2019年7月16日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會回顧
香港民意研究計劃發放第一次民意調查結果
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「香港民研」指的可以是香港民研或其前身港大民研。
公報簡要
香港民研於七月初由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式成功訪問了1,025名香港居民。調查的實效回應比率為67.4%。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+/-8%，評分誤差不超過+/-3.4。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 2-8/7/2019[5] |
| 調查方法 | ： | 由真實訪問員進行隨機抽樣電話訪問 |
| 訪問對象 | ： | 18歲或以上操粵語的香港居民 |
| 成功樣本數目[1] | ： | 1,025 (包括519個固網及506個手機號碼樣本)[5] |
| 實效回應比率[2] | ： | 67.4%[5] |
| 抽樣誤差[3] | ： | 在95%置信水平下，百分比誤差不超過+/-4%，淨值誤差不超過+/-8%，評分誤差不超過+/-3.4 |
| 加權方法[4] | ： | 按照政府統計處提供的統計數字以「反覆多重加權法」作出調整。全港人口年齡及性別分佈統計數字來自《二零一八年年中人口數字》，而教育程度（最高就讀程度）及經濟活動身分統計數字則來自《香港的女性及男性 - 主要統計數字》（2018年版）。 |
[1] 調查的固網及手機樣本比例於2018年4月更新為二比一，2019年7月再更新為一比一。
[2] 香港民研在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，香港民研再調整實效回應比率的計算方法，因此改變前後的回應比率不能直接比較。
[3] 此公報中所有誤差數字均以95%置信水平計算。95%置信水平，是指倘若以不同隨機樣本重複進行有關調查100次，則95次各自計算出的誤差範圍會包含人口真實數字。由於調查數字涉及抽樣誤差，傳媒引用百分比數字時，應避免使用小數點，在引用評分數字時，則可以使用一個小數點。
[4] 過往，手機樣本會按照固網樣本中民情指數的基礎數據進行調整，再作統計，但由2018年7月起，香港民研再微調加權方法，不再將固網樣本及手機樣本分開處理，手機樣本亦不再按照固網樣本中民情指數的基礎數據作調整，整體效果是手機樣本的重要性略為提升。
[5] 立法會議員提名階段調查日期為2-4/7/2019，成功樣本數目為511 (包括259個固網及252個手機號碼樣本)，實效回應比率為6%。立法會議員評分階段調查日期為5-8/7/2019，成功樣本數目為514 (包括260個固網及254個手機號碼樣本)，實效回應比率為69.1%。
特首及問責官員民望
最新數據
在促進學術研究和理性討論的基礎上，香港民研稍後會在其網站（https://wp.pori.hk）發放特首林鄭月娥的最新民望評分及相關人口變項的原始數據，連同早前已發放包括前特首董建華、曾蔭權及梁振英的定期特首民望評分相關原始數據供各界考證。惟請用家使用及引用有關數據時，按照學術慣例註明出處。
以下是特首林鄭月娥的最新民望數字：
| 調查日期 | 23-25/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 1,031 | 1,018 | 1,013 | 1,006 | 1,015 | 1,025 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 66.1% | 63.2% | 61.9% | 60.4% | 58.7% | 67.4% | -- |
| 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 | 49.0 | 44.3[6] | 44.7 | 43.3 | 32.8[6] | 33.4+/-2.1 | +0.5 |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首支持率 | 36% | 32%[6] | 32% | 32% | 23%[6] | 26+/-3% | +3% |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首反對率 | 49% | 56%[6] | 59% | 57% | 67%[6] | 66+/-3% | -1% |
| 支持率淨值 | -13% | -24%[6] | -27% | -24% | -44%[6] | -40+/-5% | +4% |
[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。
以下是各問責司長的最新民望數字：
| 調查日期 | 27/2/19 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 8-11/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目[7] | 621 | 591-680 | 634-673 | 592-642 | 553-616 | 583-641 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 78.2% | 72.2% | 63.9% | 63.2% | 60.4% | 67.4% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 政務司司長張建宗評分 | -- | 47.7 | 45.9 | 43.5 | 43.2 | 38.0+/-2.4 | -5.3[8] |
| 張建宗出任政務司司長支持率 | -- | 26% | 25% | 23% | 29%[8] | 26+/-4% | -3% |
| 張建宗出任政務司司長反對率 | -- | 28% | 27% | 29% | 32% | 38+/-4% | +7%[8] |
| 支持率淨值 | -- | -1% | -2% | -6% | -2% | -12+/-7% | -9%[8] |
| 財政司司長陳茂波評分 | 40.5 | 39.7 | 38.2 | 34.2[8] | 36.1 | 29.5+/-2.2 | -6.5[8] |
| 陳茂波出任財政司司長支持率 | 19% | 21% | 18% | 16% | 19% | 17+/-3% | -2% |
| 陳茂波出任財政司司長反對率 | 49% | 52% | 53% | 51% | 47% | 57+/-4% | +10%[8] |
| 支持率淨值 | -31% | -30% | -35% | -35% | -28% | -40+/-6% | -12%[8] |
| 律政司司長鄭若驊評分 | -- | 34.4 | 34.2 | 29.5[8] | 29.5 | 21.6+/-2.2 | -7.9[8] |
| 鄭若驊出任律政司司長支持率 | -- | 14% | 17% | 11%[8] | 16%[8] | 10+/-3% | -5%[8] |
