2019年8月27日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會回顧
2019年8月27日 新聞公報
香港民研今日發放特首及政府民望、信任及信心指標、
新聞傳媒評價、企業社會責任及民情指數之結果
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
香港民研於八月中由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式成功訪問了1,023名香港居民。結果顯示，特首林鄭月娥的最新評分為24.6分，其民望淨值為負59個百分點，兩者再創其上任特首以來新低，前者同時是歷屆特首的新低。特區政府的最新滿意率淨值為負63個百分點，是1997年有記錄以來新低。市民對現時經濟、民生及政治狀況的滿意淨值就分別為負29、負54及負83個百分點。三者當中，民生狀況和政治狀況的滿意淨值均再創1992年有記錄以來新低。政府信任程度方面，市民對特區政府、北京中央政府及台灣政府的信任淨值分別為負37、負40及負12個百分點，當中特區政府信任淨值是1992年有記錄以來新低，而北京中央政府信任淨值則是1994年以來新低。信心指標方面，與大約半年前時比較，巿民對中國前途的信心淨值大幅下降，跌至負8個百分點，創1997年有記錄以來新低。巿民對香港前途的信心淨值為負12個百分點，變化不大，而對一國兩制的信心淨值則為負28個百分點，同樣創1993年有記錄以來新低。新聞傳媒評價方面，市民對新聞傳媒整體表現的滿意程度較半年前大幅上升，最新滿意淨值為正40個百分點，香港新聞自由程度的滿意淨值為正18個百分點。此外，以0-10分為標準，市民對香港新聞傳媒公信力的評分，最新數字為5.81分。認為傳媒有自我審查的淨值創1997年有記錄以來新高，而認為傳媒有誤用或濫用新聞自由的淨值則創1997年有記錄以來新低。企業社會責任調查方面，四個系列的最新結果為：恒生銀行在本地銀行及金融服務公司中表現最好，得63.1分；長江實業在本地地產商及物業發展公司中表現最好，得51.2分；7-11在本地零售公司中表現最好，得57.8分；麥當勞在本地連鎖式快餐店中表現最好，得56.8分。民情指數方面，最新數字為58.0，較八月上旬下跌8.6點。調查的實效回應比率為68.5%。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+/-2.4。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 15-20/8/2019[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] | ： | 1,023 (包括508個固網及515個手機號碼樣本)[5] |
| 實效回應比率[2] | ： | 68.5%[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+/-2.4 |
| 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] 最佳企業提名階段調查日期為15-16/8/2019，成功樣本數目為509 (包括254個固網及255個手機號碼樣本)，實效回應比率為67.0%。最佳企業評分階段調查日期為19-20/8/2019，成功樣本數目為513 (包括255個固網及258個手機號碼樣本)，實效回應比率為69.8%。
特首及政府民望
以下是特首林鄭月娥的最新民望數字：
| 調查日期 | 3-6/6/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 1-6/8/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 1,006 | 1,015 | 1,025 | 1,002 | 1,015 | 1,023 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 60.4% | 58.7% | 67.4% | 59.8% | 62.8% | 68.5% | -- |
| 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 | 43.3 | 32.8[6] | 33.4 | 30.1[6] | 27.9 | 24.6+/-1.9 | -3.3[6] |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首支持率 | 32% | 23%[6] | 26% | 21%[6] | 20% | 17+/-2% | -3% |
| 林鄭月娥出任特首反對率 | 57% | 67%[6] | 66% | 70%[6] | 72% | 76+/-3% | +5%[6] |
| 支持率淨值 | -24% | -44%[6] | -40% | -49%[6] | -51% | -59+/-5% | -8%[6] |
[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。
以下是特區政府的最新民望數字以及市民對社會狀況的評價：
| 調查日期 | 14-19/3/19 | 23-25/4/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目[7] | 1,024 | 1,031 | 1,013 | 1,015 | 1,002 | 1,023 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 73.1% | 66.1% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及 誤差 |
-- |
| 特區政府表現滿意率[8] | 31% | 30% | 27% | 18%[9] | 18% | 14+/-3% | -4% |
| 特區政府表現不滿率[8] | 49% | 48% | 55%[9] | 72%[9] | 70% | 77+/-3% | +7%[9] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -18% | -19% | -28% | -53%[9] | -52% | -63+/-6% | -11%[9] |
| 平均量值[8] | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.5[9] | 2.0[9] | 2.0 | 1.8+/-0.1 | -0.2[9] |
| 現時經濟狀況滿意率[8] | 35% | 33% | 36% | 31%[9] | 28% | 25+/-3% | -3% |
| 現時經濟狀況不滿率[8] | 42%[9] | 40% | 41% | 45% | 47% | 53+/-3% | +6%[9] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -7% | -7% | -5% | -14%[9] | -19% | -29+/-5% | -9%[9] |
| 平均量值[8] | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.7[9] | 2.6 | 2.5+/-0.1 | -0.1[9] |
| 現時民生狀況滿意率[8] | 27% | 22%[9] | 26%[9] | 21%[9] | 21% | 16+/-2% | -5%[9] |
| 現時民生狀況不滿率[8] | 54% | 59%[9] | 56% | 62%[9] | 64% | 69+/-3% | +6%[9] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -27% | -37%[9] | -30%[9] | -41%[9] | -43% | -54+/-5% | -10%[9] |
| 平均量值[8] | 2.5 | 2.4[9] | 2.5[9] | 2.3[9] | 2.2 | 2.1+/-0.1 | -0.2[9] |
| 現時政治狀況滿意率[8] | 17% | 17% | 13%[9] | 7%[9] | 5% | 5+/-1% | -- |
| 現時政治狀況不滿率[8] | 62% | 64% | 71%[9] | 81%[9] | 87%[9] | 88+/-2% | +1% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -45% | -48% | -58%[9] | -74%[9] | -82%[9] | -83+/-3% | -1% |
| 平均量值[8] | 2.2 | 2.1[9] | 1.9[9] | 1.6[9] | 1.5[9] | 1.4+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
[7] 特區政府表現系列題目每次只涉及有關調查的次樣本。是次調查的次樣本為635。
[8] 數字採自五等量尺。平均量值是把答案按照正面程度，以1分最低5分最高量化成為1、2、3、4、5分，再求取樣本平均數值。
[9] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，表示有關變化在統計學上表面成立。不過，變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化是否有實際用途或意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
以下是市民對特區政府信任程度的最新結果：
| 調查日期 | 21-24/1/19 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 532 | 639 | 686 | 623 | 555 | 632 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 59.0% | 72.2% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及 誤差 |
-- |
| 信任特區政府比率[10] | 44% | 34%[11] | 36% | 28%[11] | 29% | 27+/-4% | -2% |
| 不信任特區政府比率[10] | 37% | 46%[11] | 50% | 60%[11] | 60% | 64+/-4% | +3% |
| 信任淨值 | 7% | -12%[11] | -14% | -32%[11] | -31% | -37+/-7% | -6% |
| 平均量值[10] | 3.0 | 2.7[11] | 2.7 | 2.4[11] | 2.3 | 2.2+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
[10] 數字採自五等量尺。平均量值是把答案按照正面程度，以1分最低5分最高量化成為1、2、3、4、5分，再求取樣本平均數值。
[11] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，表示有關變化在統計學上表面成立。不過，變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化是否有實際用途或意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
