2019年10月22日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會回顧
民研計劃發放施政報告首輪跟進調查結果
特別宣佈
香港民意研究計劃（香港民研）前身為香港大學民意研究計劃（港大民研）。公報內的「民研計劃」指的可以是香港民研或其前身港大民研。
公報簡要
民研計劃於施政報告發表後的兩日內由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式成功訪問了512名香港居民。結果顯示，今年施政報告發表一兩天後，市民的反應更趨負面，只有11%對施政報告表示滿意，73%表示不滿，滿意率淨值大幅下跌15個百分點至負62，而滿意度評分亦大幅下跌6.4分至23.3，滿意率淨值及評分分別創1997年和1999年有紀錄以來新低。另外，與林鄭月娥上年度發表的施政報告相比，市民對特首施政方針的滿意率淨值大幅下跌75個百分點至負67，是1998年有紀錄以來新低。巿民再之後的反應如何改變，則有待若干星期後的次輪跟進調查揭曉。調查的實效回應比率為63.7%。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+/-6%，評分誤差不超過+/-2.5。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 17-18/10/2019 |
| 調查方法 | ： | 由真實訪問員進行隨機抽樣電話訪問 |
| 訪問對象 | ： | 18歲或以上操粵語的香港居民 |
| 成功樣本數目 | ： | 512 (包括255個固網及257個手機樣本) |
| 實效回應比率[1] | ： | 63.7% |
| 抽樣誤差[2] | ： | 在95%置信水平下，百分比誤差不超過+/-4%，淨值誤差不超過+/-6%，評分誤差不超過+/-2.5 |
| 加權方法 | ： | 按照政府統計處提供的統計數字以「反覆多重加權法」作出調整。全港人口年齡及性別分佈統計數字來自《二零一八年年中人口數字》，而教育程度（最高就讀程度）及經濟活動身分統計數字則來自《香港的女性及男性 - 主要統計數字》（2018年版）。 |
[1] 民研計劃在2017年9月前以「整體回應比率」彙報樣本資料，2017年9月開始則以「實效回應比率」彙報。2018年7月，民研計劃再調整實效回應比率的計算方法，因此改變前後的回應比率不能直接比較。
[2] 此公報中所有誤差數字均以95%置信水平計算。95%置信水平，是指倘若以不同隨機樣本重複進行有關調查100次，則95次各自計算出的誤差範圍會包含人口真實數字。由於調查數字涉及抽樣誤差，傳媒引用百分比數字時，應避免使用小數點，在引用評分數字時，則可以使用一個小數點。
最新數據
以下是2017至2019年施政報告的首輪跟進調查結果，與同年即時調查結果並列：
| 即時調查[3] | 首輪跟進調查 | 變化 | |
| 2019年度 | |||
| 調查日期 | 16/10/19 | 17-18/10/19 | -- |
| 樣本數目 | 679 | 512 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 80.0% | 63.7% | -- |
| 對施政報告的評價：滿意率[4] | 17% | 11+/-3% | -6%[5] |
| 對施政報告的評價：不滿率[4] | 65% | 73+/-4% | +8%[5] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -47% | -62+/-6% | -15%[5] |
| 平均量值[4] | 2.0 | 1.8+/-0.1 | -0.3[5] |
| 施政報告滿意度評分 | 29.7 | 23.3+/-2.5 | -6.4[5] |
| 2018年度 | |||
| 調查日期 | 10/10/18 | 11-12/10/18 | -- |
| 樣本數目 | 534 | 503 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 65.9% | 65.3% | -- |
| 對施政報告的評價：滿意率[4] | 33% | 32% | -1% |
| 對施政報告的評價：不滿率[4] | 34% | 33% | -1% |
| 滿意率淨值 | -1% | -1% | -- |
| 平均量值[4] | 2.9 | 2.8 | -- |
| 施政報告滿意度評分 | 48.5 | 50.5 | +2.0 |
| 2017年度 | |||
| 調查日期 | 11/10/17 | 12-13/10/17 | -- |
| 樣本數目 | 526 | 508 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 63.5% | 60.8% | -- |
| 對施政報告的評價：滿意率[4] | 48% | 43% | -5%[5] |
| 對施政報告的評價：不滿率[4] | 14% | 24% | +10%[5] |
| 滿意率淨值 | 34% | 18% | -16%[5] |
| 平均量值[4] | 3.5 | 3.3 | -0.2[5] |
| 施政報告滿意度評分 | 62.4 | 60.6 | -1.8 |
[3] 即時調查的題目會撇除未聞／不知道施政報告內容的被訪者，表內數字已是次樣本數目。
[4] 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。
[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。
施政報告發表後的首輪跟進調查顯示，11%對施政報告表示滿意，73%表示不滿，滿意率淨值大幅下跌15個百分點至負62，平均量值為1.8分，即整體上介乎「幾不滿／唔係幾滿意」及「非常不滿」之間，而滿意度評分亦大幅下跌6.4分至23.3，滿意率淨值及評分分別為1997年和1999年有紀錄以來新低。
至於市民在首輪跟進調查時對近年施政方針的評價則表列如下：
| 調查日期 | 14-15/1/16 | 19-20/1/17 | 12-13/10/17 | 11-12/10/18 | 17-18/10/19 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目 | 514 | 513 | 508 | 503 | 512 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 65.8% | 68.4% | 60.8% | 65.3% | 63.7% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 特首施政方針滿意率[6] | 22% | 37%[7] | 50%[7] | 42%[7] | 11+/-3% | -31%[7] [8] |
| 特首施政方針不滿率[6] | 54% | 40%[7] | 22%[7] | 35%[7] | 78+/-4% | +44%[7] [8] |
| 滿意率淨值 | -31% | -3%[7] | 28%[7] | 7%[7] | -67+/-6% | -75%[7] [8] |
| 平均量值[6] | 2.4 | 2.8[7] | 3.4[7] | 3.0[7] | 1.7+/-0.1 | -1.3[7] [8] |
[6] 數字採自五等量尺。平均量值是把答案按照正面程度，以1分最低5分最高量化成為1、2、3、4、5分，再求取樣本平均數值。
[7] 該數字與上次調查結果的差異超過在95%置信水平的抽樣誤差，表示有關變化在統計學上表面成立。不過，變化在統計學上成立與否，並不等同有關變化是否有實際用途或意義，而不同調查的加權方法亦可能有所不同。