| 鄭若驊出任律政司司長反對率 | -- | 53% | 46%[8] | 52%[8] | 56% | 68+/-4% | +12%[8] |
| 支持率淨值 | -- | -40% | -30%[8] | -41%[8] | -40% | -58+/-6% | -18%[8] |
[7] 此系列題目與特首民望調查的調查頻率不一樣，同步變化應以同步週期的數字比較。27/2/2019的調查為財政預算案即時調查，只問及財政司司長評分及支持率。
[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。
以下是各問責局長的最新民望數字，按支持率淨值倒序排列[9]：
| 調查日期 | 8-11/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目[10] | 558-619 | 581-635 | 565-638 | 601-643 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 63.9% | 63.2% | 60.4% | 67.4% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 陳肇始出任食物及衛生局局長支持率 | 48% | 48% | 50% | 45+/-4% | -4% |
| 陳肇始出任食物及衛生局局長反對率 | 13% | 13% | 12% | 14+/-3% | +2% |
| 支持率淨值 | 36% | 35% | 38% | 32+/-6% | -6% |
| 邱騰華出任商務及經濟發展局局長支持率 | 44% | 42% | 39% | 42+/-4% | +3% |
| 邱騰華出任商務及經濟發展局局長反對率 | 11% | 15% | 13% | 13+/-3% | +1% |
| 支持率淨值 | 32% | 27% | 26% | 29+/-6% | +3% |
| 黃錦星出任環境局局長支持率 | 38% | 33%[11] | 38%[11] | 38+/-4% | -- |
| 黃錦星出任環境局局長反對率 | 21% | 22% | 20% | 20+/-3% | -1% |
| 支持率淨值 | 17% | 10% | 18% | 18+/-6% | +1% |
| 羅致光出任勞工及福利局局長支持率 | 39% | 32%[11] | 38%[11] | 38+/-4% | +1% |
| 羅致光出任勞工及福利局局長反對率 | 22% | 28%[11] | 23%[11] | 21+/-3% | -2% |
| 支持率淨值 | 17% | 4%[11] | 15%[11] | 17+/-6% | +2% |
| 羅智光出任公務員事務局局長支持率 | 34% | 34% | 31% | 35+/-4% | +4% |
| 羅智光出任公務員事務局局長反對率 | 11% | 13% | 19%[11] | 19+/-3% | -- |
| 支持率淨值 | 23% | 20% | 12%[11] | 16+/-6% | +5% |
| 劉怡翔出任財經事務及庫務局局長支持率 | 25% | 23% | 24% | 22+/-3% | -3% |
| 劉怡翔出任財經事務及庫務局局長反對率 | 8% | 9% | 10% | 14+/-3% | +4%[11] |
| 支持率淨值 | 17% | 14% | 15% | 8+/-5% | -7%[11] |
| 黃偉綸出任發展局局長支持率 | 25% | 23% | 26% | 23+/-3% | -3% |
| 黃偉綸出任發展局局長反對率 | 15% | 15% | 14% | 18+/-3% | +4%[11] |
| 支持率淨值 | 9% | 9% | 13% | 5+/-5% | -8%[11] |
| 楊偉雄出任創新及科技局局長支持率 | 24% | 22% | 23% | 25+/-4% | +3% |
| 楊偉雄出任創新及科技局局長反對率 | 24% | 29%[11] | 24%[11] | 27+/-4% | +4% |
| 支持率淨值 | 0% | -7% | -1% | -2+/-6% | -1% |
| 聶德權出任政制及內地事務局局長支持率 | 21% | 21% | 20% | 19+/-3% | -1% |
| 聶德權出任政制及內地事務局局長反對率 | 17% | 21% | 22% | 30+/-4% | +8%[11] |
| 支持率淨值 | 4% | 0% | -2% | -11+/-6% | -9%[11] |
| 陳帆出任運輸及房屋局局長支持率 | 24% | 24% | 26% | 24+/-3% | -2% |
| 陳帆出任運輸及房屋局局長反對率 | 36% | 40% | 34%[11] | 38+/-4% | +4% |
| 支持率淨值 | -12% | -16% | -8% | -14+/-6% | -6% |
| 楊潤雄出任教育局局長支持率 | 25% | 21% | 24% | 20+/-3% | -4% |
| 楊潤雄出任教育局局長反對率 | 36% | 38% | 32%[11] | 46+/-4% | +15%[11] |
| 支持率淨值 | -11% | -18% | -7%[11] | -26+/-6% | -19%[11] |
| 劉江華出任民政事務局局長支持率 | 24% | 22% | 22% | 21+/-3% | -1% |
| 劉江華出任民政事務局局長反對率 | 35% | 42%[11] | 40% | 49+/-4% | +8%[11] |
| 支持率淨值 | -11% | -20% | -18% | -28+/-6% | -10%[11] |
| 李家超出任保安局局長支持率 | 31% | 29% | 27% | 21+/-3% | -5%[11] |
| 李家超出任保安局局長反對率 | 30%[11] | 34% | 40%[11] | 59+/-4% | +19%[11] |
| 支持率淨值 | 2%[11] | -5% | -13% | -38+/-7% | -25%[11] |
[9] 如四捨五入後的數字相同，則會再考慮小數點後的數字。
[10] 此系列題目與特首民望調查的調查頻率不一樣，同步變化應以同步週期的數字比較。
[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。
最新調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥得33.4分，表示支持其出任特首的被訪者，為數26%，支持率淨值為負40個百分點。司長方面，市民對政務司司長張建宗、財政司司長陳茂波及律政司司長鄭若驊的評分依次為38.0、29.5及21.6分，而支持他們續任的市民則分別有26%、17%及10%，支持率淨值分別為負12、負40及負58個百分點。
局長方面，按支持率淨值排名首位的是食物及衛生局局長陳肇始，支持率淨值為正32個百分點；商務及經濟發展局局長邱騰華排名第二，支持率淨值為正29個百分點；排名第三至第十三位的分別是環境局局長黃錦星、勞工及福利局局長羅致光、公務員事務局局長羅智光、財經事務及庫務局局長劉怡翔、發展局局長黃偉綸、創新及科技局局長楊偉雄、政制及內地事務局局長聶德權、運輸及房屋局局長陳帆、教育局局長楊潤雄、民政事務局局長劉江華及保安局局長李家超，支持率淨值分別為正18、正17、正16、正8、正5、負2、負11、負14、負26、負28和負38個百分點。換言之，沒有局長的支持率淨值超過五成。