最新調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的評分為24.6分，其支持率為17%，反對率為76%，民望淨值為負59個百分點，全部數字均較兩星期前顯著轉差，並再創其上任特首以來新低。
特區政府方面，民望較一個月前顯著轉差，最新滿意率為14%，不滿率為77%，滿意率淨值為負63個百分點，是1997年有記錄以來新低，平均量值為1.8分，即整體上介乎「幾不滿」及「好不滿」之間。信任程度方面，最新的信任比率為27%，不信任比率為64%，信任淨值為負37個百分點，是1992年有記錄以來新低，平均量值為2.2分，即整體上介乎「一半半」及「幾不信任」之間。
至於市民對現時經濟、民生及政治狀況的滿意程度，最新滿意率分別為25%、16%及5%，而滿意淨值就分別為負29、負54及負83個百分點。經濟及民生狀況的平均量值為2.5及2.1，即整體上介乎「一半半」及「幾不滿」之間。政治狀況的平均量值為1.4，即整體上介乎「幾不滿」及「好不滿」之間。三者當中，民生狀況和政治狀況的滿意淨值均再創1992年有記錄以來新低。
信任及信心指標
市民對特區、北京中央及台灣政府的信任程度、對中港前途以及一國兩制的信心的最新結果表列如下：
| 調查日期 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 639 | 686 | 623 | 555 | 632 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 72.2% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| (重複顯示) | ||||||
| 信任特區政府比率[12] | 34%[13] | 36% | 28%[13] | 29% | 27+/-4% | -2% |
| 不信任特區政府比率[12] | 46%[13] | 50% | 60%[13] | 60% | 64+/-4% | +3% |
| 信任淨值 | -12%[13] | -14% | -32%[13] | -31% | -37+/-7% | -6% |
| 平均量值[12] | 2.7[13] | 2.7 | 2.4[13] | 2.3 | 2.2+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| 調查日期 | 3-4/1/18 | 21-25/5/18 | 3-6/9/18 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 548-632 | 513-555 | 515-538 | 613-674 | 603-633 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 58.3% | 55.9% | 50.4% | 72.2% | 68.5% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 信任中央政府比率[12] | 38% | 34% | 40%[13] [14] | 33%[13] | 23+/-3% | -10%[13] |
| 不信任中央政府比率[12] | 45% | 48% | 40%[13] | 48%[13] | 63+/-4% | +15%[13] |
| 信任淨值 | -7% | -14% | 0%[13] | -15%[13] | -40+/-7% | -25%[13] |
| 平均量值[12] | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.9[13] | 2.7[13] | 2.2+/-0.1 | -0.5[13] |
| 信任台灣政府比率[12] | 17% | 17% | 22% | 23% | 25+/-4% | +2% |
| 不信任台灣政府比率[12] | 41% | 50%[13] | 45% | 40% | 37+/-4% | -2% |
| 信任淨值 | -25% | -33%[13] | -23%[13] [14] | -17% | -12+/-6% | +4% |
| 平均量值[12] | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.5[13] [14] | 2.6 | 2.7+/-0.1 | -- |
| 香港前途信心正面比率 | 51% | 46%[13] | 46% | 39%[13] | 40+/-4% | -- |
| 香港前途信心負面比率 | 43% | 48%[13] | 47% | 55%[13] | 52+/-4% | -3% |
| 信心淨值 | 8%[13] | -2%[13] | -1% | -16%[13] | -12+/-8% | +3% |
| 中國前途信心正面比率 | 70%[13] | 61%[13] | 62% | 62% | 42+/-4% | -20%[13] |
| 中國前途信心負面比率 | 25% | 31%[13] | 31% | 32% | 50+/-4% | +18%[13] |
| 信心淨值 | 45%[13] | 30%[13] | 30% | 30% | -8+/-8% | -38%[13] |
| 一國兩制信心正面比率 | 47% | 40%[13] | 45% | 41% | 34+/-4% | -8%[13] |
| 一國兩制信心負面比率 | 47% | 54%[13] | 49% | 55%[13] | 62+/-4% | +6%[13] |
| 信心淨值 | 0% | -14%[13] | -4% | -14% | -28+/-8% | -14%[13] |
[12] 數字採自五等量尺。平均量值是把答案按照正面程度，以1分最低5分最高量化成為1、2、3、4、5分，再求取樣本平均數值。
[13] 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。
[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，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。
政府信任程度方面，27%被訪市民表示信任特區政府，信任北京中央政府及台灣政府的，佔23%及25%，三項信任淨值分別為負37、負40及負12個百分點，平均量值就分別為2.2、2.2及2.7分，即整體上介乎「一半半」及「幾不信任」之間。市民對北京中央政府的信任程度較五個多月前大幅下跌。另外，特區政府信任淨值是1992年有記錄以來新低，而北京中央政府信任淨值則是1994年以來新低。
信心指標方面，巿民對中國前途的信心同樣較五個多月前大幅下跌，42%表示有信心，信心淨值為負8個百分點，創1997年有記錄以來新低。另一方面，40%表示對香港前途有信心，信心淨值為負12個百分點。而對一國兩制的信心亦大幅下跌，34%表示有信心，信心淨值為負28個百分點，創1993年有記錄以來新低。
市民對新聞傳媒的評價
新聞傳媒調查的最新結果表列如下：
| 調查日期 | 3-4/10/17 | 2-4/4/18 | 20-22/8/18 | 21-24/1/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 498-567 | 549-706 | 544-593 | 541-564 | 548-683 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 59.5% | 57.9% | 53.0% | 59.0% | 68.5% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及 誤差 |
-- |
| 市民的主要新聞來源： | ||||||
| 互聯網 | 60% | 67%[16] | 63% | 69%[16] | 74+/-3% | +4% |
| 電視 | 79% | 74%[16] | 70% | 65% | 66+/-4% | +1% |
| 報紙 | 54%[16] | 48%[16] | 47% | 52% | 42+/-4% | -9%[16] |
| 電台 | 32%[16] | 29% | 30% | 30% | 37+/-4% | +6%[16] |
| 朋友 | 17%[16] | 19% | 18% | 18% | 28+/-4% | +10%[16] |
| 認為最值得信任的新聞來源： | ||||||
| 互聯網 | 14% | 17% | 14% | -- | 31+/-4% | +17%[16] |
| 電視 | 38% | 32%[16] | 33% | -- | 25+/-4% | -7%[16] |
| 電台 | 17% | 17% | 17% | -- | 14+/-3% | -3% |
| 報紙 | 15% | 14% | 16% | -- | 9+/-2% | -6%[16] |
| 家人 | 4% | 6% | 4% | -- | 5+/-2% | +1% |
| 電台表現滿意率[15] | 54% | 61%[16] | 56% | -- | 59+/-4% | +2% |
| 電台表現不滿率[15] | 14% | 13% | 15% | -- | 15+/-3% | +1% |
| 滿意率淨值 | 40% | 48%[16] | 42% | -- | 44+/-6% | +2% |
| 平均量值[15] | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.5 | -- | 3.6+/-0.1 | +0.1 |
| 互聯網表現滿意率[15] | 39% | 43% | 45% | -- | 55+/-4% | +10%[16] |
| 互聯網表現不滿率[15] | 20% | 21% | 21% | -- | 16+/-3% | -5%[16] |
| 滿意率淨值 | 19% | 22% | 23% | -- | 39+/-6% | +15%[16] |
| 平均量值[15] | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | -- | 3.6+/-0.1 | +0.3[16] |
| 電視表現滿意率[15] | 53% | 52% | 54% | -- | 42+/-4% | -12%[16] |
| 電視表現不滿率[15] | 24%[16] | 24% | 24% | -- | 30+/-4% | +5%[16] |
| 滿意率淨值 | 29%[16] | 28% | 30% | -- | 13+/-6% | -17%[16] |
| 平均量值[15] | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | -- | 3.1+/-0.1 | -0.2[16] |
| 報章表現滿意率[15] | 38% | 39% | 44% | -- | 31+/-4% | -13%[16] |
| 報章表現不滿率[15] | 27% | 30% | 24%[16] | -- | 31+/-4% | +6%[16] |
