2019年8月13日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會回顧
香港民研今日發放官員及企業民望、以及由報章委託之反修例運動調查
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
香港民研於八月初由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式成功訪問了1,015名香港居民。調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的評分為27.9分，民望淨值為負51個百分點，再創其上任特首以來新低。司長方面，政務司司長張建宗的最新支持度評分為40.1分，民望淨值回升13個百分點至正1個百分點。財政司司長陳茂波的支持度評分回升3.4分至32.9，民望淨值亦回升11個百分點至負30個百分點。至於律政司司長鄭若驊，支持度評分為20.3分，再創其上任以來新低，民望淨值為負53個百分點。局長方面，對比一個月前，十三位局長中五人的支持率淨值上升，七人下跌，一人不變，當中公務員事務局局長羅智光和勞工及福利局局長羅致光的支持率淨值變化超過抽樣誤差，分別比上月下跌17和11個百分點。而食物及衛生局局長陳肇始、公務員事務局局長羅智光和保安局局長李家超的支持率淨值均為其上任以來新低。
市民最熟悉政治人物調查方面，對比半年前，不分民望高低，7位政治人物能夠蟬聯十大，曾俊華、梁國雄和陳茂波跌出榜外，由鄺俊宇、毛孟靜和楊岳橋取代。社會責任表現方面，市民認為九龍巴士作為本地公共交通機構的社會責任表現最好，得64.3分，亦認為數碼通電訊作為本地電訊公司的社會責任表現最好，得56.1分。另外，市民對香港警務處的滿意度評分由六月初反修例運動爆發前的61.0分急跌21.6分至39.4，數字為2012年有紀錄以來最低。與此同時，58%市民認為警察於最近警民衝突中使用的武力太大，71%認為政府須為持續不斷的警民衝突負最大責任，77%支持成立獨立調查委員會以調查連串抗爭行動成因及警方有否濫用武力。調查的實效回應比率為62.8%。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+/-2.6。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 1-6/8/2019[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] | ： | 1,015 (包括500個固網及515個手機號碼樣本)[5] |
| 實效回應比率[2] | ： | 62.8%[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+/-7%，評分誤差不超過+/-2.6 |
| 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] 最佳企業提名階段調查日期為1-2/8/2019，成功樣本數目為506 (包括251個固網及255個手機號碼樣本)，實效回應比率為59.5%。最佳企業評分階段調查日期為5-6/8/2019，成功樣本數目為509 (包括249個固網及260個手機號碼樣本)，實效回應比率為66.6%。
特首及問責官員民望
最新數據
以下是特首林鄭月娥的最新民望數字：
| 調查日期 | 20-23/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 1-6/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 1,013 | 1,006 | 1,015 | 1,025 | 1,002 | 1,015 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 61.9% | 60.4% | 58.7% | 67.4% | 59.8% | 62.8% | -- |
| 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 | 44.7 | 43.3 | 32.8[6] | 33.4 | 30.1[6] | 27.9+/-2.1 | -2.2 |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首支持率 | 32% | 32% | 23%[6] | 26% | 21%[6] | 20+/-3% | -1% |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首反對率 | 59% | 57% | 67%[6] | 66% | 70%[6] | 72+/-3% | +1% |
| 支持率淨值 | -27% | -24% | -44%[6] | -40% | -49%[6] | -51+/-5% | -2% |
[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 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 8-11/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 1-6/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 591-680 | 634-673 | 592-642 | 553-616 | 583-641 | 574-580 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 72.2% | 63.9% | 63.2% | 60.4% | 67.4% | 62.8% | -- |
| 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[7] | 40.1+/-2.3 | +2.2 |
| 張建宗出任政務司司長支持率 | 26% | 25% | 23% | 29%[7] | 26% | 28+/-4% | +2% |
| 張建宗出任政務司司長反對率 | 28% | 27% | 29% | 32% | 38%[7] | 27+/-4% | -11%[7] |
| 支持率淨值 | -1% | -2% | -6% | -2% | -12%[7] | 1+/-6% | +13%[7] |
| 財政司司長陳茂波評分 | 39.7 | 38.2 | 34.2[7] | 36.1 | 29.5[7] | 32.9+/-2.5 | +3.4[7] |
| 陳茂波出任財政司司長支持率 | 21% | 18% | 16% | 19% | 17% | 19+/-3% | +3% |
| 陳茂波出任財政司司長反對率 | 52% | 53% | 51% | 47% | 57%[7] | 49+/-4% | -8%[7] |
| 支持率淨值 | -30% | -35% | -35% | -28% | -40%[7] | -30+/-6% | +11%[7] |
| 律政司司長鄭若驊評分 | 34.4 | 34.2 | 29.5[7] | 29.5 | 21.6[7] | 20.3+/-2.4 | -1.2 |
| 鄭若驊出任律政司司長支持率 | 14% | 17% | 11%[7] | 16%[7] | 10%[7] | 11+/-3% | -- |
| 鄭若驊出任律政司司長反對率 | 53% | 46%[7] | 52%[7] | 56% | 68%[7] | 63+/-4% | -5% |
| 支持率淨值 | -40% | -30%[7] | -41%[7] | -40% | -58%[7] | -53+/-6% | +5% |
[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。
以下是各問責局長的最新民望數字，按支持率淨值倒序排列[8]：
| 調查日期 | 6-9/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 1-6/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 581-635 | 565-638 | 601-643 | 572-624 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 63.2% | 60.4% | 67.4% | 62.8% | -- |
| 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% | 50% | 45% | 42+/-4% | -3% |
| 陳肇始出任食物及衛生局局長反對率 | 13% | 12% | 14% | 13+/-3% | -1% |
| 支持率淨值 | 35% | 38% | 32% | 30+/-6% | -2% |
| 邱騰華出任商務及經濟發展局局長支持率 | 42% | 39% | 42% | 40+/-4% | -2% |
| 邱騰華出任商務及經濟發展局局長反對率 | 15% | 13% | 13% | 13+/-3% | -- |
| 支持率淨值 | 27% | 26% | 29% | 27+/-5% | -2% |
| 黃錦星出任環境局局長支持率 | 33%[9] | 38%[9] | 38% | 34+/-4% | -4% |
| 黃錦星出任環境局局長反對率 | 22% | 20% | 20% | 20+/-3% | -- |
