] | 55% | 61%[6] | 57+/-3% | -4%[6] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -14%[6] | -19% | -29%[6] | -35% | -42%[6] | -37+/-5% | +5% |
| Mean value[5] | 2.7[6] | 2.6 | 2.5[6] | 2.4[6] | 2.3 | 2.3+/-0.1 | -- |
| Current livelihood condition: Satisfaction rate[5] |
21%[6] | 21% | 16%[6] | 13% | 14% | 17+/-2% | +3% |
| Current livelihood condition: Dissatisfaction rate[5] |
62%[6] | 64% | 69%[6] | 70% | 71% | 69+/-3% | -2% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -41%[6] | -43% | -54%[6] | -57% | -57% | -52+/-5% | +5% |
| Mean value[5] | 2.3[6] | 2.2 | 2.1[6] | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.1+/-0.1 | +0.1[6] |
| Current political condition: Satisfaction rate[5] |
7%[6] | 5% | 5% | 3%[6] | 3% | 4+/-1% | +1% |
| Current political condition: Dissatisfaction rate[5] |
81%[6] | 87%[6] | 88% | 85% | 88% | 83+/-2% | -5%[6] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -74%[6] | -82%[6] | -83% | -82% | -85% | -79+/-3% | +6%[6] |
| Mean value[5] | 1.6[6] | 1.5[6] | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5+/-0.1 | +0.1[6] |
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Recent figures regarding people’s trust in the HKSAR Government are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 17-23/10/19 | 15-21/11/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 686 | 623 | 555 | 632 | 623 | 607 | -- |
| Response rate | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 63.2% | 74.1% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Trust in HKSAR Government[7] | 36% | 28%[8] | 29% | 27% | 23% | 23+/-3% | -1% |
| Distrust in HKSAR Government[7] | 50% | 60%[8] | 60% | 64% | 68% | 64+/-4% | -4% |
| Net trust | -14% | -32%[8] | -31% | -37% | -44% | -41+/-7% | +3% |
| Mean value[7] | 2.7 | 2.4[8] | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.2+/-0.1 | +0.1 |
[7] 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.
[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.
Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 19.7 marks. Her approval rate is 11%, disapproval rate 82%, giving a net popularity of negative 72 percentage points. All popularity figures have not changed much from two weeks ago. However, her net popularity has again registered a new record low since she took office and across all CEs in history.
Regarding the HKSAR Government, the latest satisfaction rate is 11%, whereas 77% were dissatisfied, thus net satisfaction stands at negative 66 percentage points. 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, 64% expressed distrust. The net trust value is negative 41 percentage points. The mean score is 2.2, 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 20%, 17% and 4% respectively, while the net satisfaction rates are negative 37, negative 52 and negative 79 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 2.1, meaning close to “quite dissatisfied” in general; that of political condition is 1.5, meaning between “quite dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general.