民意日誌
香港民研於2007年開始與慧科訊業有限公司合作，由慧科訊業按照香港民研設計的分析方法，將每日大事紀錄傳送至香港民研，經香港民研核實後隨即上載到「民意日誌」。
由於本新聞公報所涉及的調查項目，其中一些項目的上次調查日期為3-6/6/2019，而今次調查日期則為2-8/7/2019，因此是次公報中的「民意日誌」項目便以上述日期為依歸，讓讀者作出比較。以涵蓋率不下25%本地報章每日頭條新聞和報社評論計，在上述期間發生的相關大事包括以下事件，讀者可以自行判斷有關事件有否影響各項民調數字，又或參閱「民意日誌」內所有大事紀錄後，再作判斷：
| 7/7/19 | 反修例示威者於九龍區遊行 |
| 1/7/19 | 反修例示威者佔領立法會 |
| 30/6/19 | 何君堯及香港政研會發起撐警集會 |
| 28/6/19 | 二十國集團領導人峰會於日本舉行 |
| 24/6/19 | 反修例示威者堵塞稅務大樓及入境事務大樓 |
| 21/6/19 | 反修例示威者包圍警察總部及多幢政府大樓 |
| 18/6/19 | 林鄭月娥就《逃犯條例》爭議向市民道歉 |
| 17/6/19 | 警務處長盧偉聰指沒有說整個6月12日的衝突事件是暴動 |
| 16/6/19 | 民間人權陣線指約200萬人參與反修例遊行 |
| 15/6/19 | 林鄭月娥宣佈暫緩修訂《逃犯條例》 |
| 14/6/19 | 多名行政會議成員建議暫緩修訂《逃犯條例》 |
| 12/6/19 | 反修例集會演變成警民衝突，警方使用催淚彈、布袋彈和橡膠子彈 |
| 11/6/19 | 《逃犯條例》明日將恢復二讀，示威者計劃包圍立法會 |
| 9/6/19 | 民間人權陣線指約103萬人參與反修例遊行 |
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、鄺俊宇、楊岳橋、李慧琼、葉劉淑儀及梁美芬，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，認知度最低的立法會議員再被剔除，之後再按五名立法會議員所得的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[12]：
| 調查日期 | 3-5/7/18 | 1-6/11/18 | 14-19/3/19 | 5-8/7/19 | 最新變化 | |
| 樣本數目 | 525-575 | 520-555 | 582-697 | 514 | -- | |
| 回應比率 | 49.5% | 58.9% | 73.1% | 69.1% | -- | |
| 最新結果[13] | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | 認知率 | -- |
| 楊岳橋 | 52.2[15] | 52.2[15] | 49.4[15] | 57.4+/-3.2{1} | 82.3% | +8.0[14] |
| 毛孟靜 | 48.2{6} | 45.3{6} | 44.5{7} | 47.4+/-3.1{2} | 95.5% | +2.9 |
| 李慧琼 | 45.9{7} | 43.1{8} | 43.4{8} | 33.5+/-2.9{3} | 93.6% | -9.9[14] |
| 葉劉淑儀 | 50.0{4} | 48.4{4} | 48.3{4} | 33.1+/-2.9{4} | 97.1% | -15.2[14] |
| 梁美芬 | 41.6{9} | 36.6{9}[14] | 38.9{9} | 27.1+/-2.9{5} | 90.2% | -11.8[14] |
| 鄺俊宇 | -- | -- | -- | 61.6+/-3.4[15] | 81.8% | -- |
| 田北辰 | 57.7{1} | 57.0{1} | 55.1{1} | -- | -- | -- |
| 涂謹申 | 51.3{2} | 52.4{2} | 52.1{2} | -- | -- | -- |
| 朱凱廸 | 49.5{5} | 50.7[15] | 48.7{3} | -- | -- | -- |
| 陳淑莊 | 50.2{3}[14] | 49.4{3} | 47.4{5} | -- | -- | -- |
| 謝偉俊 | -- | 44.1{7} | 45.5{6} | -- | -- | -- |
| 周浩鼎 | -- | -- | 35.5{10} | -- | -- | -- |
| 陳志全 | 46.3[15] | -- | 44.5[15] | -- | -- | -- |
| 梁耀忠 | -- | 46.8{5} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 蔣麗芸 | 37.9{10} | 33.6{10}[14] | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 梁君彥 | 43.4{8} | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[12] 如四捨五入後的數字相同，則會再考慮小數點後的數字。
[13] 括弧{ }內數字為立法會議員的排名。
[14] 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。
[15] 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，首位是楊岳橋，得57.4分，第二位是毛孟靜，得47.4分，然後是李慧琼、葉劉淑儀和梁美芬，分別得33.5、33.1及27.1分。在最新調查中，鄺俊宇得61.6分，但由於認知率較低而被剔除。
台灣及西藏問題
最新數據
市民對台灣及西藏問題意見的最新結果表列如下：
| 調查日期 | 2-7/8/17 | 1-6/2/18 | 6-9/8/18 | 7-11/1/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 707-830[16] | 696-786 | 553-612 | 505-550 | 575-648 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 67.0% | 62.5% | 51.2% | 55.6% | 67.4% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 兩岸統一信心正面比率 | 26%[17] | 30%[17] | 35% | 28%[17] | 27+/-4% | -1% |
| 兩岸統一信心負面比率 | 62% | 62% | 56%[17] [18] | 60% | 65+/-4% | +5% |
| 信心淨值 | -37%[17] | -32% | -22% | -33%[17] | -38+/-7% | -6% |
| 贊成台灣重新加入聯合國比率 | 46% | 54%[17] | 59% | 54% | 57+/-4% | +4% |
| 反對台灣重新加入聯合國比率 | 35% | 32% | 29% | 29% | 27+/-4% | -2% |
| 贊成淨值 | 11% | 22%[17] | 30% | 25% | 31+/-7% | +6% |