| 支持率淨值 | 10% | 18% | 18% | 14+/-6% | -4% |
| 劉怡翔出任財經事務及庫務局局長支持率 | 23% | 24% | 22% | 23+/-3% | +2% |
| 劉怡翔出任財經事務及庫務局局長反對率 | 9% | 10% | 14%[9] | 13+/-3% | -1% |
| 支持率淨值 | 14% | 15% | 8%[9] | 11+/-5% | +3% |
| 黃偉綸出任發展局局長支持率 | 23% | 26% | 23% | 26+/-4% | +3% |
| 黃偉綸出任發展局局長反對率 | 15% | 14% | 18%[9] | 19+/-3% | +1% |
| 支持率淨值 | 9% | 13% | 5%[9] | 6+/-5% | +1% |
| 羅致光出任勞工及福利局局長支持率 | 32%[9] | 38%[9] | 38% | 32+/-4% | -7%[9] |
| 羅致光出任勞工及福利局局長反對率 | 28%[9] | 23%[9] | 21% | 26+/-4% | +4% |
| 支持率淨值 | 4%[9] | 15%[9] | 17% | 6+/-6% | -11%[9] |
| 羅智光出任公務員事務局局長支持率 | 34% | 31% | 35% | 25+/-4% | -10%[9] |
| 羅智光出任公務員事務局局長反對率 | 13% | 19%[9] | 19% | 25+/-4% | +6%[9] |
| 支持率淨值 | 20% | 12%[9] | 16% | 0+/-6% | -17%[9] |
| 楊偉雄出任創新及科技局局長支持率 | 22% | 23% | 25% | 23+/-3% | -2% |
| 楊偉雄出任創新及科技局局長反對率 | 29%[9] | 24%[9] | 27% | 26+/-4% | -2% |
| 支持率淨值 | -7% | -1% | -2% | -2+/-6% | -- |
| 聶德權出任政制及內地事務局局長支持率 | 21% | 20% | 19% | 21+/-3% | +2% |
| 聶德權出任政制及內地事務局局長反對率 | 21% | 22% | 30%[9] | 26+/-4% | -4% |
| 支持率淨值 | 0% | -2% | -11%[9] | -5+/-6% | +6% |
| 陳帆出任運輸及房屋局局長支持率 | 24% | 26% | 24% | 23+/-3% | -- |
| 陳帆出任運輸及房屋局局長反對率 | 40% | 34%[9] | 38% | 35+/-4% | -3% |
| 支持率淨值 | -16% | -8% | -14% | -11+/-6% | +3% |
| 楊潤雄出任教育局局長支持率 | 21% | 24% | 20% | 20+/-3% | -- |
| 楊潤雄出任教育局局長反對率 | 38% | 32%[9] | 46%[9] | 39+/-4% | -7%[9] |
| 支持率淨值 | -18% | -7%[9] | -26%[9] | -19+/-6% | +7% |
| 劉江華出任民政事務局局長支持率 | 22% | 22% | 21% | 18+/-3% | -3% |
| 劉江華出任民政事務局局長反對率 | 42%[9] | 40% | 49%[9] | 49+/-4% | +1% |
| 支持率淨值 | -20% | -18% | -28%[9] | -31+/-6% | -3% |
| 李家超出任保安局局長支持率 | 29% | 27% | 21%[9] | 20+/-3% | -1% |
| 李家超出任保安局局長反對率 | 34% | 40%[9] | 59%[9] | 59+/-4% | -- |
| 支持率淨值 | -5% | -13% | -38%[9] | -39+/-7% | -1% |
[8] 如四捨五入後的數字相同，則會再考慮小數點後的數字。
[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27.9分，其支持率為20%，反對率為72%，民望淨值為負51個百分點，各民望數字與兩星期前比較變化不大，但就再創其上任特首以來新低。
司長方面，政務司司長張建宗的最新支持度評分為40.1分，支持率為28%，反對率為27%，民望淨值回升13個百分點至正1個百分點。財政司司長陳茂波的支持度評分回升3.4分至32.9，支持率為19%，反對率為49%，民望淨值亦回升11個百分點至負30個百分點。至於律政司司長鄭若驊，支持度評分為20.3分，支持率為11%，反對率為63%，民望淨值為負53個百分點，其評分再創其上任以來新低。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，按支持率淨值排名首位的是食物及衛生局局長陳肇始，然後是商務及經濟發展局局長邱騰華、環境局局長黃錦星、財經事務及庫務局局長劉怡翔、發展局局長黃偉綸和勞工及福利局局長羅致光。而公務員事務局局長羅智光、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則出現負值。
對比一個月前，十三位局長中五人的支持率淨值上升，七人下跌，一人不變，當中公務員事務局局長羅智光和勞工及福利局局長羅致光的支持率淨值變化超過抽樣誤差，分別比上月下跌17和11個百分點。而食物及衛生局局長陳肇始、公務員事務局局長羅智光和保安局局長李家超的支持率淨值均為其上任以來新低。
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、黃錦星、羅致光、張建宗、陳帆、楊潤雄、陳茂波及劉江華屬於「表現一般」，黃偉綸、羅智光、劉怡翔、楊偉雄及聶德權屬於「表現不彰」，鄭若驊及李家超屬於「表現失敗」，林鄭月娥屬於「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：
| 「表現理想」：支持率超過66%者，以支持率排名[10]，即括弧內數字 |
| 「表現成功」：支持率超過50%者，以支持率排名[10]，即括弧內數字 |
| 「表現一般」：非其他五類者，以支持率排名[10]，即括弧內數字 |
| 食物及衛生局局長陳肇始（42%）；商務及經濟發展局局長邱騰華（40%）；環境局局長黃錦星（34%）；勞工及福利局局長羅致光（32%）；政務司司長張建宗（28%）；運輸及房屋局局長陳帆（23%）；教育局局長楊潤雄（20%）；財政司司長陳茂波（19%）；民政事務局局長劉江華（18%） |
| 「表現不彰」：認知率不足50%者，以支持率排名[10]，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（26%，45%）；公務員事務局局長羅智光（25%，50%）；財經事務及庫務局局長劉怡翔（23%，36%）；創新及科技局局長楊偉雄（23%，49%）；政制及內地事務局局長聶德權（21%，47%） |
| 「表現失敗」：反對率超過50%者，以反對率排名[10]，即括弧內數字 |
| 律政司司長鄭若驊（63%）；保安局局長李家超（59%） |
| 「表現拙劣」：反對率超過66%者，以反對率排名[10]，即括弧內數字 |
| 特首林鄭月娥（72%） |
[10] 如四捨五入後的數字相同，則會再考慮小數點後的數字。
市民最熟悉政治人物
調查中，被訪者可在未經提示下說出最多10名最熟悉的香港在世政治人物。以下是最新調查中前二十名的結果[11]：
| 調查日期 | 16-19/10/17 | 16-19/4/18 | 18-20/9/18 | 29/1-8/2/19 | 1-6/8/19 | |||||
| 樣本數目 | 656 | 615 | 552 | 537 | 560 | |||||
| 回應比率 | 64.5% | 56.4% | 55.6% | 63.0% | 62.8% | |||||
| 最新結果 | 比率 | 排名 | 比率 | 排名 | 比率 | 排名 | 比率 | 排名 | 比率 | 排名 |
| 林鄭月娥 | 44% | 1 | 46% | 1 | 38% | 1 | 35% | 1 | 31+/-4% | 1 |
| 董建華 | 19% | 6 | 25% | 4 | 23% | 4 | 29% | 3 | 27+/-4% | 2 |
| 梁振英 | 25% | 2 | 26% | 3 | 26% | 3 | 26% | 4 | 25+/-4% | 3 |
| 曾蔭權 | 24% | 3 | 27% | 2 | 28% | 2 | 33% | 2 | 21+/-4% | 4 |
| 陳方安生 | 8% | 15 | 9% | 14 | 8% | 14 | 11% | 9 | 20+/-3% | 5 |
| 葉劉淑儀 | 17% | 7 | 21% | 6 | 15% | 8 | 13% | 7 | 16+/-3% | 6 |
| 鄺俊宇 | 1% | -- | 1% | -- | 1% | -- | 2% | 46 | 15+/-3% | 7 |
| 李柱銘 | 12% | 9 | 14% | 10 | 18% | 6 | 14% | 5 | 15+/-3% | 8 |
| 毛孟靜 | 5% | 28 | 6% | 20 | 3% | 38 | 4% | 23 | 13+/-3% | 9 |
| 楊岳橋 | 7% | 19 | 5% | 26 | 4% | 27 | 5% | 18 | 12+/-3% | 10 |
| 何君堯 | 4% | 29 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 12+/-3% | 11 |