Policy Address Second Follow-up Survey
Results of the Policy Address second follow-up surveys of 2017 to 2019 together with their corresponding instant polls and first follow-up surveys are tabulated below:
| Instant poll[9] | First follow-up survey |
Second follow-up survey |
Change | |
| 2019 | ||||
| Date of survey | 16/10/19 | 17-18/10/19 | 11-14/11/19 | -- |
| Sample size | 679 | 512 | 519 | -- |
| Response rate | 80.0% | 63.7% | 70.4% | -- |
| Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[10] | 17% | 11%[11] | 9+/-3% | -2% |
| Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[10] | 65% | 73%[11] | 75+/-4% | +2% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -47% | -62%[11] | -66+/-6% | -4% |
| Mean value[10] | 2.0 | 1.8[11] | 1.7+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| Satisfaction rating of Policy Address | 29.7 | 23.3[11] | 23.2+/-2.4 | -0.1 |
| Policy direction: Satisfaction rate[10] | -- | 11% | 9+/-3% | -2% |
| Policy direction: Dissatisfaction rate[10] | -- | 78% | 79+/-4% | +1% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -- | -67% | -70+/-5% | -3% |
| Mean value[10] | -- | 1.7 | 1.7+/-0.1 | -- |
| 2018 | ||||
| Date of survey | 10/10/18 | 11-12/10/18 | 22-24/10/18 | -- |
| Sample size | 534 | 503 | 1,006 | -- |
| Response rate | 65.9% | 65.3% | 63.4% | -- |
| Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[10] | 33% | 32% | 30% | -2% |
| Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[10] | 34% | 33% | 39% | +6%[11] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -1% | -1% | -9% | -8% |
| Mean value[10] | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.8 | -0.1 |
| Satisfaction rating of Policy Address | 48.5 | 50.5 | 49.7 | -0.8 |
| Policy direction: Satisfaction rate[10] | -- | 42% | 39% | -3% |
| Policy direction: Dissatisfaction rate[10] | -- | 35% | 36% | +1% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -- | 7% | 2% | -5% |
| Mean value[10] | -- | 3.0 | 2.9 | -- |
| 2017 | ||||
| Date of survey | 11/10/17 | 12-13/10/17 | 6-7/11/17 | -- |
| Sample size | 526 | 508 | 501 | -- |
| Response rate | 63.5% | 60.8% | 59.5% | -- |
| Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[10] | 48% | 43%[11] | 39% | -4% |
| Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[10] | 14% | 24%[11] | 32% | +8%[11] |
| Net satisfaction rate | 34% | 18%[11] | 7% | -11%[11] |
| Mean value[10] | 3.5 | 3.3[11] | 3.0 | -0.3[11] |
| Satisfaction rating of Policy Address | 62.4 | 60.6 | 54.2 | -6.4[11] |
| Policy direction: Satisfaction rate[10] | -- | 50% | 41% | -9%[11] |
| Policy direction: Dissatisfaction rate[10] | -- | 22% | 30% | +8%[11] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -- | 28% | 12% | -16%[11] |
| Mean value[10] | -- | 3.4 | 3.1 | -0.3[11] |
[9] Questions in instant surveys would exclude respondents who had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Figures in the table are subsample sizes.
[10] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[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.
The second follow-up survey conducted a month after the Policy Address was delivered shows that 9% were satisfied with the Policy Address and 75% were dissatisfied, thus a net satisfaction rate of negative 66 percentage points. The mean value was 1.7, meaning in between “quite dissatisfied / not quite satisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. The satisfaction rating was 23.2 marks. All figures are similar to the results of the first follow-up survey, though the net satisfaction rate and the rating are again at their lowest since records began in 1997 and 1999 respectively.
The survey also shows that 9% were satisfied with Carrie Lam’s policy direction, while 79% expressed dissatisfaction, thus a net satisfaction rate of negative 70 percentage points. All figures are again similar to the results of the first follow-up survey and also at the lowest since record began in 1998. The mean value was 1.7, meaning in between “quite dissatisfied / not quite satisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general.
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): 54.2 (+4.0) |
Government Appraisal (GA): 51.1 (+1.7) |
Society Appraisal (SA): 59.7 (+5.5) |
Recent values of PSI, GA, SA and 10 fundamental figures are tabulated as follows:
| Cut-off date | 4/9/19 | 19/9/19 | 3/10/19 | 23/10/19 | 8/11/19 | 21/11/19 | Latest change |
| Public Sentiment Index (PSI) | 58.5 | 55.9 | 54.7 | 50.5 | 50.2 | 54.2 | +4.0 |
| Government Appraisal (GA) | 57.3 | 57.3 | 55.1 | 49.9 | 49.4 | 51.1 | +1.7 |
| Rating of CE | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 20.2 | 19.5 | 19.7 | +0.2 |
| Net approval rate of CE | -55% | -57% | -65% | -71% | -71% | -72% | -1% |