| 贊成台灣獨立比率 | 33%[17] | 33% | 34% | 35% | 44+/-4% | +9%[17] |
| 反對台灣獨立比率 | 52%[17] | 54% | 54% | 50% | 44+/-4% | -6%[17] |
| 贊成淨值 | -19%[17] | -20% | -20% | -16% | 0+/-8% | +15%[17] |
| 認為一國兩制適用於台灣的比率 | 30%[17] | 35%[17] | 35% | 29%[17] | 27+/-4% | -1% |
| 認為一國兩制不適用於台灣的比率 | 54%[17] | 53% | 50% | 59%[17] | 63+/-4% | +5% |
| 適用淨值 | -24%[17] | -18% | -14% | -30%[17] | -36+/-7% | -6% |
| 贊成西藏獨立比率 | 16% | 19% | 19% | 19% | 26+/-4% | +6%[17] |
| 反對西藏獨立比率 | 63% | 63% | 63% | 58% | 53+/-4% | -6% |
| 贊成淨值 | -47% | -44% | -44% | -39% | -27+/-7% | +12%[17] |
[16] 該調查結果公佈時尚未包括手機樣本。上表結果已更新為固網樣本及手機樣本的合併統計數字，惟於判斷變化是否超過抽樣誤差時仍然使用首次公佈的數字計算。
[17] 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。
[18] 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，則差異並未超過抽樣誤差。
最新調查顯示，27%被訪的香港市民表示對兩岸統一有信心，65%表示沒有信心，信心淨值為負38個百分點；57%贊成台灣重新加入聯合國，反對的佔27%，贊成淨值為正31個百分點；贊成和反對台灣獨立者各佔44%；27%認為「一國兩制」適用於台灣，認為不適用的佔63%，適用淨值為負36個百分點。至於西藏問題方面，53%被訪的香港市民反對西藏獨立，贊成者佔26%，贊成淨值為負27個百分點。
數據分析
最新調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的評分為33.4分，其支持率為26%，反對率為66%，民望淨值為負40個百分點，各民望數字較兩星期前的歷史低位略為回升，而所有變化皆在抽樣誤差之內。
司長方面，政務司司長張建宗的最新支持度評分為38.0分，支持率為26%，反對率為38%，民望淨值為負12個百分點，其評分及支持率淨值再創其上任以來新低。財政司司長陳茂波的最新支持度評分為29.5分，支持率為17%，反對率為57%，民望淨值為負40個百分點，其評分創其上任以來新低。至於律政司司長鄭若驊，支持度評分為21.6分，支持率為10%，反對率為68%，民望淨值為負58個百分點，其評分及支持率淨值創其上任以來新低。以支持度評分及支持率淨值計，張建宗繼續是民望最高的司長。
局長方面，對比一個月前，十三位局長中四人的支持率淨值上升，九人下跌，當中保安局局長李家超、教育局局長楊潤雄、民政事務局局長劉江華、政制及內地事務局局長聶德權、發展局局長黃偉綸和財經事務及庫務局局長劉怡翔的支持率淨值變化超過抽樣誤差，分別比上月下跌25、19、10、9、8和7個百分點。而保安局局長李家超、教育局局長楊潤雄和政制及內地事務局局長聶德權的支持率淨值均為其上任以來新低。眾局長之中，創新及科技局局長楊偉雄、政制及內地事務局局長聶德權、運輸及房屋局局長陳帆、教育局局長楊潤雄、民政事務局局長劉江華和保安局局長李家超的民望出現負值，分別為負2、負11、負14、負26、負28和負38個百分點，而陳肇始則繼續是現時民望最高的局長，民望淨值為正32個百分點。
根據香港民研的標準，沒有官員屬於「表現理想」或「表現成功」，陳肇始、邱騰華、羅致光、黃錦星、羅智光、張建宗、楊偉雄、陳帆、劉江華及楊潤雄屬於「表現一般」，黃偉綸、劉怡翔及聶德權屬於「表現不彰」，林鄭月娥、李家超及陳茂波屬於「表現失敗」，鄭若驊屬於「表現拙劣」。
以下是特首林鄭月娥及各問責官員民望級別總表，方便讀者參考：
| 「表現理想」：支持率超過66%者，以支持率排名[22]，即括弧內數字 |
| 「表現成功」：支持率超過50%者，以支持率排名[22]，即括弧內數字 |
| 「表現一般」：非其他五類者，以支持率排名[22]，即括弧內數字 |
| 食物及衛生局局長陳肇始（45%）；商務及經濟發展局局長邱騰華（42%）；勞工及福利局局長羅致光（38%）；環境局局長黃錦星（38%）；公務員事務局局長羅智光（35%）；政務司司長張建宗（26%）；創新及科技局局長楊偉雄（25%）；運輸及房屋局局長陳帆（24%）；民政事務局局長劉江華（21%）；教育局局長楊潤雄（20%） |
| 「表現不彰」：認知率不足50%者，以支持率排名[22]，括弧內第一數字為支持率，第二數字為認知率 |
| 發展局局長黃偉綸（23%，41%）；財經事務及庫務局局長劉怡翔（22%，35%）；政制及內地事務局局長聶德權（19%，48%） |
| 「表現失敗」：反對率超過50%者，以反對率排名[22]，即括弧內數字 |
| 特首林鄭月娥（66%）；保安局局長李家超（59%）；財政司司長陳茂波（57%） |
| 「表現拙劣」：反對率超過66%者，以反對率排名[22]，即括弧內數字 |
| 律政司司長鄭若驊（68%） |
[19] 如四捨五入後的數字相同，則會再考慮小數點後的數字。
立法會議員民望方面，對比四個月前，楊岳橋的評分顯著上升，並創其有紀錄以來新高，而葉劉淑儀、梁美芬和李慧琼的評分顯著下跌，亦創其有紀錄以來新低。論相對排名，楊岳橋排名第一，毛孟靜排名第二，然後是李慧琼、葉劉淑儀和梁美芬。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。是次調查而言，由於鄺俊宇的認知率較低，雖然其評分頗高，但亦然不在榜內。
台灣及西藏問題方面，贊成台灣獨立的比率大幅上升，是1993年相關調查問題開展以來首次逼近反對比率，兩者現時均佔44%。整體而言，香港巿民繼續贊成給予台灣更大的國際空間，對台灣重新加入聯合國的贊成淨值為正31個百分點，數字為1993年8月以來新高。另外，認為「一國兩制」適用於台灣的最新淨值為負36個百分點，再創1996年相關調查問題開展以來新低。而巿民對兩岸統一的信心繼續表示悲觀，最新淨值為負38個百分點，同樣是1993年相關調查問題開展以來新低。至於西藏問題方面，反對西藏獨立的香港市民繼續比贊成的多，但贊成淨值就大幅上升至負27個百分點，創1994年底以來新高。至於是甚麼事情導致各項數字的差異和起跌，讀者可以根據「民意日誌」的詳細記錄自行判斷。
Jul 16, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
Hong Kong Public Opinion Program releases results of its maiden survey
Special Announcement
The predecessor of Hong Kong Public Opinion Program (HKPOP) was The Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP). “HKPOP” in this release can refer to HKPOP or its predecessor HKUPOP.