| 滿意率淨值 | 11% | 9% | 19%[16] | -- | 0+/-6% | -20%[16] |
| 平均量值[15] | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.2[16] | -- | 2.9+/-0.1 | -0.3[16] |
| 雜誌表現滿意率[15] | 13% | 19%[16] | 15% | -- | 14+/-3% | -1% |
| 雜誌表現不滿率[15] | 41%[16] | 45% | 41% | -- | 34+/-4% | -7%[16] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -28%[16] | -26% | -26% | -- | -20+/-5% | +6% |
| 平均量值[15] | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | -- | 2.5+/-0.1 | -- |
| 新聞傳媒整體表現滿意率[15] | 48% | 50% | 49% | 38%[16] | 57+/-4% | +19%[16] |
| 新聞傳媒整體表現不滿率[15] | 18% | 20% | 17% | 20% | 17+/-3% | -2% |
| 滿意率淨值 | 31% | 30% | 32% | 18%[16] | 40+/-7% | +22%[16] |
| 平均量值[15] | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.2[16] | 3.4+/-0.1 | +0.2[16] |
| 香港新聞自由滿意率[15] | 47%[16] | 48% | 52% | -- | 51+/-4% | -- |
| 香港新聞自由不滿率[15] | 32% | 36% | 30%[16] [17] | -- | 33+/-4% | +3% |
| 滿意率淨值 | 15%[16] | 12% | 22% | -- | 18+/-8% | -4% |
| 平均量值[15] | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | -- | 3.2+/-0.1 | -- |
| 認為香港新聞傳媒： | ||||||
| 報道負責任[15] | 30% | 25%[16] | 29% | -- | 40+/-4% | +11%[16] |
| 報道不負責任[15] | 40% | 40% | 39% | -- | 30+/-4% | -9%[16] |
| 淨值 | -10% | -15% | -9% | -- | 10+/-7% | +20%[16] |
| 平均量值[15] | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | -- | 3.1+/-0.1 | +0.3[16] |
| 批評中央政府時有顧忌 | 67%[16] | 69% | 64% | -- | 60+/-4% | -4% |
| 批評中央政府時沒有顧忌 | 25%[16] | 24% | 25% | -- | 32+/-4% | +6%[16] |
| 淨值 | 41%[16] | 45% | 39% | -- | 29+/-7% | -10%[16] |
| 批評特區政府時有顧忌 | 51%[16] | 53% | 50% | -- | 42+/-4% | -8%[16] |
| 批評特區政府時沒有顧忌 | 44% | 42% | 44% | -- | 49+/-4% | +5% |
| 淨值 | 7%[16] | 12% | 7% | -- | -7+/-8% | -14%[16] |
| 有自我審查 | 53% | 56% | 56% | -- | 59+/-4% | +4% |
| 沒有自我審查 | 33% | 30% | 29% | -- | 29+/-4% | -- |
| 淨值 | 20% | 26% | 27% | -- | 31+/-7% | +4% |
| 有充分發揮言論自由 | 52%[16] | 47%[16] | 53% | -- | 58+/-4% | +5% |
| 沒有充分發揮言論自由 | 42%[16] | 44% | 39%[16] [17] | -- | 34+/-4% | -5% |
| 淨值 | 10%[16] | 3% | 14%[16] | -- | 24+/-8% | +10% |
| 有誤用／濫用新聞自由 | 56%[16] | 58% | 52%[16] | -- | 46+/-4% | -7%[16] |
| 沒有誤用／濫用新聞自由 | 33%[16] | 32% | 38%[16] | -- | 43+/-4% | +4% |
| 淨值 | 23%[16] | 27% | 14%[16] | -- | 3+/-7% | -11%[16] |
| 香港新聞傳媒公信力評分 (0-10) | 5.77 | 5.67 | 5.89[16] [17] | 5.77 | 5.81+/-0.16 | +0.04 |
[1] 數字採自五等量尺。平均量值是把答案按照正面程度，以1分最低5分最高量化成為1、2、3、4、5分，再求取樣本平均數值。
[2] 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。
[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，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。
新聞傳媒調查發現，分別為數74%及66%被訪者表示主要透過互聯網及電視得悉新聞，前者是2000年有記錄以來新高。另外，有28%被訪者主要透過朋友得悉新聞，亦是2000年有記錄以來新高。信任程度方面，分別為數31%及25%被訪者認為互聯網及電視是最值得信任的新聞來源，前者是2000年有記錄以來新高，後者則是1993年有記錄以來新低。同時，認為報紙最值得信任的比率為9%，亦創1993年有記錄以來新低。
各新聞渠道表現的評價方面，對電台、互聯網、電視、報章和雜誌作為新聞傳媒的滿意率分別為59%、55%、42%、31%和14%，滿意淨值分別為正44、正39、正13、零和負20個百分點。對互聯網的滿意淨值是2000年有記錄以來新高，對電視的滿意淨值是1993年有記錄以來新低，對報章和雜誌的滿意淨值則分別是2002年以來新低和2001年以來新高。整體而言，市民對新聞傳媒整體表現的滿意程度大幅上升，最新滿意率為57%，滿意淨值為正40個百分點，平均量值為3.4，即介乎「一半半」與「幾滿意」之間。
調查亦發現，51%被訪市民表示滿意香港的新聞自由程度，33%表示不滿，滿意淨值為正18個百分點，平均量值為3.2，即「一半半」與「幾滿意」之間；40%認為香港新聞傳媒的報道負責任，30%認為不負責任，淨值為正10個百分點，平均量值為3.1，即接近「一半半」。60%被訪者認為香港新聞傳媒批評中央政府時有顧忌，淨值為正29個百分點，認為批評特區政府時有顧忌的，則有42%，淨值為負7個百分點；59%認為香港新聞傳媒有自我審查，29%認為沒有，淨值為正31個百分點。58%認為香港新聞傳媒有充分發揮言論自由，淨值為正24個百分點，但同時有46%指其有誤用或濫用新聞自由，淨值為正3個百分點。此外，以0-10分為標準，市民對香港新聞傳媒公信力的評分，最新數字為5.81分。認為傳媒有自我審查的淨值創1997年有記錄以來新高，而認為傳媒有誤用或濫用新聞自由的淨值則創1997年有記錄以來新低。
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。
銀行及金融服務公司
在提名調查中，最多被訪者提及的銀行及金融服務公司分別是匯豐銀行、中國銀行及恒生銀行。以下是相關企業的最新評分：
| 調查日期 | 16-18/5/17 | 12-13/9/17 | 5-6/3/18 | 15-19/11/18 | 19-20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 521 | 621[18] | 501 | 545 | 513 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 69.9% | 68.8% | 57.7% | 67.9% | 69.8% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 恒生銀行 | 67.5[19] | 63.0[19] | 62.8 | 64.5 | 63.1+/-1.7 | -1.4 |
| 匯豐銀行 | 63.0[19] | 61.2[19] | 60.6 | 62.9 | 58.9+/-1.7 | -4.0[19] |
| 中國銀行 | 61.2[19] | 56.1[19] | 57.4 | 59.3 | 48.1+/-2.3 | -11.3[19] |
[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。
最新調查顯示，在本地銀行及金融服務公司中，市民認為恒生銀行的社會責任表現最好，得63.1分。而匯豐銀行和中國銀行則分別得58.9及48.1分。
地產商及物業發展公司
在提名調查中，最多被訪者提及的地產商及物業發展公司分別是新鴻基地產、長江實業及恆基兆業。以下是相關企業的最新評分：
| 調查日期 | 16-18/5/17 | 16-18/10/17 | 18-19/4/18 | 21-24/1/19 | 19-20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 521 | 546 | 503 | 519 | 513 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 69.9% | 63.0% | 56.7% | 59.0% | 69.8% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 長江實業 | 54.4[20] | 49.8[20] | 50.3 | 47.9 | 51.2+/-2.2 | +3.3[20] |
| 恆基兆業 | 56.6 | 52.0[20] | 50.7 | 48.8 | 49.2+/-2.3 | +0.3 |
| 新鴻基地產 | 57.7[20] | 52.1[20] | 48.4[20] | 49.6 | 47.6+/-2.4 | -2.0 |
[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。
最新調查顯示，在本地地產商及物業發展公司中，市民認為長江實業的社會責任表現最好，得51.2分。而恆基兆業和新鴻基地產則分別得49.2及47.6分。
零售公司
在提名調查中，最多被訪者提及的零售公司分別是百佳、惠康及7-11。以下是相關企業的最新評分：
| 調查日期 | 7-8/6/17 | 8-9/11/17 | 8-9/5/18[21] | 14-19/3/19 | 19-20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 505 | 504 | 511 | 565 | 513 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 68.7% | 56.1% | 60.7% | 73.1% | 69.8% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 7-11 | 54.4[22] | 57.0[22] | 57.7 | 55.9 | 57.8+/-1.8 | +1.9 |