| Mean value of people’s satisfaction with SARG | 1.8[13] | 1.8 | 1.8[13] | 1.7 | 1.7[13] | 1.7 | -- |
| Mean value of people’s trust in SARG | 2.2[13] | 2.2[13] | 2.2[13] | 2.1 | 2.1[13] | 2.2 | +0.1 |
| Society Appraisal (SA) | 61.1[13] | 56.6 | 56.6[13] | 54.2 | 54.2[13] | 59.7 | +5.5 |
| People’s satisfaction with political condition | 1.4[13] | 1.4 | 1.4[13] | 1.4 | 1.4[13] | 1.5 | +0.1 |
| Weighting index of political condition | 0.32[13] | 0.32[13] | 0.32[13] | 0.32[13] | 0.32[13] | 0.32[13] | -- |
| People’s satisfaction with economic condition | 2.5[13] | 2.4 | 2.4[13] | 2.3 | 2.3[13] | 2.3 | -- |
| Weighting index of economic condition | 0.34[13] | 0.34[13] | 0.34[13] | 0.34[13] | 0.34[13] | 0.34[13] | -- |
| People’s satisfaction with livelihood condition | 2.1[13] | 2.0 | 2.0[13] | 2.0 | 2.0[13] | 2.1 | +0.1 |
| Weighting index of livelihood condition | 0.35[13] | 0.35[13] | 0.35[13] | 0.35[13] | 0.35[13] | 0.35[13] | -- |
[12] 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 54.2, up by 4.0 points from early November. 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 increases by 1.7 points to 51.1, whereas the Society Appraisal (SA) Score that reflects people’s appraisal of the social environment increases by 5.5 points to 59.7. They can both be considered as among the worst 1%.
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 17 to 18 October, 2019 while this survey was conducted from 15 to 21 November, 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:
| 20/11/19 | The US Senate passes the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. |
| 19/11/19 | The police continue to surround the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. |
| 19/11/19 | The anti-mask law is ruled to be unconstitutional. |
| 18/11/19 | The police continue to surround the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. |
| 17/11/19 | The police surround the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and clash violently with protesters. |
| 16/11/19 | The People’s Liberation Army clears roadblocks. |
| 15/11/19 | Protesters stay in the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. |
| 14/11/19 | Xi Jinping expresses his views on Hong Kong. |
| 13/11/19 | The Education Bureau announces that classes will be suspended as conflicts continue. |
| 12/11/19 | Violent conflicts between protestors and the police occur in the Chinese University of Hong Kong. |
| 11/11/19 | A traffic policeman fires three live rounds at a protester. |
| 10/11/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 8/11/19 | HKUST student who fell from height in Tseung Kwan O passes away. |
| 6/11/19 | Vice Premier of the State Council Han Zheng meets with Carrie Lam. |
| 6/11/19 | Junius Ho is attacked with a knife. |
| 2/11/19 | Protests and conflicts break out on Hong Kong Island. |
| 1/11/19 | The press conference on the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Communist Party of China Central Committee is held. |
| 29/10/19 | Nomination of Joshua Wong for District Council election is ruled to be invalid. |
| 28/10/19 | Journalists protest against police violence targeting journalists during police press conference. |
| 25/10/19 | The High Court grants an interim injunction to restrain unlawful publishing of the personal data of police officers and their family members. |
| 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. |
Data Analysis
Our latest survey conducted before the District Council Election shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 19.7 marks. Her net popularity is negative 72 percentage points. Her popularity figures have not changed much from two weeks ago. However, her net popularity has again registered a new record low since she took office and across all CEs in history. The latest net satisfaction of the HKSAR Government stands at negative 66 percentage points. The net trust value is negative 41 percentage points. People’s net satisfaction rates with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions are negative 37, negative 52 and negative 79 percentage points respectively.
The second follow-up survey conducted a month after the Policy Address was delivered shows that people’s appraisal toward the Policy Address is similar to the results of the first follow-up survey conducted a day or two after it was delivered. The net satisfaction rate is negative 66 percentage points while the satisfaction rating is 23.2 marks, both at their lowest since records began in 1997 and 1999 respectively. Meanwhile, people’s appraisal toward CE’s policy direction is also similar to the results of the first follow-up survey that the net satisfaction rate is negative 70 percentage points, again the lowest since record began in 1998.
As for the PSI, the latest figure is 54.2, up by 4.0 points from early November.