Abstract
HKPOP successfully interviewed 1,025 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in early July. The effective response rate of the survey is 67.4%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-8% and that of ratings is +/-3.4 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 2-8/7/2019[5] |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 1,025 (including 519 landline and 506 mobile samples)[5] |
| Effective response rate[2] | : | 67.4%[5] |
| Sampling error[3] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, that of net values not more than +/-8% and that of ratings not more than +/-3.4 at 95% confidence level |
| Weighting method[4] | : | Rim-weighted according to figures provided by the Census and Statistics Department. The gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population came from “Mid-year population for 2018”, while the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and economic activity status distribution came from “Women and Men in Hong Kong - Key Statistics (2018 Edition)”. |
[1] The landline and mobile sample ratio was revised to 2 to 1 in April 2018 and further revised to 1 to 1 in July 2019.
[2] Before September 2017, “overall response rate” was used to report surveys’ contact information. Starting from September 2017, “effective response rate” was used. In July 2018, HKPOP further revised the calculation of effective response rate. Thus, the response rates before and after the change cannot be directly compared.
[3] All error figures in this release are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times with different random samples, we would expect 95 times having the population parameter within the respective error margins calculated. Because of sampling errors, when quoting percentages, journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, whereas one decimal place can be used when quoting rating figures.
[4] In the past, the mobile sample would be rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample. In July 2018, HKPOP further refined the weighting method. The landline sample and the mobile sample would no longer be processed separately. The mobile sample would also no longer be adjusted using the basic PSI figures collected in the landline sample. The overall effect is that the importance of the mobile sample would be increased.
[5] For the naming stage of Legislative Councillors, the date of survey is 2-4/7/2019, the sample size is 511 (including 259 landline and 252 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 65.6%. For the rating stage of Legislative Councillors, the date of survey is 5-8/7/2019, the sample size is 514 (including 260 landline and 254 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 69.1%.
Popularity of CE and Principal Officials
Latest Figures
To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, HKPOP will later release on its website (https://wp.pori.hk) the raw data and related respondents’ demographics of the latest rating survey of CE Carrie Lam, together with those of regular rating surveys of former CEs CH Tung, Donald Tsang and CY Leung released earlier, for public examination. Please follow normal academic standards when using or citing such data.
Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 23-25/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 1,031 | 1,018 | 1,013 | 1,006 | 1,015 | 1,025 | -- |
| Response rate | 66.1% | 63.2% | 61.9% | 60.4% | 58.7% | 67.4% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Rating of CE Carrie Lam | 49.0 | 44.3[6] | 44.7 | 43.3 | 32.8[6] | 33.4+/-2.1 | +0.5 |
| Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 36% | 32%[6] | 32% | 32% | 23%[6] | 26+/-3% | +3% |
| Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 49% | 56%[6] | 59% | 57% | 67%[6] | 66+/-3% | -1% |
| Net approval rate | -13% | -24%[6] | -27% | -24% | -44%[6] | -40+/-5% | +4% |
[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 popularity figures of the three Secretaries of Departments under the accountability system are summarized below:
| Date of survey | 27/2/19 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 8-11/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size[7] | 621 | 591-680 | 634-673 | 592-642 | 553-616 | 583-641 | -- |
| Response rate | 78.2% | 72.2% | 63.9% | 63.2% | 60.4% | 67.4% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Rating of CS Matthew Cheung | -- | 47.7 | 45.9 | 43.5 | 43.2 | 38.0+/-2.4 | -5.3[8] |
| Vote of confidence in CS Matthew Cheung |
-- | 26% | 25% | 23% | 29%[8] | 26+/-4% | -3% |
| Vote of no confidence in CS Matthew Cheung |
-- | 28% | 27% | 29% | 32% | 38+/-4% | +7%[8] |
| Net approval rate | -- | -1% | -2% | -6% | -2% | -12+/-7% | -9%[8] |
| Rating of FS Paul Chan | 40.5 | 39.7 | 38.2 | 34.2[8] | 36.1 | 29.5+/-2.2 | -6.5[8] |
| Vote of confidence in FS Paul Chan | 19% | 21% | 18% | 16% | 19% | 17+/-3% | -2% |
| Vote of no confidence in FS Paul Chan | 49% | 52% | 53% | 51% | 47% | 57+/-4% | +10%[8] |
| Net approval rate | -31% | -30% | -35% | -35% | -28% | -40+/-6% | -12%[8] |
| Rating of SJ Teresa Cheng | -- | 34.4 | 34.2 | 29.5[8] | 29.5 | 21.6+/-2.2 | -7.9[8] |
| Vote of confidence in SJ Teresa Cheng | -- | 14% | 17% | 11%[8] | 16%[8] | 10+/-3% | -5%[8] |
| Vote of no confidence in SJ Teresa Cheng | -- | 53% | 46%[8] | 52%[8] | 56% | 68+/-4% | +12%[8] |
| Net approval rate | -- | -40% | -30%[8] | -41%[8] | -40% | -58+/-6% | -18%[8] |
[7] The frequency of this series of questions is different from that of CE popularity ratings. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the same intervals. The survey conducted on 27/2/2019 was the Budget instant survey and only asked rating of FS as well as his vote of confidence.