| 曾鈺成 | 16% | 8 | 16% | 9 | 16% | 7 | 8% | 12 | 12+/-3% | 12 |
| 曾俊華 | 21% | 5 | 18% | 8 | 13% | 9 | 14% | 6 | 11+/-3% | 13 |
| 朱凱廸 | 3% | 35 | 3% | 35 | 3% | 39 | 3% | 35 | 10+/-3% | 14 |
| 張建宗 | 5% | 24 | 9% | 16 | 7% | 15 | 6% | 15 | 9+/-3% | 15 |
| 李慧琼 | 12% | 10 | 12% | 11 | 6% | 22 | 6% | 14 | 9+/-2% | 16 |
| 梁國雄 | 24% | 4 | 23% | 5 | 19% | 5 | 12% | 8 | 8+/-2% | 17 |
| 林卓廷 | 1% | -- | 1% | -- | 1% | -- | -- | -- | 8+/-2% | 18 |
| 陳茂波 | 9% | 14 | 20% | 7 | 9% | 12 | 11% | 10 | 8+/-2% | 19 |
| 田北俊 | 5% | 26 | 8% | 18 | 5% | 24 | 3% | 29 | 7+/-2% | 20 |
[1] 如四捨五入後的數字相同，則會再考慮小數點後的數字。每次調查中，排名第50位以後則視作沒有上榜。
調查結果發現，最多被訪者提及的首十名政治人物分別為林鄭月娥、董建華、梁振英、曾蔭權、陳方安生、葉劉淑儀、鄺俊宇、李柱銘、毛孟靜和楊岳橋，然後是何君堯、曾鈺成、曾俊華、朱凱廸、張建宗、李慧琼、梁國雄、林卓廷、陳茂波和田北俊。當中，鄺俊宇、毛孟靜、楊岳橋、何君堯、朱凱廸、張建宗和林卓廷的提名比率均創新高。
市民最熟悉政治人物調查的作用，在於以該等人物在巿民心目中熟悉程度的起跌，顯示政治生態的改變。對比半年前，不分民望高低，7位政治人物能夠蟬聯十大，曾俊華、梁國雄和陳茂波跌出榜外，並由鄺俊宇、毛孟靜和楊岳橋取代。
須要註明，「巿民最熟悉政治人物」的排名方法是以被訪者在沒有提示下說出的政治人物計，是量度知名度的方法之一，與支持度無關。換言之，知名度排名很高的政治人物並不一定是最受歡迎的政治人物，而知名度排名偏低的政治人物，亦可能會在有提示的知名度調查中得到不同的排名。但無論如何，能夠在沒有提示的調查中脫穎而出者，肯定是巿民最熟悉的政治人物。
企業社會責任
企業社會責任調查目的為了解市民對不同商業機構的印象，從而鼓勵良心企業貢獻社會，並選出最佳企業。有關調查共分為六個單元，分別為1) 公共交通系列；2) 電訊系列；3) 銀行及金融服務系列；4) 地產及物業發展系列；5) 零售系列及6) 快餐店系列。
調查分為兩個階段，在第一階段提名調查，訪問員會要求被訪者在未經提示下說出最多五個他們最熟悉的相關企業，首三個最多被訪者提及的企業，將進入第二階段調查。在第二階段評分調查，訪問員會要求被訪者就入選企業的社會責任表現以0至100分進行個別評分，0分代表表現極差，100分代表表現極佳，50分代表一半半。
公共交通機構
在提名調查中，最多被訪者提及的公共交通機構分別是港鐵、九龍巴士及城巴。以下是相關企業的最新評分：
| 調查日期 | 24-25/4/17 | 19-20/7/17 | 4/1/18 | 20-23/7/18 | 5-6/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 506 | 503[12] | 500 | 500 | 509 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 74.0% | 55.2% | 58.5% | 50.8% | 66.6% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 九龍巴士 | 63.6[13] | 63.1 | 63.8 | 59.7[13] | 64.3+/-1.7 | +4.6[13] |
| 城巴 | 59.4[13] | 62.2[13] | 60.0[13] | 59.5 | 62.9+/-1.7 | +3.4[13] |
| 港鐵 | 59.0[13] | 62.2[13] | 60.1[13] | 56.2[13] | 47.3+/-2.5 | -8.9[13] |
[2] 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。
[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。
最新調查顯示，在本地公共交通機構中，市民認為九龍巴士的社會責任表現最好，得64.3分。而城巴和港鐵則分別得62.9及47.3分。
電訊公司
在提名調查中，最多被訪者提及的電訊公司分別是中國移動、和記電訊及數碼通電訊。以下是相關企業的最新評分：
| 調查日期 | 24-25/4/17 | 16-17/8/17 | 5-6/2/18 | 5-6/9/18 / 18-20/9/18 | 5-6/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 506 | 611[14] | 505 | 511 / 1,002 | 509 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 74.0% | 57.6% | 61.2% | 51.3% / 55.6% | 66.6% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 數碼通電訊 | 50.9[15] | -- | 51.1 | 54.2[15] | 56.1+/-1.8 | +1.8 |
| 和記電訊 | 49.5[15] | 50.7[15] | 45.6[15] | -- | 52.3+/-1.9 | -- |
| 中國移動 | -- | -- | -- | 47.6 | 48.0+/-2.6 | +0.4 |
| 電訊盈科 | 51.6[15] | 54.1[15] | 51.7[15] | 54.5[15] [16] | -- | -- |
| 香港寬頻 | -- | 58.6 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[4] 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。
[5] 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。
[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，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，在本地電訊公司中，市民認為數碼通電訊的社會責任表現最好，得56.1分。而和記電訊和中國移動則分別得52.3及48.0分。
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20-23/7/2018，而今次調查日期則為1-6/8/2019，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：
| 6/8/19 | 港澳辦就反修例運動召開記者會 |
| 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 |
| 29/7/19 | 港澳辦就反修例運動召開記者會 |
| 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 |
| 25/7/19 | 警方反對7月27日「光復元朗」遊行 |
| 22/7/19 | 元朗昨夜有白衣人無差別襲擊市民 |
| 21/7/19 | 反修例示威者包圍中聯辦 |
| 20/7/19 | 警方檢獲兩公斤烈性炸藥TATP |
| 20/7/19 | 建制派於添馬公園舉行「守護香港」集會 |
| 18/7/19 | 沙中綫大圍至啟德站將於2019年首季通車 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 18/6/19 | 林鄭月娥就《逃犯條例》爭議向市民道歉 |
| 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 |
| 9/6/19 | 民間人權陣線指約103萬人參與反修例遊行 |
| 11/5/19 | 建制和泛民立法會議員就《逃犯條例》修訂在會議室發生衝突 |
| 18/3/19 | 港鐵兩列列車在荃灣線新訊號系統測試期間相撞 |
| 27/2/19 | 財政司司長陳茂波發表財政預算案 |
| 30/1/19 | 沙中線紅磡站再發現工程問題及驗收紀錄缺失 |
| 8/1/19 | 政府公布香港專營巴士服務獨立檢討委員會報告 |
| 5/12/18 | 港鐵同意鑿開紅磡站月台層板以核實建築結構情況 |
| 16/10/18 | 港鐵四線信號故障造成交通癱瘓 |
| 23/9/18 | 高鐵香港段正式通車 |
| 10/8/18 | 港鐵沙中線會展站地盤附近樓宇出現沉降 |
| 7/8/18 | 五名港鐵高層因沙中線工程問題離職 |
反修例運動及警民衝突
受蘋果日報委託，香港民研於問卷一開始加入以下關於反修例運動及警民衝突的問題，結果表列如下：
| 整體 樣本 |
年齡 | 教育程度 | ||||||
| 18–29歲 | 30–49歲 | 50–64歲 | 65歲或 以上 |