| 惠康 | 53.1[22] | 56.0[22] | 57.0 | 55.7 | 56.9+/-1.7 | +1.2 |
| 百佳 | 51.8[22] | 55.1[22] | 55.8 | 53.8 | 54.7+/-1.6 | +1.0 |
[7] 原數字有錯誤，特此更正。
[8] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，表示有關變化在統計學上表面成立。不過，變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化是否有實際用途或意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
最新調查顯示，在本地零售公司中，市民認為7-11的社會責任表現最好，得57.8分。而惠康和百佳則分別得56.9及54.7分。
連鎖式快餐店
在提名調查中，最多被訪者提及的連鎖式快餐店分別是大家樂、大快活及麥當勞。以下是相關企業的最新評分：
| 調查日期 | 7-8/6/17 | 6/12/17 | 6-7/6/18 | 20-23/5/19 | 19-20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 505 | 502 | 502 | 687 | 513 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 68.7% | 59.9% | 56.0% | 61.9% | 69.8% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 麥當勞 | 53.7[23] | 55.7 | 58.2[23] | 56.8 | 56.8+/-1.8 | -- |
| 大快活 | 55.1[23] | 55.5 | 57.1 | 55.9 | 56.4+/-1.7 | +0.5 |
| 大家樂 | 53.1[23] | 53.2 | 57.3[23] | 55.1[23] | 55.6+/-1.7 | +0.5 |
[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，在本地連鎖式快餐店中，市民認為麥當勞的社會責任表現最好，得56.8分。而大快活和大家樂則分別得56.4及55.6分。
民情指數
香港民研制定「民情指數」（PSI），目的在於量化香港市民對香港社會的情緒反應，以解釋及預視社會出現集體行動的可能性。民情指數包涵了「政通」和「人和」兩個概念，分別以「政評數值（GA）」和「社評數值（SA）」顯示。「政評數值（GA）」泛指市民對整體政府管治的表現評價，而「社評數值（SA）」則泛指市民對整體社會狀況的評價，分別由四及六項民意數字組合而成。指數本身及兩項數值均以0至200顯示，100代表正常。
以下為民情指數、政評數值及社評數值走勢圖：
| 最新數值 | 民情指數：58.0 (-8.6) | 政評數值：56.5 (-6.9) | 社評數值：61.1 (-8.5) |
以下是民情指數、政評數值、社評數值，及十項基礎民意數字的近期數值：
| 截數日期 | 9/6/19 | 23/6/19 | 8/7/19 | 19/7/19 | 6/8/19 | 20/8/19 | 最新變化 |
| 民情指數 | 89.1 | 71.5 | 71.9 | 67.4 | 66.6 | 58.0 | -8.6 |
| 政評數值 | 85.0 | 67.2 | 67.9 | 64.8 | 63.4 | 56.5 | -6.9 |
| 特首評分 | 43.3 | 32.8 | 33.4 | 30.1 | 27.9 | 24.6 | -3.3 |
| 特首民望淨值 | -24% | -44% | -40% | -49% | -51% | -59% | -8% |
| 政府滿意程度平均量值 | 2.5[24] | 2.0 | 2.0[24] | 2.0 | 2.0[24] | 1.8 | -0.2 |
| 政府信任程度平均量值 | 2.7[24] | 2.4 | 2.4[24] | 2.3 | 2.3[24] | 2.2 | -0.1 |
| 社評數值 | 88.3[24] | 74.5 | 74.5[24] | 69.6 | 69.6[24] | 61.1 | -8.5 |
| 政治狀況滿意程度 | 1.9[24] | 1.6 | 1.6[24] | 1.5 | 1.5[24] | 1.4 | -0.1 |
| 政治狀況成份指標權數 | 0.30[24] | 0.32 | 0.32[24] | 0.32[24] | 0.32[24] | 0.32[24] | -- |
| 經濟狀況滿意程度 | 2.8[24] | 2.7 | 2.7[24] | 2.6 | 2.6[24] | 2.5 | -0.1 |
| 經濟狀況成份指標權數 | 0.34[24] | 0.34 | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | -- |
| 民生狀況滿意程度 | 2.5[24] | 2.3 | 2.3[24] | 2.2 | 2.2[24] | 2.1 | -0.2 |
| 民生狀況成份指標權數 | 0.35[24] | 0.35 | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | -- |
[1] 當有關數字沒有更新時，香港民研會採用最近一次已公佈的數字替代。
各項指數的具體數值，可按下表理解：
| 指數得分 | 百分位數 | 指數得分 | 百分位數 |
| 140-200 | 最高1% | 0-60 | 最低1% |
| 125 | 最高5% | 75 | 最低5% |
| 120 | 最高10% | 80 | 最低10% |
| 110 | 最高25% | 90 | 最低25% |
| 100為正常數值，即半數在上，半數在下 | |||
民情指數較八月上旬下跌8.6點至58.0，數字可以視為過去逾二十年來最差的1個百分比。民情指數的兩個成份數值中，反映市民對整體政府管治表現評價的政評數值下跌6.9點至56.5，而反映市民對整體社會狀況評價的社評數值則下跌8.5點至61.1。兩者均可以視為過去逾二十年來最差的1個百分比，並創1992年有記錄以來新低。
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，將每日大事記錄傳送至香港民研，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20-22/8/2018，而今次調查日期則為15-20/8/2019，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」內所有大事記錄後，再作判斷：
| 20/8/19 | 林鄭月娥表示政府會構建對話平台，與香港市民溝通 |
| 18/8/19 | 民間人權陣線指約170萬人參與反修例集會 |
| 17/8/19 | 建制派於添馬公園舉行「守護香港」集會 |
| 16/8/19 | 國泰行政總裁和顧客及商務總裁請辭 |
| 15/8/19 | 政府公佈一系列紓困措施，預計開支合共約191億元 |
| 13/8/19 | 機場反修例集會演變成警民衝突 |
| 12/8/19 | 反修例示威者到香港國際機場集會 |
| 11/8/19 | 全港多區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 10/8/19 | 全港多區出現示威及警民衝突 |
| 9/8/19 | 林鄭月娥指示威活動會影響香港經濟 |
| 9/8/19 | 中國民航局向國泰航空發出重大航空安全風險警示 |
| 8/8/19 | 22國對香港發出旅遊警示 |
| 7/8/19 | 港澳辦和中聯辦就反修例運動舉辦座談會 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 11/7/19 | 中聯辦主任王志民指中央政府支持林鄭月娥施政 |
| 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 |
| 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》 |
| 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 |
數據分析
最新調查顯示，特首林鄭月娥的最新評分為24.6分，其民望淨值為負59個百分點，兩者再創其上任特首以來新低，前者同時是歷屆特首的新低。特區政府的最新滿意率淨值為負63個百分點，是1997年有記錄以來新低。市民對現時經濟、民生及政治狀況的滿意淨值就分別為負29、負54及負83個百分點。三者當中，民生狀況和政治狀況的滿意淨值均再創1992年有記錄以來新低。
政府信任程度方面，市民對特區政府、北京中央政府及台灣政府的信任淨值分別為負37、負40及負12個百分點，當中特區政府信任淨值是1992年有記錄以來新低，而北京中央政府信任淨值則是1994年以來新低。信心指標方面，與大約半年前時比較，巿民對中國前途的信心淨值大幅下降，跌至負8個百分點，創1997年有記錄以來新低。巿民對香港前途的信心淨值為負12個百分點，變化不大，而對一國兩制的信心淨值則為負28個百分點，同樣創1993年有記錄以來新低。
新聞傳媒評價方面，市民對新聞傳媒整體表現的滿意程度較半年前大幅上升，最新滿意淨值為正40個百分點，香港新聞自由程度的滿意淨值為正18個百分點。此外，以0-10分為標準，市民對香港新聞傳媒公信力的評分，最新數字為5.81分。認為傳媒有自我審查的淨值創1997年有記錄以來新高，而認為傳媒有誤用或濫用新聞自由的淨值則創1997年有記錄以來新低。
企業社會責任調查方面，四個系列的最新結果為：恒生銀行在本地銀行及金融服務公司中表現最好，得63.1分；長江實業在本地地產商及物業發展公司中表現最好，得51.2分；7-11在本地零售公司中表現最好，得57.8分；麥當勞在本地連鎖式快餐店中表現最好，得56.8分。
民情指數方面，最新數字為58.0，較八月上旬下跌8.6點。
Aug 27, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
HKPOP today releases findings of popularity of CE and the government, trust and confidence indicators, news media appraisal, corporate social responsibility and Public Sentiment Index
Special Announcement
The predecessor of Hong Kong Public Opinion Program (HKPOP) was The Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP). “HKPOP” in this release can refer to HKPOP or its predecessor HKUPOP.