[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.
Latest popularity figures of Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system are summarized below, in descending order of net approval rates[9]:
| Date of survey | 8-11/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size[10] | 558-619 | 581-635 | 565-638 | 601-643 | -- |
| Response rate | 63.9% | 63.2% | 60.4% | 67.4% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan | 48% | 48% | 50% | 45+/-4% | -4% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan | 13% | 13% | 12% | 14+/-3% | +2% |
| Net approval rate | 36% | 35% | 38% | 32+/-6% | -6% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau | 44% | 42% | 39% | 42+/-4% | +3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau | 11% | 15% | 13% | 13+/-3% | +1% |
| Net approval rate | 32% | 27% | 26% | 29+/-6% | +3% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing | 38% | 33%[11] | 38%[11] | 38+/-4% | -- |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing | 21% | 22% | 20% | 20+/-3% | -1% |
| Net approval rate | 17% | 10% | 18% | 18+/-6% | +1% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong | 39% | 32%[11] | 38%[11] | 38+/-4% | +1% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong | 22% | 28%[11] | 23%[11] | 21+/-3% | -2% |
| Net approval rate | 17% | 4%[11] | 15%[11] | 17+/-6% | +2% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law | 34% | 34% | 31% | 35+/-4% | +4% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law | 11% | 13% | 19%[11] | 19+/-3% | -- |
| Net approval rate | 23% | 20% | 12%[11] | 16+/-6% | +5% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau | 25% | 23% | 24% | 22+/-3% | -3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau | 8% | 9% | 10% | 14+/-3% | +4%[11] |
| Net approval rate | 17% | 14% | 15% | 8+/-5% | -7%[11] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Development Michael Wong | 25% | 23% | 26% | 23+/-3% | -3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Development Michael Wong | 15% | 15% | 14% | 18+/-3% | +4%[11] |
| Net approval rate | 9% | 9% | 13% | 5+/-5% | -8%[11] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang | 24% | 22% | 23% | 25+/-4% | +3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang | 24% | 29%[11] | 24%[11] | 27+/-4% | +4% |
| Net approval rate | 0% | -7% | -1% | -2+/-6% | -1% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip | 21% | 21% | 20% | 19+/-3% | -1% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip | 17% | 21% | 22% | 30+/-4% | +8%[11] |
| Net approval rate | 4% | 0% | -2% | -11+/-6% | -9%[11] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan | 24% | 24% | 26% | 24+/-3% | -2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan | 36% | 40% | 34%[11] | 38+/-4% | +4% |
| Net approval rate | -12% | -16% | -8% | -14+/-6% | -6% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung | 25% | 21% | 24% | 20+/-3% | -4% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung | 36% | 38% | 32%[11] | 46+/-4% | +15%[11] |
| Net approval rate | -11% | -18% | -7%[11] | -26+/-6% | -19%[11] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah | 24% | 22% | 22% | 21+/-3% | -1% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah | 35% | 42%[11] | 40% | 49+/-4% | +8%[11] |
| Net approval rate | -11% | -20% | -18% | -28+/-6% | -10%[11] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Security John Lee | 31% | 29% | 27% | 21+/-3% | -5%[11] |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Security John Lee | 30%[11] | 34% | 40%[11] | 59+/-4% | +19%[11] |
| Net approval rate | 2%[11] | -5% | -13% | -38+/-7% | -25%[11] |
[9] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[10] The frequency of this series of questions is different from that of CE popularity ratings. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the same intervals.
[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 latest survey showed that CE Carrie Lam scored 33.4 marks, and 26% supported her as CE, her net approval rate is negative 40 percentage points. Meanwhile, the corresponding ratings of CS Matthew Cheung, FS Paul Chan and SJ Teresa Cheng were 38.0, 29.5 and 21.6 marks, while 26%, 17% and 10% would vote for their reappointments correspondingly. Their net approval rates are negative 12, negative 40 and negative 58 percentage points respectively.
As for the Directors of Bureaux, according to the net approval rates, results revealed that the top position goes to Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan, attaining positive 32 percentage points. The 2nd place belongs to Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau with a net approval rate of positive 29 percentage points. Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing, Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong, Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law, Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau, Secretary for Development Michael Wong, Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip, Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung, Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah and Secretary for Security John Lee ranked 3rd to 13th, their corresponding net approval rates are positive 18, positive 17, positive 16, positive 8, positive 5, negative 2, negative 11, negative 14, negative 26, negative 28 and negative 38 percentage points. In other words, no Director scored a net approval rate of over 50%.
Opinion Daily
In 2007, HKPOP started collaborating with Wisers Information Limited whereby Wisers supplies to HKPOP a record of significant events of that day according to the research method designed by HKPOP. These daily entries would then be uploaded to “Opinion Daily” after they are verified by HKPOP.