小學或 以下 |
中學 | 大專或 以上 |
||
| 有效原始樣本數目 (最新調查) |
968-1,014 | 218-219 | 331-348 | 260-273 | 146-162 | 74-86 | 394-413 | 496-512 |
| 請你用0至100分評價你對香港警務處作為紀律部隊嘅滿意程度，0分代表極唔滿意，100分代表極之滿意，50分代表一半半，你會畀幾多分佢呢？ | ||||||||
| 平均分：1-6/8/19 | 39.4 | 16.6 | 34.3 | 43.6 | 59.8 | 58.8 | 39.4 | 28.1 |
| 3-6/6/19 | 61.0 | 48.5 | 55.2 | 68.3 | 70.8 | 74.7 | 62.0 | 52.7 |
| 15-19/11/18 | 62.5 | 51.9 | 58.0 | 67.8 | 70.8 | 70.6 | 64.4 | 55.2 |
| 21-25/5/18 | 63.7 | 55.3 | 59.8 | 69.6 | 70.2 | 71.2 | 64.8 | 57.6 |
| 14-16/11/17 | 66.9 | 53.6 | 68.5 | 67.9 | 76.1 | 74.5 | 68.1 | 58.9 |
| 最近香港好多地方發生警民衝突，你認為當中警察使用嘅武力係太大、恰當、定係太低？ | ||||||||
| 太大 | 58% | 87% | 64% | 53% | 34% | 30% | 58% | 75% |
| 恰當 | 23% | 6% | 19% | 26% | 36% | 40% | 23% | 12% |
| 太低 | 15% | 5% | 15% | 17% | 22% | 21% | 15% | 11% |
| 對於警民衝突持續不斷，你認為最大責任係屬於：(讀出首三項，次序隨機排列，可選多項) | ||||||||
| 政府 | 71% | 92% | 81% | 65% | 49% | 44% | 73% | 85% |
| 示威者 | 35% | 14% | 34% | 35% | 51% | 53% | 34% | 24% |
| 警方 | 25% | 40% | 29% | 22% | 13% | 11% | 24% | 35% |
| 你有幾支持或者反對成立獨立調查委員會，去調查連串抗爭行動成因及警方有冇濫用武力？(追問程度) | ||||||||
| 好支持 | 64% | 85% | 69% | 57% | 51% | 43% | 64% | 77% |
| 幾支持 | 12% | 11% | 12% | 15% | 11% | 12% | 15% | 9% |
| 一半半 | 6% | 1% | 4% | 7% | 9% | 13% | 4% | 3% |
| 幾反對 | 4% | <1% | 5% | 7% | 3% | 6% | 5% | 3% |
| 好反對 | 9% | 3% | 6% | 10% | 15% | 13% | 8% | 6% |
| 支持 | 77% | 96% | 81% | 71% | 62% | 55% | 79% | 86% |
| 反對 | 13% | 3% | 11% | 17% | 18% | 19% | 13% | 8% |
| 淨值 | 64% | 92% | 71% | 55% | 44% | 36% | 66% | 78% |
| 平均量值[17] | 4.3 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 4.3 | 4.5 |
[7] 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。
八月初進行的調查顯示，市民對香港警務處的滿意度評分由六月初反修例運動爆發前的61.0分急跌21.6分至39.4，數字為2012年有紀錄以來最低。武力運用方面，58%市民認為警察於最近警民衝突中使用的武力太大，23%認為恰當，15%則認為太低。對於警民衝突持續不斷，71%認為政府須負最大責任，35%認為是示威者，25%則認為是警方。最後，高達77%市民支持成立獨立調查委員會以調查連串抗爭行動成因及警方有否濫用武力，只有13%反對。
數據分析
八月初進行的調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的評分為27.9分，民望淨值為負51個百分點，再創其上任特首以來新低。
司長方面，政務司司長張建宗的最新支持度評分為40.1分，民望淨值回升13個百分點至正1個百分點。財政司司長陳茂波的支持度評分回升3.4分至32.9，民望淨值亦回升11個百分點至負30個百分點。至於律政司司長鄭若驊，支持度評分為20.3分，再創其上任以來新低，民望淨值為負53個百分點。
局長方面，對比一個月前，十三位局長中五人的支持率淨值上升，七人下跌，一人不變，當中公務員事務局局長羅智光和勞工及福利局局長羅致光的支持率淨值變化超過抽樣誤差，分別比上月下跌17和11個百分點。而食物及衛生局局長陳肇始、公務員事務局局長羅智光和保安局局長李家超的支持率淨值均為其上任以來新低。
市民最熟悉政治人物調查方面，對比半年前，不分民望高低，7位政治人物能夠蟬聯十大，曾俊華、梁國雄和陳茂波跌出榜外，由鄺俊宇、毛孟靜和楊岳橋取代。
在本地公共交通機構中，市民認為九龍巴士的社會責任表現最好，得64.3分。電訊公司方面，市民認為數碼通電訊的社會責任表現最好，得56.1分。
最後，市民對香港警務處的滿意度評分由六月初反修例運動爆發前的61.0分急跌21.6分至39.4，數字為2012年有紀錄以來最低。與此同時，58%市民認為警察於最近警民衝突中使用的武力太大，71%認為政府須為持續不斷的警民衝突負最大責任，77%支持成立獨立調查委員會以調查連串抗爭行動成因及警方有否濫用武力。
Aug 13, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
HKPOP today releases popularity figures of officials and corporations, and survey findings on anti-extradition-bill movement commissioned by a newspaper
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 1,015 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in early August. Results show that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 27.9 marks. Her net popularity is negative 51 percentage points. Both figures have again registered record lows since she became CE. As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Matthew Cheung is 40.1 marks. His net popularity has rebounded by 13 percentage points to positive 1 percentage point. The support rating of FS Paul Chan has rebounded by 3.4 marks to 32.9. His net popularity has also rebounded by 11 percentage points to negative 30 percentage points. As for SJ Teresa Cheng, her support rating is 20.3 marks, a new record low since she took office. Her net popularity stands at negative 53 percentage points. As for the Directors of Bureaux, compared to one month ago, the net approval rates of 5 among 13 Directors have gone up, 7 have gone down and 1 has not changed. Those of Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law and Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong have changed beyond sampling errors, which decreased by 17 and 11 percentage points respectively. The net approval rates of Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan, Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law and Secretary for Security John Lee are at their record lows since they took office.