Abstract
HKPOP successfully interviewed 1,023 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in mid-August. Results show that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 24.6 marks. Her net popularity is negative 59 percentage points. Both have registered record lows again since she became CE and the former is the lowest among all CEs in history. The latest net satisfaction of the HKSAR Government stands at negative 63 percentage points, an all-time low since records began in 1997. People’s net satisfaction rates with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions are negative 29, negative 54 and negative 83 percentage points. Among them, the net satisfaction rates of livelihood and political conditions both registered their all-time low again since records began in 1992. Regarding people’s trust in governments, the net trust toward the HKSAR Government, the Beijing Central Government and the Taiwan Government are negative 37, negative 40 and negative 12 percentage points. Net trust in the HKSAR Government is at its all-time low since record began in 1992, while net trust in the Beijing Central Government has registered a new record low since 1994. As for the confidence indicators as compared to about half a year ago, people’s net confidence in the future of China is 8 percentage points, an all-time low since record began in 1997. People’s net confidence in Hong Kong’s future is negative 12 percentage points, which remains quite stable, while the net confidence in “one country, two systems” is negative 28 percentage points, also an all-time low since record began in 1993. As for appraisal of news media, people’s satisfaction with the performance of news media in general has improved a lot since half a year ago, with the latest net satisfaction at positive 40 percentage points. People’s net satisfaction with the freedom of the press in Hong Kong now stands at positive 18 percentage points. Besides, on a scale of 0-10, the latest credibility rating of the Hong Kong news media in general is 5.81 marks. The net value of media perceived to have practiced self-censorship has registered an all-time high since record began in 1997, while the net value of media perceived to have misused or abused the freedom of press has registered an all-time low since record began in 1997. As for the survey on corporate social responsibility (CSR), the latest results of the four modules are: Hang Seng Bank is the best local bank and financial services company in CSR with 63.1 marks, Cheung Kong Property is the best local real estate and property development company in CSR with 51.2 marks, 7-Eleven is the best local retail company in CSR with 57.8 marks, McDonald’s is the best local fast food restaurant chain in CSR with 56.8 marks. As for the PSI, the latest figure is 58.0, down by 8.6 points from early August. The effective response rate of the survey is 68.5%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-8% and that of ratings is +/-2.4 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 15-20/8/2019[5] |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 1,023 (including 508 landline and 515 mobile samples)[5] |
| Effective response rate[2] | : | 68.5%[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 +/-2.4 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 the best corporations, the date of survey is 15-16/8/2019, the sample size is 509 (including 254 landline and 255 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 67.0%. For the rating stage of the best corporations, the date of survey is 19-20/8/2019, the sample size is 513 (including 255 landline and 258 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 69.8%.
Popularity of CE and the Government
Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 3-6/6/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 1-6/8/19 | 15-20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 1,006 | 1,015 | 1,025 | 1,002 | 1,015 | 1,023 | -- |
| Response rate | 60.4% | 58.7% | 67.4% | 59.8% | 62.8% | 68.5% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Rating of CE Carrie Lam | 43.3 | 32.8[6] | 33.4 | 30.1[6] | 27.9 | 24.6+/-1.9 | -3.3[6] |
| Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 32% | 23%[6] | 26% | 21%[6] | 20% | 17+/-2% | -3% |
| Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 57% | 67%[6] | 66% | 70%[6] | 72% | 76+/-3% | +5%[6] |
| Net approval rate | -24% | -44%[6] | -40% | -49%[6] | -51% | -59+/-5% | -8%[6] |
[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 HKSAR Government as well as people’s appraisal of society's conditions are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 14-19/3/19 | 23-25/4/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size[7] | 1,024 | 1,031 | 1,013 | 1,015 | 1,002 | 1,023 | -- |
| Response rate | 73.1% | 66.1% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Satisfaction rate of SARG performance[8] | 31% | 30% | 27% | 18%[9] | 18% | 14+/-3% | -4% |
| Dissatisfaction rate of SARG performance[8] | 49% | 48% | 55%[9] | 72%[9] | 70% | 77+/-3% | +7%[9] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -18% | -19% | -28% | -53%[9] | -52% | -63+/-6% | -11%[9] |
| Mean value[8] | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.5[9] | 2.0[9] | 2.0 | 1.8+/-0.1 | -0.2[9] |
| Current economic condition: Satisfaction rate[8] |
35% | 33% | 36% | 31%[9] | 28% | 25+/-3% | -3% |
| Current economic condition: Dissatisfaction rate[8] |
42%[9] | 40% | 41% | 45% | 47% | 53+/-3% | +6%[9] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -7% | -7% | -5% | -14%[9] | -19% | -29+/-5% | -9%[9] |
| Mean value[8] | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.7[9] | 2.6 | 2.5+/-0.1 | -0.1[9] |
| Current livelihood condition: Satisfaction rate[8] |
27% | 22%[9] | 26%[9] | 21%[9] | 21% | 16+/-2% | -5%[9] |
| Current livelihood condition: Dissatisfaction rate[8] |
54% | 59%[9] | 56% | 62%[9] | 64% | 69+/-3% | +6%[9] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -27% | -37%[9] | -30%[9] | -41%[9] | -43% | -54+/-5% | -10%[9] |
| Mean value[8] | 2.5 | 2.4[9] | 2.5[9] | 2.3[9] | 2.2 | 2.1+/-0.1 | -0.2[9] |
| Current political condition: Satisfaction rate[8] |
17% | 17% | 13%[9] | 7%[9] | 5% | 5+/-1% | -- |
| Current political condition: Dissatisfaction rate[8] |
62% | 64% | 71%[9] | 81%[9] | 87%[9] | 88+/-2% | +1% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -45% | -48% | -58%[9] | -74%[9] | -82%[9] | -83+/-3% | -1% |
| Mean value[8] | 2.2 | 2.1[9] | 1.9[9] | 1.6[9] | 1.5[9] | 1.4+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
[7] The question on the satisfaction of SARG performance only uses sub-samples of the surveys concerned. The sub-sample size for this survey is 635.
[8] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[9] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Recent figures regarding people’s trust in the HKSAR Government are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 21-24/1/19 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 532 | 639 | 686 | 623 | 555 | 632 | -- |
| Response rate | 59.0% | 72.2% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Trust in HKSAR Government[10] | 44% | 34%[11] | 36% | 28%[11] | 29% | 27+/-4% | -2% |
| Distrust in HKSAR Government[10] | 37% | 46%[11] | 50% | 60%[11] | 60% | 64+/-4% | +3% |
| Net trust | 7% | -12%[11] | -14% | -32%[11] | -31% | -37+/-7% | -6% |
| Mean value[10] | 3.0 | 2.7[11] | 2.7 | 2.4[11] | 2.3 | 2.2+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
[10] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[11] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 24.6 marks. Her approval rate is 17%, disapproval rate 76%, giving a net popularity of negative 59 percentage points. All popularity figures have worsened significantly from two weeks ago, and registered record lows again since she became CE.
Regarding people’s appraisal of the overall performance of the HKSAR Government, the figures have worsened significantly from a month ago. The latest satisfaction rate is 14%, whereas 77% were dissatisfied, thus net satisfaction stands at negative 63 percentage points, an all-time low since records began in 1997. The mean score is 1.8, meaning between “quite dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. Regarding people’s trust in the HKSAR Government, 27% of the respondents expressed trust, 64% expressed not trust. The net trust value is negative 37 percentage points, an all-time low since record began in 1992, while the mean score is 2.2, meaning between “half-half” and “quite distrust” in general.
As for people’s satisfaction with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions, the latest satisfaction rates are 25%, 16% and 5% respectively, while their net satisfaction rates in these conditions are negative 29, negative 54 and negative 83 percentage points. The mean scores of the economic and livelihood conditions are 2.5 and 2.1, meaning between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied” in general. The mean score of the political condition is 1.4, meaning between “quite dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. The net satisfaction rates of livelihood and political conditions have again registered all-time low since records began in 1992.