For some of the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from 3 to 6 June, 2019 while this survey was conducted from 2 to 8 July, 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.
| 7/7/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters rally in Kowloon. |
| 1/7/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters occupy the Legislative Council Complex. |
| 30/6/19 | Junius Ho and Politihk Social Strategic organize a rally in support of the police force. |
| 28/6/19 | G20 leaders’ summit begins in Japan. |
| 24/6/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters block the Revenue Tower and Immigration Tower. |
| 21/6/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters surround police headquarters and several government buildings. |
| 18/6/19 | Carrie Lam apologizes to the people regarding the extradition bill controversies. |
| 17/6/19 | Commissioner of Police Stephen Lo says he did not mean the entire conflict on June 12 was a riot. |
| 16/6/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around two million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill. |
| 15/6/19 | Carrie Lam announces the suspension of the extradition bill. |
| 14/6/19 | Multiple Executive Council members suggest suspending the extradition bill. |
| 12/6/19 | The police uses tear gas rounds, beanbag shots and rubber bullets as anti-extradition bill sit-ins turn into a conflict between protesters and the police. |
| 11/6/19 | Protesters plan to surround the Legislative Council Complex as the second reading of the extradition bill will be resumed tomorrow. |
| 9/6/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.03 million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill. |
Popularity of Legislative Councillors
In the naming survey, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 councillors whom they knew best. Claudia Mo, Roy Kwong, Alvin Yeung, Starry Lee, Regina Ip and Priscilla Leung 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[12]:
| Date of survey | 3-5/7/18 | 1-6/11/18 | 14-19/3/19 | 5-8/7/19 | Latest change | |
| Sample size | 525-575 | 520-555 | 582-697 | 514 | -- | |
| Response rate | 49.5% | 58.9% | 73.1% | 69.1% | -- | |
| Latest findings[13] | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | Recognition rate | -- |
| Alvin Yeung | 52.2[15] | 52.2[15] | 49.4[15] | 57.4+/-3.2{1} | 82.3% | +8.0[14] |
| Claudia Mo | 48.2{6} | 45.3{6} | 44.5{7} | 47.4+/-3.1{2} | 95.5% | +2.9 |
| Starry Lee | 45.9{7} | 43.1{8} | 43.4{8} | 33.5+/-2.9{3} | 93.6% | -9.9[14] |
| Regina Ip | 50.0{4} | 48.4{4} | 48.3{4} | 33.1+/-2.9{4} | 97.1% | -15.2[14] |
| Priscilla Leung | 41.6{9} | 36.6{9}[14] | 38.9{9} | 27.1+/-2.9{5} | 90.2% | -11.8[14] |
| Roy Kwong | -- | -- | -- | 61.6+/-3.4[15] | 81.8% | -- |
| Michael Tien | 57.7{1} | 57.0{1} | 55.1{1} | -- | -- | -- |
| James To | 51.3{2} | 52.4{2} | 52.1{2} | -- | -- | -- |
| Eddie Chu | 49.5{5} | 50.7[15] | 48.7{3} | -- | -- | -- |
| Tanya Chan | 50.2{3}[14] | 49.4{3} | 47.4{5} | -- | -- | -- |
| Paul Tse | -- | 44.1{7} | 45.5{6} | -- | -- | -- |
| Holden Chow | -- | -- | 35.5{10} | -- | -- | -- |
| Raymond Chan | 46.3[15] | -- | 44.5[15] | -- | -- | -- |
| Leung Yiu-chung | -- | 46.8{5} | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Chiang Lai-wan | 37.9{10} | 33.6{10}[14] | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Andrew Leung | 43.4{8} | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[12] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[13] Numbers in curly brackets { } indicate the rankings.
[14] 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.
[15] Recognition rates were comparatively low in the rating survey.
The latest survey showed that Alvin Yeung was the most popularly supported councillor, attaining 57.4 marks. Claudia Mo ranked the 2nd with 47.4 marks. Starry Lee, Regina Ip and Priscilla Leung followed behind with 33.5, 33.1 and 27.1 marks respectively. In the latest survey, Roy Kwong obtained a support rating of 61.6 marks, but was dropped due to his relatively low recognition rate.
Taiwan and Tibetan Issues
Latest Figures
People’s latest views towards various Taiwan and Tibetan issues are summarized below:
| Date of survey | 2-7/8/17 | 1-6/2/18 | 6-9/8/18 | 7-11/1/19 | 2-8/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 707-830[16] | 696-786 | 553-612 | 505-550 | 575-648 | -- |
| Response rate | 67.0% | 62.5% | 51.2% | 55.6% | 67.4% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Confidence in cross-strait reunification | 26%[17] | 30%[17] | 35% | 28%[17] | 27+/-4% | -1% |
| No confidence in cross-strait reunification | 62% | 62% | 56%[17] [18] | 60% | 65+/-4% | +5% |
| Net confidence | -37%[17] | -32% | -22% | -33%[17] | -38+/-7% | -6% |
| Taiwan rejoining the United Nations: Support rate | 46% | 54%[17] | 59% | 54% | 57+/-4% | +4% |
| Taiwan rejoining the United Nations: Opposition rate | 35% | 32% | 29% | 29% | 27+/-4% | -2% |
| Net support | 11% | 22%[17] | 30% | 25% | 31+/-7% | +6% |
| Taiwan independence: Support rate | 33%[17] | 33% | 34% | 35% | 44+/-4% | +9%[17] |
| Taiwan independence: Opposition rate | 52%[17] | 54% | 54% | 50% | 44+/-4% | -6%[17] |
| Net support | -19%[17] | -20% | -20% | -16% | 0+/-8% | +15%[17] |
| Believe “one country, two systems” is applicable to Taiwan | 30%[17] | 35%[17] | 35% | 29%[17] | 27+/-4% | -1% |
| Believe “one country, two systems” is not applicable to Taiwan | 54%[17] | 53% | 50% | 59%[17] | 63+/-4% | +5% |
| Net value of applicability | -24%[17] | -18% | -14% | -30%[17] | -36+/-7% | -6% |
| Tibet independence: Support rate | 16% | 19% | 19% | 19% | 26+/-4% | +6%[17] |
| Tibet independence: Opposition rate | 63% | 63% | 63% | 58% | 53+/-4% | -6% |
| Net support | -47% | -44% | -44% | -39% | -27+/-7% | +12%[17] |
[16] The mobile sample was not included when survey results were released. The figures in the table above have been updated to reflect the results based on the combined landline and mobile sample. However, whether changes have gone beyond sampling errors is still determined based on the figures in the first release.