[8] 原數字有錯誤，特此更正。
調查亦顯示，11%被訪市民滿意林鄭月娥的施政方針，而表示不滿的，則佔78%，滿意率淨值大幅下跌75個百分點至負67，是1998年有紀錄以來新低，而平均量值為1.7，即整體上介乎「幾不滿／唔係幾滿意」及「非常不滿」之間。
數據分析
調查顯示，今年施政報告發表一兩天後，市民的反應更趨負面，只有11%對施政報告表示滿意，73%表示不滿，滿意率淨值大幅下跌15個百分點至負62，而滿意度評分亦大幅下跌6.4分至23.3，滿意率淨值及評分分別創1997年和1999年有紀錄以來新低。另外，與林鄭月娥上年度發表的施政報告相比，市民對特首施政方針的滿意率淨值大幅下跌75個百分點至負67，是1998年有紀錄以來新低。巿民再之後的反應如何改變，則有待若干星期後的次輪跟進調查揭曉。
Oct 22, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
POP releases findings of Policy Address first follow-up survey
Special Announcement
The predecessor of Hong Kong Public Opinion Program (HKPOP) was The Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP). “POP” in this release can refer to HKPOP or its predecessor HKUPOP.
Abstract
POP successfully interviewed 512 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in two days after the Policy Address was delivered. Results show that right after the Policy Address was delivered, people’s appraisal has turned even more negative. Only 11% were satisfied with the Policy Address and 73% were dissatisfied, thus a net satisfaction rate of negative 62 percentage points, registering a plunge of 15 percentages points. The satisfaction rating also plunged by 6.4 marks to 23.3. The net satisfaction rate and the rating hit their record low since the surveys began in 1997 and 1999 respectively. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at negative 67 percentage points, representing a plunge of 75 percentage points compared to her Address last year, which is also the lowest since record began in 1998. How public opinion would further change would be revealed by our second follow-up survey to be conducted weeks later. The effective response rate of the survey excluding panel samples is 63.7%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-6% and that of ratings is +/-2.5 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 17-18/10/2019 |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size | : | 512 (including 255 landline and 257 mobile samples) |
| Effective response rate[1] | : | 63.7% |
| Sampling error[2] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, that of net values not more than +/-6% and that of ratings not more than +/-2.5 at 95% confidence level |
| Weighting method | : | Rim-weighted according to figures provided by the Census and Statistics Department. The gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population came from “Mid-year population for 2018”, while the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and economic activity status distribution came from “Women and Men in Hong Kong - Key Statistics (2018 Edition)”. |
[1] Before September 2017, “overall response rate” was used to report surveys’ contact information. Starting from September 2017, “effective response rate” was used. In July 2018, POP further revised the calculation of effective response rate. Thus, the response rates before and after the change cannot be directly compared.
[2] All error figures in this release are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times with different random samples, we would expect 95 times having the population parameter within the respective error margins calculated. Because of sampling errors, when quoting percentages, journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, whereas one decimal place can be used when quoting rating figures.