As for people’s most familiar political figures, compared to half a year ago, regardless of their popularities, 7 political figures remain in the top 10. John Tsang, Leung Kwok-hung and Paul Chan have fallen out of the list and are replaced by Roy Kwong, Claudia Mo and Alvin Yeung. In terms of CSR, KMB was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local public transportations, scored 64.3 marks, while Smartone was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local telecommunication corporations, scored 56.1 marks. Meanwhile, people’s satisfaction rating toward the Hong Kong Police Force has plunged by 21.6 marks from 61.0, which was registered in early June before the anti-extradition bill movement broke out, to 39.4, the lowest figure ever since records began in 2012. At the same time, 58% of the people were of the view that the police had used excessive force during recent conflicts with protesters, 71% thought the government should bear the most responsibility for the continued conflicts between protesters and the police, 77% of the people support the setting up of an independent investigation committee to look into the causes of the protests and whether or not there was police abuse of force. The effective response rate of the survey is 62.8%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-7% and that of ratings is +/-2.6 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 1-6/8/2019[5] |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 1,015 (including 500 landline and 515 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 +/-7% and that of ratings not more than +/-2.6 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 the best corporations, the date of survey is 1-2/8/2019, the sample size is 506 (including 251 landline and 255 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 59.5%. For the rating stage of the best corporations, the date of survey is 5-6/8/2019, the sample size is 509 (including 249 landline and 260 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 66.6%.
Popularity of CE and Principal Officials
Latest Figures
Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 20-23/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 1-6/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 1,013 | 1,006 | 1,015 | 1,025 | 1,002 | 1,015 | -- |
| Response rate | 61.9% | 60.4% | 58.7% | 67.4% | 59.8% | 62.8% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Rating of CE Carrie Lam | 44.7 | 43.3 | 32.8[6] | 33.4 | 30.1[6] | 27.9+/-2.1 | -2.2 |
| Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 32% | 32% | 23%[6] | 26% | 21%[6] | 20+/-3% | -1% |
| Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 59% | 57% | 67%[6] | 66% | 70%[6] | 72+/-3% | +1% |
| Net approval rate | -27% | -24% | -44%[6] | -40% | -49%[6] | -51+/-5% | -2% |
[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 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 8-11/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 1-6/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 591-680 | 634-673 | 592-642 | 553-616 | 583-641 | 574-580 | -- |
| Response rate | 72.2% | 63.9% | 63.2% | 60.4% | 67.4% | 62.8% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Rating of CS Matthew Cheung | 47.7 | 45.9 | 43.5 | 43.2 | 38.0[7] | 40.1+/-2.3 | +2.2 |
| Vote of confidence in CS Matthew Cheung |
26% | 25% | 23% | 29%[7] | 26% | 28+/-4% | +2% |
| Vote of no confidence in CS Matthew Cheung |
28% | 27% | 29% | 32% | 38%[7] | 27+/-4% | -11%[7] |
| Net approval rate | -1% | -2% | -6% | -2% | -12%[7] | 1+/-6% | +13%[7] |
| Rating of FS Paul Chan | 39.7 | 38.2 | 34.2[7] | 36.1 | 29.5[7] | 32.9+/-2.5 | +3.4[7] |
| Vote of confidence in FS Paul Chan | 21% | 18% | 16% | 19% | 17% | 19+/-3% | +3% |
| Vote of no confidence in FS Paul Chan | 52% | 53% | 51% | 47% | 57%[7] | 49+/-4% | -8%[7] |
| Net approval rate | -30% | -35% | -35% | -28% | -40%[7] | -30+/-6% | +11%[7] |
| Rating of SJ Teresa Cheng | 34.4 | 34.2 | 29.5[7] | 29.5 | 21.6[7] | 20.3+/-2.4 | -1.2 |
| Vote of confidence in SJ Teresa Cheng | 14% | 17% | 11%[7] | 16%[7] | 10%[7] | 11+/-3% | -- |
| Vote of no confidence in SJ Teresa Cheng | 53% | 46%[7] | 52%[7] | 56% | 68%[7] | 63+/-4% | -5% |
| Net approval rate | -40% | -30%[7] | -41%[7] | -40% | -58%[7] | -53+/-6% | +5% |
[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.