Trust and Confidence Indicators
Recent popularity figures of SAR, Beijing Central and Taiwan Governments and people’s confidence in the future as well as “one country, two systems” are summarized below:
| Date of survey | 28/2-5/3/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 639 | 686 | 623 | 555 | 632 | -- |
| Response rate | 72.2% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| (Repeated listing) | ||||||
| Trust in HKSAR Government[12] | 34%[13] | 36% | 28%[13] | 29% | 27+/-4% | -2% |
| Distrust in HKSAR Government[12] | 46%[13] | 50% | 60%[13] | 60% | 64+/-4% | +3% |
| Net trust | -12%[13] | -14% | -32%[13] | -31% | -37+/-7% | -6% |
| Mean value[12] | 2.7[13] | 2.7 | 2.4[13] | 2.3 | 2.2+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| Date of survey | 3-4/1/18 | 21-25/5/18 | 3-6/9/18 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 15-20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 548-632 | 513-555 | 515-538 | 613-674 | 603-633 | -- |
| Response rate | 58.3% | 55.9% | 50.4% | 72.2% | 68.5% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Trust in Beijing Government[12] | 38% | 34% | 40%[13] [14] | 33%[13] | 23+/-3% | -10%[13] |
| Distrust in Beijing Government[12] | 45% | 48% | 40%[13] | 48%[13] | 63+/-4% | +15%[13] |
| Net trust | -7% | -14% | 0%[13] | -15%[13] | -40+/-7% | -25%[13] |
| Mean value[12] | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.9[13] | 2.7[13] | 2.2+/-0.1 | -0.5[13] |
| Trust in Taiwan Government[12] | 17% | 17% | 22% | 23% | 25+/-4% | +2% |
| Distrust in Taiwan Government[12] | 41% | 50%[13] | 45% | 40% | 37+/-4% | -2% |
| Net trust | -25% | -33%[13] | -23%[13] [14] | -17% | -12+/-6% | +4% |
| Mean value[12] | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.5[13] [14] | 2.6 | 2.7+/-0.1 | -- |
| Confidence in HK’s future | 51% | 46%[13] | 46% | 39%[13] | 40+/-4% | -- |
| No-confidence in HK’s future | 43% | 48%[13] | 47% | 55%[13] | 52+/-4% | -3% |
| Net confidence | 8%[13] | -2%[13] | -1% | -16%[13] | -12+/-8% | +3% |
| Confidence in China’s future | 70%[13] | 61%[13] | 62% | 62% | 42+/-4% | -20%[13] |
| No-confidence in China’s future | 25% | 31%[13] | 31% | 32% | 50+/-4% | +18%[13] |
| Net confidence | 45%[13] | 30%[13] | 30% | 30% | -8+/-8% | -38%[13] |
| Confidence in “one country, two systems” |
47% | 40%[13] | 45% | 41% | 34+/-4% | -8%[13] |
| No-confidence in “one country, two systems” |
47% | 54%[13] | 49% | 55%[13] | 62+/-4% | +6%[13] |
| Net confidence | 0% | -14%[13] | -4% | -14% | -28+/-8% | -14%[13] |
[12] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[13] 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.
[14] 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.
Regarding people’s trust in governments, 27% of the respondents trust the HKSAR Government, 23% trust the Beijing Central Government, and 25% trust the Taiwan Government. The net trust values are negative 37, negative 40 and negative 12 percentage points, while the mean scores of these trust indicators are 2.2, 2.2 and 2.7 respectively, meaning between “half-half” and “quite distrust” in general. People’s trust in the Beijing Central Government has plunged compared to some five months ago. Also, net trust in the HKSAR Government is at all-time low since record began in 1992, while net trust in the Beijing Central Government has registered a record low since 1994.
As for the confidence indicators, people’s confidence in the future of China has also plunged compared to some five months ago, with 42% expressing confidence and net confidence of negative 8 percentage points, an all-time low since record began in 1997. On the other hand, 40% had confidence in Hong Kong’s future. The net confidence is negative 12 percentage points. People’s confidence in “one country, two systems” has also plunged, with 34% expressing confidence and net confidence of negative 28 percentage points, an all-time low since record began in 1993.
People’s Appraisal of News Media
Latest results of the news media survey are tabulated as follows:
| Date of survey | 3-4/10/17 | 2-4/4/18 | 20-22/8/18 | 21-24/1/19 | 15-20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 498-567 | 549-706 | 544-593 | 541-564 | 548-683 | -- |
| Response rate | 59.5% | 57.9% | 53.0% | 59.0% | 68.5% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| People’s main source of news: | ||||||
| Internet | 60% | 67%[16] | 63% | 69%[16] | 74+/-3% | +4% |
| Television | 79% | 74%[16] | 70% | 65% | 66+/-4% | +1% |
| Newspapers | 54%[16] | 48%[16] | 47% | 52% | 42+/-4% | -9%[16] |
| Radio | 32%[16] | 29% | 30% | 30% | 37+/-4% | +6%[16] |
| Friends | 17%[16] | 19% | 18% | 18% | 28+/-4% | +10%[16] |
| Most trustworthy source of news: | ||||||
| Internet | 14% | 17% | 14% | -- | 31+/-4% | +17%[16] |
| Television | 38% | 32%[16] | 33% | -- | 25+/-4% | -7%[16] |
| Radio | 17% | 17% | 17% | -- | 14+/-3% | -3% |
| Newspapers | 15% | 14% | 16% | -- | 9+/-2% | -6%[16] |
| Family members | 4% | 6% | 4% | -- | 5+/-2% | +1% |
| Satisfaction rate of radio[15] | 54% | 61%[16] | 56% | -- | 59+/-4% | +2% |
| Dissatisfaction rate of radio[15] | 14% | 13% | 15% | -- | 15+/-3% | +1% |
| Net satisfaction rate | 40% | 48%[16] | 42% | -- | 44+/-6% | +2% |
| Mean value[15] | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.5 | -- | 3.6+/-0.1 | +0.1 |
| Satisfaction rate of Internet[15] | 39% | 43% | 45% | -- | 55+/-4% | +10%[16] |
| Dissatisfaction rate of Internet[15] | 20% | 21% | 21% | -- | 16+/-3% | -5%[16] |
| Net satisfaction rate | 19% | 22% | 23% | -- | 39+/-6% | +15%[16] |
| Mean value[15] | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | -- | 3.6+/-0.1 | +0.3[16] |
| Satisfaction rate of television[15] | 53% | 52% | 54% | -- | 42+/-4% | -12%[16] |
| Dissatisfaction rate of television[15] | 24%[16] | 24% | 24% | -- | 30+/-4% | +5%[16] |
| Net satisfaction rate | 29%[16] | 28% | 30% | -- | 13+/-6% | -17%[16] |
| Mean value[15] | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | -- | 3.1+/-0.1 | -0.2[16] |
| Satisfaction rate of newspapers[15] | 38% | 39% | 44% | -- | 31+/-4% | -13%[16] |
| Dissatisfaction rate of newspapers[15] | 27% | 30% | 24%[16] | -- | 31+/-4% | +6%[16] |
| Net satisfaction rate | 11% | 9% | 19%[16] | -- | 0+/-6% | -20%[16] |
| Mean value[15] | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.2[16] | -- | 2.9+/-0.1 | -0.3[16] |
| Satisfaction rate of magazines[15] | 13% | 19%[16] | 15% | -- | 14+/-3% | -1% |
| Dissatisfaction rate of magazines[15] | 41%[16] | 45% | 41% | -- | 34+/-4% | -7%[16] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -28%[16] | -26% | -26% | -- | -20+/-5% | +6% |
| Mean value[15] | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | -- | 2.5+/-0.1 | -- |
| Satisfaction rate of news media in general[15] |
48% | 50% | 49% | 38%[16] | 57+/-4% | +19%[16] |
| Dissatisfaction rate of news media in general[15] |
18% | 20% | 17% | 20% | 17+/-3% | -2% |
| Net satisfaction rate | 31% | 30% | 32% | 18%[16] | 40+/-7% | +22%[16] |
| Mean value[15] | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.2[16] | 3.4+/-0.1 | +0.2[16] |
| Satisfaction rate of freedom of the press in HK[15] |
47%[16] | 48% | 52% | -- | 51+/-4% | -- |
| Dissatisfaction rate of freedom of the press in HK[15] |
32% | 36% | 30%[16] [17] | -- | 33+/-4% | +3% |
| Net satisfaction rate | 15%[16] | 12% | 22% | -- | 18+/-8% | -4% |
| Mean value[15] | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | -- | 3.2+/-0.1 | -- |
| Perceived that the local news media: | ||||||
| Were responsible in their reporting[15] | 30% | 25%[16] | 29% | -- | 40+/-4% | +11%[16] |
| Were irresponsible in their reporting[15] | 40% | 40% | 39% | -- | 30+/-4% | -9%[16] |
| Net value | -10% | -15% | -9% | -- | 10+/-7% | +20%[16] |
| Mean value[15] | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | -- | 3.1+/-0.1 | +0.3[16] |
| Had scruples when criticizing the Central Government |