Latest Figures
Results of the Policy Address first follow-up surveys of 2017 to 2019 together with their corresponding instant polls are tabulated below:
| Instant poll[3] | First follow-up survey | Change | |
| 2019 | |||
| Date of survey | 16/10/19 | 17-18/10/19 | -- |
| Sample size | 679 | 512 | -- |
| Response rate | 80.0% | 63.7% | -- |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[4] | 17% | 11+/-3% | -6%[5] |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[4] | 65% | 73+/-4% | +8%[5] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -47% | -62+/-6% | -15%[5] |
| Mean value[4] | 2.0 | 1.8+/-0.1 | -0.3[5] |
| Satisfaction rating of Policy Address | 29.7 | 23.3+/-2.5 | -6.4[5] |
| 2018 | |||
| Date of survey | 10/10/18 | 11-12/10/18 | -- |
| Sample size | 534 | 503 | -- |
| Response rate | 65.9% | 65.3% | -- |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[4] | 33% | 32% | -1% |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[4] | 34% | 33% | -1% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -1% | -1% | -- |
| Mean value[4] | 2.9 | 2.8 | -- |
| Satisfaction rating of Policy Address | 48.5 | 50.5 | +2.0 |
| 2017 | |||
| Date of survey | 11/10/17 | 12-13/10/17 | -- |
| Sample size | 526 | 508 | -- |
| Response rate | 63.5% | 60.8% | -- |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Satisfaction rate[4] | 48% | 43% | -5%[5] |
| Appraisal of Policy Address: Dissatisfaction rate[4] | 14% | 24% | +10%[5] |
| Net satisfaction rate | 34% | 18% | -16%[5] |
| Mean value[4] | 3.5 | 3.3 | -0.2[5] |
| Satisfaction rating of Policy Address | 62.4 | 60.6 | -1.8 |
[3] Questions in instant surveys would exclude respondents who had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address. Figures in the table are subsample sizes.
[4] 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.
[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.
The first follow-up survey after the Policy Address was delivered shows that 11% were satisfied with the Policy Address and 73% were dissatisfied, thus a net satisfaction rate of negative 62 percentage points, a plunge of 15 percentages points. The mean value was 1.8, meaning in between “quite dissatisfied / not quite satisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. The satisfaction rating also plunged by 6.4 marks to 23.3. The net satisfaction rate and the rating are at their lowest since records began in 1997 and 1999 respectively.
People’s appraisals of the policy direction in the first follow-up surveys in recent years are tabulated below:
| Date of survey | 14-15/1/16 | 19-20/1/17 | 12-13/10/17 | 11-12/10/18 | 17-18/10/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 514 | 513 | 508 | 503 | 512 | -- |
| Response rate | 65.8% | 68.4% | 60.8% | 65.3% | 63.7% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Satisfaction rate of CE’s policy direction[6] | 22% | 37%[7] | 50%[7] | 42%[7] | 11+/-3% | -31%[7] [8] |
| Dissatisfaction rate of CE’s policy direction[6] | 54% | 40%[7] | 22%[7] | 35%[7] | 78+/-4% | +44%[7] [8] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -31% | -3%[7] | 28%[7] | 7%[7] | -67+/-6% | -75%[7] [8] |
| Mean value[6] | 2.4 | 2.8[7] | 3.4[7] | 3.0[7] | 1.7+/-0.1 | -1.3[7] [8] |
[6] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[7] The difference between the figure and the result from the previous survey has gone beyond the sampling error at 95% confidence level, meaning that the change is statistically significant prima facie. However, whether the difference is statistically significant is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful, and different weighting methods could have been applied in different surveys.
[8] The original figures were mistaken, they are hereby corrected.
The survey also shows that 11% were satisfied with Carrie Lam’s policy direction, while 78% expressed dissatisfaction, thus a net satisfaction rate of negative 67 percentage points, a plunge of 75 percentages points, the lowest since record began in 1998. The mean value was 1.7, meaning in between “quite dissatisfied / not quite satisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general.
Data Analysis
Survey shows that right after the Policy Address was delivered, people’s appraisal has turned even more negative. Only 11% were satisfied with the Policy Address and 73% were dissatisfied, thus a net satisfaction rate of negative 62 percentage points, registering a plunge of 15 percentages points. The satisfaction rating also plunged by 6.4 marks to 23.3. The net satisfaction rate and the rating hit their record low since the surveys began in 1997 and 1999 respectively. Meanwhile, people’s net satisfaction with CE’s policy direction now stands at negative 67 percentage points, representing a plunge of 75 percentage points compared to her Address last year, which is also the lowest since record began in 1998. How public opinion would further change would be revealed by our second follow-up survey to be conducted weeks later.