Latest popularity figures of Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system are summarized below, in descending order of net approval rates[8]:
| Date of survey | 6-9/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 1-6/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 581-635 | 565-638 | 601-643 | 572-624 | -- |
| Response rate | 63.2% | 60.4% | 67.4% | 62.8% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan | 48% | 50% | 45% | 42+/-4% | -3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan | 13% | 12% | 14% | 13+/-3% | -1% |
| Net approval rate | 35% | 38% | 32% | 30+/-6% | -2% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau | 42% | 39% | 42% | 40+/-4% | -2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau | 15% | 13% | 13% | 13+/-3% | -- |
| Net approval rate | 27% | 26% | 29% | 27+/-5% | -2% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing | 33%[9] | 38%[9] | 38% | 34+/-4% | -4% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing | 22% | 20% | 20% | 20+/-3% | -- |
| Net approval rate | 10% | 18% | 18% | 14+/-6% | -4% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau | 23% | 24% | 22% | 23+/-3% | +2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau | 9% | 10% | 14%[9] | 13+/-3% | -1% |
| Net approval rate | 14% | 15% | 8%[9] | 11+/-5% | +3% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Development Michael Wong | 23% | 26% | 23% | 26+/-4% | +3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Development Michael Wong | 15% | 14% | 18%[9] | 19+/-3% | +1% |
| Net approval rate | 9% | 13% | 5%[9] | 6+/-5% | +1% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong | 32%[9] | 38%[9] | 38% | 32+/-4% | -7%[9] |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong | 28%[9] | 23%[9] | 21% | 26+/-4% | +4% |
| Net approval rate | 4%[9] | 15%[9] | 17% | 6+/-6% | -11%[9] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law | 34% | 31% | 35% | 25+/-4% | -10%[9] |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law | 13% | 19%[9] | 19% | 25+/-4% | +6%[9] |
| Net approval rate | 20% | 12%[9] | 16% | 0+/-6% | -17%[9] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang | 22% | 23% | 25% | 23+/-3% | -2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang | 29%[9] | 24%[9] | 27% | 26+/-4% | -2% |
| Net approval rate | -7% | -1% | -2% | -2+/-6% | -- |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip | 21% | 20% | 19% | 21+/-3% | +2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip | 21% | 22% | 30%[9] | 26+/-4% | -4% |
| Net approval rate | 0% | -2% | -11%[9] | -5+/-6% | +6% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan | 24% | 26% | 24% | 23+/-3% | -- |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan | 40% | 34%[9] | 38% | 35+/-4% | -3% |
| Net approval rate | -16% | -8% | -14% | -11+/-6% | +3% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung | 21% | 24% | 20% | 20+/-3% | -- |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung | 38% | 32%[9] | 46%[9] | 39+/-4% | -7%[9] |
| Net approval rate | -18% | -7%[9] | -26%[9] | -19+/-6% | +7% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah | 22% | 22% | 21% | 18+/-3% | -3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah | 42%[9] | 40% | 49%[9] | 49+/-4% | +1% |
| Net approval rate | -20% | -18% | -28%[9] | -31+/-6% | -3% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Security John Lee | 29% | 27% | 21%[9] | 20+/-3% | -1% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Security John Lee | 34% | 40%[9] | 59%[9] | 59+/-4% | -- |
| Net approval rate | -5% | -13% | -38%[9] | -39+/-7% | -1% |
[8] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[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 27.9 marks. Her approval rate is 20%, disapproval rate 72%, giving a net popularity of negative 51 percentage points. All popularity figures have not changed much from two weeks ago, but have again registered record lows since she became CE.
As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Matthew Cheung is 40.1 marks, approval rate 28%, disapproval rate 27%, giving a net popularity of positive 1 percentage point, which is a rebound of 13 percentage points. The support rating of FS Paul Chan has rebounded by 3.4 marks to 32.9, his approval rate at 19%, disapproval rate 49%, thus a net popularity of negative 30 percentage points, which is a rebound of 11 percentage points. As for SJ Teresa Cheng, her support rating is 20.3 marks, approval rate 11%, disapproval rate 63%, giving a net popularity of negative 53 percentage points. Her rating has again registered a new record low 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, according to the net approval rates, results revealed that the top position goes to Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan, followed by Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau, Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing, Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau, Secretary for Development Michael Wong and Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong. Meanwhile, Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law, 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.
Compared to one month ago, the net approval rates of 5 among 13 Directors have gone up, 7 have gone down and 1 has not changed. Those of Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law and Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong have changed beyond sampling errors, which decreased by 17 and 11 percentage points respectively. The net approval rates of Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan, Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law and Secretary for Security John Lee are at their record lows since they took office.
According to HKPOP’s standard, no one falls under the category of “ideal” or “successful” performer. The performance of Sophia Chan, Edward Yau, Wong Kam-sing, Law Chi-kwong, Matthew Cheung, Frank Chan, Kevin Yeung, Paul Chan and Lau Kong-wah can be labeled as “mediocre”. That of Michael Wong, Joshua Law, James Lau, Nicholas Yang and Patrick Nip can be labeled as “inconspicuous”. Teresa Cheng and John Lee fall into the category of “depressing” performer, while Carrie Lam falls into that of “disastrous”.
The following table summarizes the grading of CE Carrie Lam and the principal officials:
| “Ideal”: those with approval rates of over 66%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets[10] |
| “Successful”: those with approval rates of over 50%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets[10] |
| “Mediocre”: those not belonging to other 5 types; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets[10] |
| Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan Siu-chee (42%); Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau Tang-wah (40%); Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing (34%); Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong (32%); CS Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (28%); Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan Fan (23%); Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung (20%); FS Paul Chan Mo-po (19%); Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah (18%) |
| “Inconspicuous”: those with recognition rates of less than 50%; ranked by their approval rates[10]; the first figure inside bracket is approval rate while the second figure is recognition rate |
| Secretary for Development Michael Wong Wai-lun (26%, 45%); Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law Chi-kong (25%, 50%); Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Henry Lau Jr (23%, 36%); Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang Wei-hsiung (23%, 49%); Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip Tak-kuen (21%, 47%) |
| “Depressing”: those with disapproval rates of over 50%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets[10] |
| SJ Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah (63%); Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu (59%) |
| “Disastrous”: those with disapproval rates of over 66%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets[10] |
| CE Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (72%) |
[10] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
People’s Most Familiar Political Figures
In the survey, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 Hong Kong political figures currently alive whom they knew best. Results of the top 20 figures in the latest survey are summarized below[11]:
| Date of survey | 16-19/10/17 | 16-19/4/18 | 18-20/9/18 | 29/1-8/2/19 | 1-6/8/19 | |||||
| Sample size | 656 | 615 | 552 | 537 | 560 | |||||
| Response rate | 64.5% | 56.4% | 55.6% | 63.0% | 62.8% | |||||
| Latest findings | % | Rank | % | Rank | % | Rank | % | Rank | % | Rank |
| Carrie Lam | 44% | 1 | 46% | 1 | 38% | 1 | 35% | 1 | 31+/-4% | 1 |
| Tung Chee-hwa | 19% | 6 | 25% | 4 | 23% | 4 | 29% | 3 | 27+/-4% | 2 |
| Leung Chun-ying | 25% | 2 | 26% | 3 | 26% | 3 | 26% | 4 | 25+/-4% | 3 |
| Donald Tsang | 24% | 3 | 27% | 2 | 28% | 2 | 33% | 2 | 21+/-4% | 4 |
| Anson Chan | 8% | 15 | 9% | 14 | 8% | 14 | 11% | 9 | 20+/-3% | 5 |
| Regina Ip | 17% | 7 | 21% | 6 | 15% | 8 | 13% | 7 | 16+/-3% | 6 |
| Roy Kwong | 1% | -- | 1% | -- | 1% | -- | 2% | 46 | 15+/-3% | 7 |
| Martin Lee | 12% | 9 | 14% | 10 | 18% | 6 | 14% | 5 | 15+/-3% | 8 |
| Claudia Mo | 5% | 28 | 6% | 20 | 3% | 38 | 4% | 23 | 13+/-3% | 9 |
| Alvin Yeung | 7% | 19 | 5% | 26 | 4% | 27 | 5% | 18 | 12+/-3% | 10 |
| Junius Ho | 4% | 29 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 12+/-3% | 11 |
| Jasper Tsang | 16% | 8 | 16% | 9 | 16% | 7 | 8% | 12 | 12+/-3% | 12 |
| John Tsang | 21% | 5 | 18% | 8 | 13% | 9 | 14% | 6 | 11+/-3% | 13 |
| Eddie Chu | 3% | 35 | 3% | 35 | 3% | 39 | 3% | 35 | 10+/-3% | 14 |
| Matthew Cheung | 5% | 24 | 9% | 16 | 7% | 15 | 6% | 15 | 9+/-3% | 15 |
| Starry Lee | 12% | 10 | 12% | 11 | 6% | 22 | 6% | 14 | 9+/-2% | 16 |
| Leung Kwok-hung | 24% | 4 | 23% | 5 | 19% | 5 | 12% | 8 | 8+/-2% | 17 |
| Lam Cheuk-ting | 1% | -- | 1% | -- | 1% | -- | -- | -- | 8+/-2% | 18 |
| Paul Chan | 9% | 14 | 20% | 7 | 9% | 12 | 11% | 10 | 8+/-2% | 19 |
| James Tien | 5% | 26 | 8% | 18 | 5% | 24 | 3% | 29 | 7+/-2% | 20 |
[1] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered. For each survey, those who ranked beyond the 50th would be considered not on the list.