67%[16] | 69% | 64% | -- | 60+/-4% | -4% |
| Had no scruples when criticizing the Central Government |
25%[16] | 24% | 25% | -- | 32+/-4% | +6%[16] |
| Net value | 41%[16] | 45% | 39% | -- | 29+/-7% | -10%[16] |
| Had scruples when criticizing the HKSAR Government |
51%[16] | 53% | 50% | -- | 42+/-4% | -8%[16] |
| Had no scruples when criticizing the HKSAR Government |
44% | 42% | 44% | -- | 49+/-4% | +5% |
| Net value | 7%[16] | 12% | 7% | -- | -7+/-8% | -14%[16] |
| Had practiced self-censorship | 53% | 56% | 56% | -- | 59+/-4% | +4% |
| Had not practiced self-censorship | 33% | 30% | 29% | -- | 29+/-4% | -- |
| Net value | 20% | 26% | 27% | -- | 31+/-7% | +4% |
| Had given full play to the freedom of speech |
52%[16] | 47%[16] | 53% | -- | 58+/-4% | +5% |
| Had not given full play to the freedom of speech |
42%[16] | 44% | 39%[16] [17] | -- | 34+/-4% | -5% |
| Net value | 10%[16] | 3% | 14%[16] | -- | 24+/-8% | +10% |
| Had misused/ abused the freedom of press |
56%[16] | 58% | 52%[16] | -- | 46+/-4% | -7%[16] |
| Had not misused/ abused the freedom of press |
33%[16] | 32% | 38%[16] | -- | 43+/-4% | +4% |
| Net value | 23%[16] | 27% | 14%[16] | -- | 3+/-7% | -11%[16] |
| Credibility rating of the local news media (0-10) | 5.77 | 5.67 | 5.89[16] [17] | 5.77 | 5.81+/-0.16 | +0.04 |
[1] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
Results of the news media survey showed that 74% and 66% of the respondents claimed their main sources of news were internet and television respectively. The former is an all-time high since record began in 2000. Besides, 28% said their main source of news were friends, which is also an all-time high since record began in 2000. As for trustworthiness, 31% and 25% of the respondents found internet and television to be the most trustworthy source of news respectively. The former is an all-time high since record began in 2000, while the latter is an all-time low since record began in 1993. Meanwhile, 9% found newspapers to be the most trustworthy, also an all-time low since record began in 1993.
As for people’s appraisal of the performance of various types of news media, the satisfaction rates of radio, internet, television, newspapers and magazines as news media are 59%, 55%, 42%, 31% and 14% respectively, while net satisfactions are positive 44, positive 39, positive 13, zero and negative 20 percentage points respectively. Net satisfaction toward internet is at all-time high since record began in 2000, that toward television is at all-time low since record began in 1993, while those toward newspapers and magazines are at record low since 2002 and record high since 2001 respectively. Overall speaking, people’s satisfaction with the performance of news media in general has improved a lot. The latest satisfaction rate is 57%, net satisfaction at positive 40 percentage points, and the mean value is 3.4, meaning between “half-half” and “quite satisfied” in general.
Results also showed that 51% of the respondents were satisfied with the freedom of the press in Hong Kong while 33% were dissatisfied, net satisfaction at positive 18 percentage points. The mean value is 3.2, which is in between “half-half” and “quite satisfied”. 40% perceived the local news media to be responsible in their reporting, 30% regarded the local news media as irresponsible, giving a net value of positive 10 percentage points. The mean value is 3.1, meaning close to “half-half”. 60% thought the local news media had scruples when criticizing the Central Government, with a net value of positive 29 percentage points. 42% thought they had scruples when criticizing the HKSAR Government, net value at negative 7 percentage points. 59% of the respondents thought the local news media had practiced self-censorship while 29% perceived the contrary, giving a net value of positive 31 percentage points. 58% believed the local news media had given full play to the freedom of speech, net value at positive 24 percentage points, but at the same time 46% said they had misused or abused the freedom of press, net value at positive 3 percentage points. Besides, on a scale of 0-10, the latest credibility rating of the Hong Kong news media in general is 5.81 marks. The net value of media perceived to have practiced self-censorship has registered an all-time high since record began in 1997, while the net value of media perceived to have misused or abused the freedom of press has registered an all-time low since record began in 1997.
Corporate Social Responsibility
The survey series on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 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.
Banks and Financial Services Companies
In the naming survey, the banks and financial services companies mentioned most frequently were HSBC, Bank of China and Hang Seng Bank. The latest ratings of these corporations are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 16-18/5/17 | 12-13/9/17 | 5-6/3/18 | 15-19/11/18 | 19-20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 521 | 621[18] | 501 | 545 | 513 | -- |
| Response rate | 69.9% | 68.8% | 57.7% | 67.9% | 69.8% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Hang Seng Bank | 67.5[19] | 63.0[19] | 62.8 | 64.5 | 63.1+/-1.7 | -1.4 |
| HSBC | 63.0[19] | 61.2[19] | 60.6 | 62.9 | 58.9+/-1.7 | -4.0[19] |
| Bank of China | 61.2[19] | 56.1[19] | 57.4 | 59.3 | 48.1+/-2.3 | -11.3[19] |
[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.
Our latest survey showed that Hang Seng Bank was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local banks and financial services companies, scored 63.1 marks, while HSBC and Bank of China scored 58.9 and 48.1 marks respectively.
Real Estate and Property Development Companies
In the naming survey, the real estate and property development companies mentioned most frequently were Sun Hung Kai Properties, Cheung Kong Property and Henderson Land Development. The latest ratings of these corporations are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 16-18/5/17 | 16-18/10/17 | 18-19/4/18 | 21-24/1/19 | 19-20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 521 | 546 | 503 | 519 | 513 | -- |
| Response rate | 69.9% | 63.0% | 56.7% | 59.0% | 69.8% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Cheung Kong Property | 54.4[20] | 49.8[20] | 50.3 | 47.9 | 51.2+/-2.2 | +3.3[20] |
| Henderson Land Development | 56.6 | 52.0[20] | 50.7 | 48.8 | 49.2+/-2.3 | +0.3 |
| Sun Hung Kai Properties | 57.7[20] | 52.1[20] | 48.4[20] | 49.6 | 47.6+/-2.4 | -2.0 |
[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.
Our latest survey showed that Cheung Kong Property was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local real estate and property development companies, scored 51.2 marks, while Henderson Land Development and Sun Hung Kai Properties scored 49.2 and 47.6 marks respectively.
Retail Companies
In the naming survey, the retail companies mentioned most frequently were ParknShop, Wellcome and 7-Eleven. The latest ratings of these corporations are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 7-8/6/17 | 8-9/11/17 | 8-9/5/18[21] | 14-19/3/19 | 19-20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 505 | 504 | 511 | 565 | 513 | -- |
| Response rate | 68.7% | 56.1% | 60.7% | 73.1% | 69.8% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| 7-Eleven | 54.4[22] | 57.0[22] | 57.7 | 55.9 | 57.8+/-1.8 | +1.9 |
| Wellcome | 53.1[22] | 56.0[22] | 57.0 | 55.7 | 56.9+/-1.7 | +1.2 |
| ParknShop | 51.8[22] | 55.1[22] | 55.8 | 53.8 | 54.7+/-1.6 | +1.0 |
[7] The original figures were mistaken, they are hereby corrected.
[8] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
Our latest survey showed that 7-Eleven was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local retail companies, scored 57.8 marks, while Wellcome and ParknShop scored 56.9 and 54.7 marks respectively.