[17] 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.
[18] 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 difference would not have gone beyond the sampling error.
Latest survey revealed that 27% of Hong Kong people interviewed were confident in the ultimate reunification across the strait while 65% expressed no confidence, with net confidence at negative 38 percentage points; 57% supported Taiwan’s rejoining the United Nations while 27% opposed that, with net support at positive 31 percentage points; 44% each supported and opposed the independence of Taiwan; 27% believed “one country, two systems” was applicable to Taiwan while 63% believed it was not, with a net value of applicability at negative 36 percentage points. Regarding Tibetan issues, 53% of Hong Kong people interviewed opposed the independence of Tibet whereas 26% showed support, with net support at negative 27 percentage points.
Data Analysis
Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 33.4 marks. Her approval rate is 26%, disapproval rate 66%, giving a net popularity of negative 40 percentage points. All popularity figures have slightly recovered from the historical lows two weeks ago, and all changes registered are within sampling errors.
As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Matthew Cheung is 38.0 marks, approval rate 26%, disapproval rate 38%, giving a net popularity of negative 12 percentage points. His rating and net approval rate have again registered new record lows since he took office. The latest support rating of FS Paul Chan is 29.5 marks, approval rate 17%, disapproval rate 57%, thus a net popularity of negative 40 percentage points. His rating has registered a new record low since he took office. As for SJ Teresa Cheng, her support rating is 21.6 marks, approval rate 10%, disapproval rate 68%, giving a net popularity of negative 58 percentage points. Her rating and net approval rate have registered new record lows since she took office. In terms of popularity rating and net approval rate, Matthew Cheung continues to be the most popular Secretary of Department.
As for the Directors of Bureaux, compared to one month ago, the net approval rates of 4 among 13 Directors have gone up while 9 have gone down. Those of Secretary for Security John Lee, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung, Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip, Secretary for Development Michael Wong and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau have changed beyond sampling errors, which decreased by 25, 19, 10, 9, 8 and 7 percentage points respectively. The net approval rates of Secretary for Security John Lee, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung and Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip are at their record low since they took office. Among all the Directors, Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip, Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung, Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah and Secretary for Security John Lee register negative popularities, at negative 2, negative 11, negative 14, negative 26, negative 28 and negative 38 percentage points respectively. Sophia Chan continues to be the most popular Director, with a net approval rate of positive 32 percentage points.
According to HKPOP’s standard, no one falls under the category of “ideal” or “successful” performer. The performance of Sophia Chan, Edward Yau, Law Chi-kwong, Wong Kam-sing, Joshua Law, Matthew Cheung, Nicholas Yang, Frank Chan, Lau Kong-wah and Kevin Yeung can be labeled as “mediocre”. That of Michael Wong, James Lau and Patrick Nip can be labeled as “inconspicuous”. Carrie Lam, John Lee and Paul Chan fall into the category of “depressing” performer, while Teresa Cheng falls into that of “disastrous”.
The following table summarizes the grading of CE Carrie Lam and the principal officials for readers’ easy reference:
| “Ideal”: those with approval rates of over 66%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets[22] |
| “Successful”: those with approval rates of over 50%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets[22] |
| “Mediocre”: those not belonging to other 5 types; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets[22] |
| Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan Siu-chee (45%); Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau Tang-wah (42%); Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong (38%); Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing (38%); Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law Chi-kong (35%); CS Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (26%); Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang Wei-hsiung (25%); Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan Fan (24%); Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah (21%); Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung (20%) |
| “Inconspicuous”: those with recognition rates of less than 50%; ranked by their approval rates[22]; the first figure inside bracket is approval rate while the second figure is recognition rate |
| Secretary for Development Michael Wong Wai-lun (23%, 41%); Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Henry Lau Jr (22%, 35%); Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip Tak-kuen (19%, 48%) |
| “Depressing”: those with disapproval rates of over 50%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets[22] |
| CE Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (66%); Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu (59%); FS Paul Chan Mo-po (57%) |
| “Disastrous”: those with disapproval rates of over 66%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets[22] |
| SJ Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah (68%) |
[19] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
As for the popularity of Legislative Councillors, compared to four months ago, the rating of Alvin Yeung has significantly increased and registered a new record high, while the ratings of Regina Ip, Priscilla Leung and Starry Lee have significantly decreased and registered new record lows. In terms of relative rankings, Alvin Yeung ranks first, Claudia Mo ranks second, followed by Starry Lee, Regina Ip and Priscilla Leung. 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. For the current survey, since the recognition rate of Roy Kwong is comparatively low, he does not enter the list even though he has got quite a high rating.
As for Taiwan and Tibetan issues, the support rate of Taiwan independence has increased dramatically, approaching the opposition rate for the first time since the survey question was first asked in 1993, both figures are at 44% now. In general, Hong Kong people continue to support giving Taiwan more international space. People’s net support for Taiwan rejoining the United Nations stands at positive 31 percentage points, which is a record high since August 1993. Besides, the net value of those who believed “one country, two systems” should be applicable to Taiwan stands at negative 36 percentage points, which is again a record low since the survey question was first asked in 1996. People continue to be pessimistic about cross-strait reunification. The latest net confidence stands at negative 38 percentage points, which is also a record low since the survey question was first asked in 1993. Regarding Tibetan issue, Hong Kong people who oppose the independence of Tibet continue to outnumber those who support it, but the net support rate has increased dramatically to negative 27 percentage points, which is a record high since the end of 1994. As for the reasons affecting the ups and downs of these figures, we leave it to our readers to form their own judgment using detailed records displayed in our “Opinion Daily”.