Survey results show that the 10 most frequently named political figures were Carrie Lam, Tung Chee-hwa, Leung Chun-ying, Donald Tsang, Anson Chan, Regina Ip, Roy Kwong, Martin Lee, Claudia Mo and Alvin Yeung, followed by Junius Ho, Jasper Tsang, John Tsang, Eddie Chu, Matthew Cheung, Starry Lee, Leung Kwok-hung, Lam Cheuk-ting, Paul Chan and James Tien. Among them, the percentages of respondents that mentioned Roy Kwong, Claudia Mo, Alvin Yeung, Junius Ho, Eddie Chu, Matthew Cheung and Lam Cheuk-ting have registered new record highs.
The purpose of the “people’s most familiar political figures” survey is to show the changing political ecology by studying the ups and downs of people’s familiarity with these figures over time. Compared to half a year ago, regardless of their popularities, 7 political figures remain in the top 10. John Tsang, Leung Kwok-hung and Paul Chan have fallen out of the list and are replaced by Roy Kwong, Claudia Mo and Alvin Yeung.
It should be noted, however, that our ranking of “people’s most familiar political figures” is based on our surveys which requested respondents to name local political figures without prompting. This kind of familiarity measurement is not the same as prompted ratings. In other words, those high on the list may not be the most supported figures, while those lower may have a different ranking if we use a prompting method. However, those who scored best in unprompted surveys are no doubt the most well-known political figures in Hong Kong.
Corporate Social Responsibility
The survey series on Corporate Social Responsibility aims to gauge the public image of different commercial organizations in order to encourage them to become ethical companies and select the best corporations. There are a total of six modules under this survey series, namely, 1) Public Transportation, 2) Telecommunication, 3) Banks and Financial Services, 4) Real Estate and Property Development, 5) Retail, and 6) Fast Food Restaurant.
The surveys were conducted in two stages. In the first stage naming survey, respondents were requested to nominate, unprompted, at most five relevant corporations that they were most familiar with. The three most frequently cited names would enter the next stage. During the second stage rating survey, respondents would be asked to rate the CSR performance for each of the shortlisted corporations using a 0-100 scale, in which 0 indicates extremely poor performance, 100 indicates extremely good performance, and 50 means half-half.
Public Transportation
In the naming survey, the public transportations mentioned most frequently were MTR, KMB and Citybus. The latest ratings of these corporations are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 24-25/4/17 | 19-20/7/17 | 4/1/18 | 20-23/7/18 | 5-6/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 506 | 503[12] | 500 | 500 | 509 | -- |
| Response rate | 74.0% | 55.2% | 58.5% | 50.8% | 66.6% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| KMB | 63.6[13] | 63.1 | 63.8 | 59.7[13] | 64.3+/-1.7 | +4.6[13] |
| Citybus | 59.4[13] | 62.2[13] | 60.0[13] | 59.5 | 62.9+/-1.7 | +3.4[13] |
| MTR | 59.0[13] | 62.2[13] | 60.1[13] | 56.2[13] | 47.3+/-2.5 | -8.9[13] |
[2] 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.
[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.
Our latest survey showed that KMB was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local public transportations, scored 64.3 marks, while Citybus and MTR scored 62.9 and 47.3 marks respectively.
Telecommunication Corporations
In the naming survey, the telecommunication corporations mentioned most frequently were China Mobile, Hutchison and Smartone. The latest ratings of these corporations are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 24-25/4/17 | 16-17/8/17 | 5-6/2/18 | 5-6/9/18 / 18-20/9/18 | 5-6/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 506 | 611[14] | 505 | 511 / 1,002 | 509 | -- |
| Response rate | 74.0% | 57.6% | 61.2% | 51.3% / 55.6% | 66.6% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Smartone | 50.9[15] | -- | 51.1 | 54.2[15] | 56.1+/-1.8 | +1.8 |
| Hutchison | 49.5[15] | 50.7[15] | 45.6[15] | -- | 52.3+/-1.9 | -- |
| China Mobile | -- | -- | -- | 47.6 | 48.0+/-2.6 | +0.4 |
| PCCW | 51.6[15] | 54.1[15] | 51.7[15] | 54.5[15] [16] | -- | -- |
| HKBN | -- | 58.6 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
Our latest survey showed that Smartone was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local telecommunication corporations, scored 56.1 marks, while Hutchison and China Mobile scored 52.3 and 48.0 marks respectively.
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 become “Opinion Daily” after they are verified by HKPOP.
For the polling items covered in this press release, the earliest previous survey was conducted from 20 to 23 July, 2018 while this survey was conducted from 1 to 6 August, 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.