Fast Food Restaurant Chains
In the naming survey, the fast food restaurant chains mentioned most frequently were Café de Coral, Fairwood and McDonald’s. The latest ratings of these corporations are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 7-8/6/17 | 6/12/17 | 6-7/6/18 | 20-23/5/19 | 19-20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 505 | 502 | 502 | 687 | 513 | -- |
| Response rate | 68.7% | 59.9% | 56.0% | 61.9% | 69.8% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| McDonald’s | 53.7[23] | 55.7 | 58.2[23] | 56.8 | 56.8+/-1.8 | -- |
| Fairwood | 55.1[23] | 55.5 | 57.1 | 55.9 | 56.4+/-1.7 | +0.5 |
| Café de Coral | 53.1[23] | 53.2 | 57.3[23] | 55.1[23] | 55.6+/-1.7 | +0.5 |
[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 showed that McDonald’s was considered as having the best CSR reputation among local fast food restaurant chains, scored 56.8 marks, while Fairwood and Café de Coral scored 56.4 and 55.6 marks respectively.
Public Sentiment Index
The Public Sentiment Index (PSI) compiled by HKPOP aims at quantifying Hong Kong people’s sentiments, in order to explain and predict the likelihood of collective behaviour. PSI comprises 2 components: one being Government Appraisal (GA) Score and the other being Society Appraisal (SA) Score. GA refers to people’s appraisal of society’s governance while SA refers to people’s appraisal of the social environment. Both GA and SA scores are compiled from a respective of 4 and 6 opinion survey figures. All PSI, GA and SA scores range between 0 to 200, with 100 meaning normal.
The chart of PSI, GA and SA are shown below:
| Latest figure | Public Sentiment Index (PSI): 58.0 (-8.6) |
Government Appraisal (GA): 56.5 (-6.9) |
Society Appraisal (SA): 61.1 (-8.5) |
Recent values of PSI, GA, SA and 10 fundamental figures are tabulated as follows:
| Cut-off date | 9/6/19 | 23/6/19 | 8/7/19 | 19/7/19 | 6/8/19 | 20/8/19 | Latest change |
| Public Sentiment Index (PSI) | 89.1 | 71.5 | 71.9 | 67.4 | 66.6 | 58.0 | -8.6 |
| Government Appraisal (GA) | 85.0 | 67.2 | 67.9 | 64.8 | 63.4 | 56.5 | -6.9 |
| Rating of CE | 43.3 | 32.8 | 33.4 | 30.1 | 27.9 | 24.6 | -3.3 |
| Net approval rate of CE | -24% | -44% | -40% | -49% | -51% | -59% | -8% |
| Mean value of people’s satisfaction with SARG | 2.5[24] | 2.0 | 2.0[24] | 2.0 | 2.0[24] | 1.8 | -0.2 |
| Mean value of people’s trust in SARG | 2.7[24] | 2.4 | 2.4[24] | 2.3 | 2.3[24] | 2.2 | -0.1 |
| Society Appraisal (SA) | 88.3[24] | 74.5 | 74.5[24] | 69.6 | 69.6[24] | 61.1 | -8.5 |
| People’s satisfaction with political condition | 1.9[24] | 1.6 | 1.6[24] | 1.5 | 1.5[24] | 1.4 | -0.1 |
| Weighting index of political condition | 0.30[24] | 0.32 | 0.32[24] | 0.32[24] | 0.32[24] | 0.32[24] | -- |
| People’s satisfaction with economic condition | 2.8[24] | 2.7 | 2.7[24] | 2.6 | 2.6[24] | 2.5 | -0.1 |
| Weighting index of economic condition | 0.34[24] | 0.34 | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | 0.34[24] | -- |
| People’s satisfaction with livelihood condition | 2.5[24] | 2.3 | 2.3[24] | 2.2 | 2.2[24] | 2.1 | -0.2 |
| Weighting index of livelihood condition | 0.35[24] | 0.35 | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | 0.35[24] | -- |
[1] HKPOP will adopt the latest published figures when there are no respective updates.
As for the meaning of the score values, please refer to the following:
| Score value | Percentile | Score value | Percentile |
| 140-200 | Highest 1% | 0-60 | Lowest 1% |
| 125 | Highest 5% | 75 | Lowest 5% |
| 120 | Highest 10% | 80 | Lowest 10% |
| 110 | Highest 25% | 90 | Lowest 25% |
| 100 being normal level, meaning half above half below | |||
The latest PSI stands at 58.0, down by 8.6 points from early August. It can be considered as among the worst 1% across the past 20 years or so. Among the two component scores of PSI, the Government Appraisal (GA) Score that reflects people’s appraisal of society’s governance goes down by 6.9 points to 56.5, whereas the Society Appraisal (SA) Score that reflects people’s appraisal of the social environment decreases by 8.5 points to 61.1. They can both be considered as among the worst 1% and have registered all-time lows since record began in 1992.
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 22 August, 2018 while this survey was conducted from 15 to 20 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.
| 20/8/19 | Carrie Lam announces the government would set up a platform for dialogue with Hong Kong citizens. |
| 18/8/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.7 million people participated in the rally against the extradition bill. |
| 17/8/19 | The pro-establishment camp organizes a “Safeguard Hong Kong” rally at Tamar Park. |
| 16/8/19 | Cathay Pacific CEO and the chief customer and commercial officer resign. |
| 15/8/19 | The government announces a series of relief measures, which will cost $19.1 billion. |
| 13/8/19 | Protest against extradition bill at Hong Kong International Airport turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 12/8/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters hold a demonstration at Hong Kong International Airport. |
| 11/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 10/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 9/8/19 | Carrie Lam says protests would affect Hong Kong’s economy. |
| 9/8/19 | The Civil Aviation Administration of China issues a warning of major aviation safety risks to Cathay Pacific. |
| 8/8/19 | 22 countries issue travel alert against Hong Kong. |
| 7/8/19 | The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the Liaison Office hold a seminar regarding the anti-extradition bill movement. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 11/7/19 | Director of the Liaison Office Wang Zhimin says the central government supports Carrie Lam’s governance. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
Data Analysis
Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 24.6 marks. Her net popularity is negative 59 percentage points. Both have registered record lows again since she became CE and the former is the lowest among all CEs in history. The latest net satisfaction of the HKSAR Government stands at negative 63 percentage points, an all-time low since records began in 1997. People’s net satisfaction rates with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions are negative 29, negative 54 and negative 83 percentage points. Among them, the net satisfaction rates of livelihood and political conditions both registered their all-time low again since records began in 1992.
Regarding people’s trust in governments, the net trust toward the HKSAR Government, the Beijing Central Government and the Taiwan Government are negative 37, negative 40 and negative 12 percentage points. Net trust in the HKSAR Government is at its all-time low since record began in 1992, while net trust in the Beijing Central Government has registered a new record low since 1994. As for the confidence indicators as compared to about half a year ago, people’s net confidence in the future of China is 8 percentage points, an all-time low since record began in 1997. People’s net confidence in Hong Kong’s future is negative 12 percentage points, which remains quite stable, while the net confidence in “one country, two systems” is negative 28 percentage points, also an all-time low since record began in 1993.
As for appraisal of news media, people’s satisfaction with the performance of news media in general has improved a lot since half a year ago, with the latest net satisfaction at positive 40 percentage points. People’s net satisfaction with the freedom of the press in Hong Kong now stands at positive 18 percentage points. Besides, on a scale of 0-10, the latest credibility rating of the Hong Kong news media in general is 5.81 marks. The net value of media perceived to have practiced self-censorship has registered an all-time high since record began in 1997, while the net value of media perceived to have misused or abused the freedom of press has registered an all-time low since record began in 1997.
As for the survey on corporate social responsibility (CSR), the latest results of the four modules are: Hang Seng Bank is the best local bank and financial services company in CSR with 63.1 marks, Cheung Kong Property is the best local real estate and property development company in CSR with 51.2 marks, 7-Eleven is the best local retail company in CSR with 57.8 marks, McDonald’s is the best local fast food restaurant chain in CSR with 56.8 marks.
As for the PSI, the latest figure is 58.0, down by 8.6 points from early August.