| 6/8/19 | The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office holds a press conference regarding the anti-extradition bill movement. |
| 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. |
| 29/7/19 | The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office holds a press conference regarding the anti-extradition bill movement. |
| 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. |
| 25/7/19 | Police object to the “Reclaim Yuen Long” march to be held on July 27. |
| 22/7/19 | Men dressed in white indiscriminately attacked citizens in Yuen Long last night. |
| 21/7/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters surround the Liaison Office. |
| 20/7/19 | The police seizes 2kg of high explosives TATP. |
| 20/7/19 | The pro-establishment camp organizes a “Safeguard Hong Kong” rally at Tamar Park. |
| 18/7/19 | Tai Wai Station to Kai Tak Station of Shatin to Central Link will be opened in the first quarter of 2019. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 18/6/19 | Carrie Lam apologizes to the people regarding the extradition bill controversies. |
| 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. |
| 9/6/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.03 million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill. |
| 11/5/19 | Pro-establishment and pan-democrats Legislative councilors clash during a meeting on the proposed changes to the extradition bill. |
| 18/3/19 | Two MTR trains collide during the testing of a new signaling system on the Tsuen Wan Line. |
| 27/2/19 | Financial Secretary Paul Chan delivers the Budget. |
| 30/1/19 | More problems about the construction of the Hung Hom Station at the Shatin to Central Link are discovered and inspection documents are found missing. |
| 8/1/19 | The Government releases the report submitted by the Independent Review Committee on Hong Kong’s Franchised Bus Service. |
| 5/12/18 | MTR Corporation agrees to dig up platform slabs at Hung Hom station to assess the built structures. |
| 16/10/18 | The traffic is paralyzed as four MTR lines encounter signaling issues. |
| 23/9/18 | The Hong Kong Section of Express Rail Link is launched. |
| 10/8/18 | Buildings near the construction site of Exhibition Centre Station of MTR Shatin to Central Link are found to be affected by land subsidence. |
| 7/8/18 | Five members of the MTR top management team resign because of problems about the construction of the Shatin to Central Link. |
Anti-Extradition Bill Movement and Conflicts between Protesters and the Police
HKPOP was commissioned by Apple Daily to ask the following questions on the anti-extradition bill movement and conflicts between protesters and the police at the beginning of the questionnaire. The results are summarized as follows:
| Overall sample | Age | Educational attainment | ||||||
| 18–29 | 30–49 | 50–64 | 65 or above | Primary or below | Secondary | Tertiary or above | ||
| Valid raw sample size (latest survey) |
968-1,014 | 218-219 | 331-348 | 260-273 | 146-162 | 74-86 | 394-413 | 496-512 |
| Please rate on a scale of 0-100 your level of satisfaction with the Hong Kong Police Force as a disciplinary force. 0 stands for very dissatisfied, 100 stands for very satisfied, 50 stands for half-half. How would you rate it? | ||||||||
| Mean score: 1-6/8/19 | 39.4 | 16.6 | 34.3 | 43.6 | 59.8 | 58.8 | 39.4 | 28.1 |
| 3-6/6/19 | 61.0 | 48.5 | 55.2 | 68.3 | 70.8 | 74.7 | 62.0 | 52.7 |
| 15-19/11/18 | 62.5 | 51.9 | 58.0 | 67.8 | 70.8 | 70.6 | 64.4 | 55.2 |
| 21-25/5/18 | 63.7 | 55.3 | 59.8 | 69.6 | 70.2 | 71.2 | 64.8 | 57.6 |
| 14-16/11/17 | 66.9 | 53.6 | 68.5 | 67.9 | 76.1 | 74.5 | 68.1 | 58.9 |
| Recently there have been conflicts between protesters and the police in many areas in Hong Kong. Do you think the police have used too much force, appropriate force or too little force in those occasions? | ||||||||
| Too much | 58% | 87% | 64% | 53% | 34% | 30% | 58% | 75% |
| Appropriate | 23% | 6% | 19% | 26% | 36% | 40% | 23% | 12% |
| Too little | 15% | 5% | 15% | 17% | 22% | 21% | 15% | 11% |
| Which of the following do you think bears the most responsibility for the continued conflicts between protesters and the police: (Read out first three options with order randomized, multiple answers allowed) | ||||||||
| Government | 71% | 92% | 81% | 65% | 49% | 44% | 73% | 85% |
| Protesters | 35% | 14% | 34% | 35% | 51% | 53% | 34% | 24% |
| Police | 25% | 40% | 29% | 22% | 13% | 11% | 24% | 35% |
| How much do you support or oppose the setting up of an independent investigation committee to look into the causes of the protests and whether or not there was police abuse of force? (Probe for intensity) | ||||||||
| Very much support | 64% | 85% | 69% | 57% | 51% | 43% | 64% | 77% |
| Somewhat support | 12% | 11% | 12% | 15% | 11% | 12% | 15% | 9% |
| Half-half | 6% | 1% | 4% | 7% | 9% | 13% | 4% | 3% |
| Somewhat oppose | 4% | <1% | 5% | 7% | 3% | 6% | 5% | 3% |
| Very much oppose | 9% | 3% | 6% | 10% | 15% | 13% | 8% | 6% |
| Support | 77% | 96% | 81% | 71% | 62% | 55% | 79% | 86% |
| Oppose | 13% | 3% | 11% | 17% | 18% | 19% | 13% | 8% |
| Net value | 64% | 92% | 71% | 55% | 44% | 36% | 66% | 78% |
| Mean value[17] | 4.3 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 4.3 | 4.5 |
[7] The mean value is calculated by quantifying 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.
The survey conducted in early August shows that people’s satisfaction rating toward the Hong Kong Police Force has plunged by 21.6 marks from 61.0, which was registered in early June before the anti-extradition bill movement broke out, to 39.4, the lowest figure ever since records began in 2012. As to the use of force, 58% of the people were of the view that the police had used excessive force during recent conflicts with protesters, 23% found it appropriate, while 15% thought too little force had been used. Regarding the continued conflicts between protesters and the police, 71% thought the government should bear the most responsibility, 35% thought it should be the protesters, while 25% thought it should be the police. Lastly, as many as 77% of the people support the setting up of an independent investigation committee to look into the causes of the protests and whether or not there was police abuse of force, while only 13% opposed the idea.
Data Analysis
The survey conducted in early August shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 27.9 marks. Her net popularity is negative 51 percentage points. Both figures have again registered record lows since she became CE.
As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Matthew Cheung is 40.1 marks. His net popularity has rebounded by 13 percentage points to positive 1 percentage point. The support rating of FS Paul Chan has rebounded by 3.4 marks to 32.9. His net popularity has also rebounded by 11 percentage points to negative 30 percentage points. As for SJ Teresa Cheng, her support rating is 20.3 marks, a new record low since she took office. Her net popularity stands at negative 53 percentage points.
As for the Directors of Bureaux, compared to one month ago, the net approval rates of 5 among 13 Directors have gone up, 7 have gone down and 1 has not changed. Those of Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law and Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong have changed beyond sampling errors, which decreased by 17 and 11 percentage points respectively. The net approval rates of Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan, Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law and Secretary for Security John Lee are at their record lows since they took office.
As for people’s most familiar political figures, compared to half a year ago, regardless of their popularities, 7 political figures remain in the top 10. John Tsang, Leung Kwok-hung and Paul Chan have fallen out of the list and are replaced by Roy Kwong, Claudia Mo and Alvin Yeung.
KMB was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local public transportations, scored 64.3 marks, while Smartone was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local telecommunication corporations, scored 56.1 marks.
Lastly, people’s satisfaction rating toward the Hong Kong Police Force has plunged by 21.6 marks from 61.0, which was registered in early June before the anti-extradition bill movement broke out, to 39.4, the lowest figure ever since records began in 2012. At the same time, 58% of the people were of the view that the police had used excessive force during recent conflicts with protesters, 71% thought the government should bear the most responsibility for the continued conflicts between protesters and the police, 77% of the people support the setting up of an independent investigation committee to look into the causes of the protests and whether or not there was police abuse of force.
