2020年12月22日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會回顧
2020年12月22日 新聞公報
民研計劃發放香港市民身分認同調查結果
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
民研計劃於十二月初由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式成功訪問了1,009名香港居民。最新調查結果顯示，以沒有涉及身分對立問題的獨立評分計，無論是按認同感、重要性或認同指數排名，「香港人」身分均繼續排行第一位，之後是「亞洲人」、「世界公民」、「中華民族一分子」、「中國人」和「中華人民共和國國民」。對比半年前，只有「香港人」身份的各項指標錄得明顯下跌，其餘數字則沒有明顯變化。另外，「中國人」的重要性評分創2008年有紀錄以來新低。如果把「香港人」和「中國人」身分對立比較，讓市民在「香港人」、「中國人」、「香港的中國人」和「中國的香港人」四者中選擇自己最認同的身分，無論是狹義或廣義地自稱為「香港人」的比率，都比同樣定義的「中國人」比率為高。但與半年前比較，狹義或廣義地自稱為「香港人」的比率皆明顯下跌，而認為自己是廣義「中國人」的比率則比起半年前明顯上升。調查的實效回應比率為70.0%。在95%置信水平下，調查的百分比誤差不超過+/-4%，評分誤差不超過+/-3.2。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 7-10/12/2020 |
| 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] | ： | 1,009 (包括506個固網及503個手機樣本) |
| 實效回應比率 | ： | 70.0% |
| 抽樣誤差[2] | ： | 在95%置信水平下，百分比誤差不超過+/-4%，評分誤差不超過+/-3.2 |
| 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《二零一九年年中人口數字》，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》（2019年版）。 |
[1] 數字為調查的總樣本數目，個別題目則可能只涉及次樣本。有關數字請參閱下列數表內列出的樣本數目。
[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
關於香港市民各項身分的獨立評分數字表列如下：
| 調查日期 | 3-6/12/18 | 17-20/6/19 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | 最新變化 | |
| 樣本數目[3] | 543-607 | 607-692 | 596-677 | 575-690 | 529-648 | -- | |
| 回應比率 | 54.6% | 58.7% | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | -- | |
| 最新結果[4] | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- | |
| 香港人 | 認同感 | 8.34 | 8.61[5] | 8.51 | 8.57 | 8.26+/-0.20 | -0.31[5] |
| 重要性 | 8.02[5] | 8.46[5] | 8.42 | 8.34 | 7.89+/-0.21 | -0.45[5] | |
| 認同指數 | 80.8 | 84.6[5] | 82.6 | 83.1 | 79.5+/-1.9 | -3.6[5] | |
| 亞洲人 | 認同感 | 8.07 | 7.69[5] | 7.82 | 7.83 | 7.84+/-0.21 | +0.01 |
| 重要性 | 7.05 | 6.64[5] | 6.79 | 6.89 | 6.65+/-0.24 | -0.25 | |
| 認同指數 | 74.1 | 70.1[5] | 70.9 | 72.3 | 70.1+/-2.2 | -2.1 | |
| 世界公民 | 認同感 | 6.86 | 6.89 | 7.06 | 6.93 | 6.97+/-0.26 | +0.03 |
| 重要性 | 6.49 | 6.53 | 6.63 | 6.64 | 6.53+/-0.26 | -0.11 | |
| 認同指數 | 65.6 | 66.2 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5+/-2.1 | -0.1 | |
| 中華民族 一分子 |
認同感 | 6.98 | 6.27[5] | 6.46 | 6.25 | 6.44+/-0.32 | +0.19 |
| 重要性 | 6.67 | 5.96[5] | 5.99 | 5.89 | 6.04+/-0.34 | +0.16 | |
| 認同指數 | 67.3 | 60.2[5] | 60.7 | 59.2 | 60.7+/-3.2 | +1.5 | |
| 中國人 | 認同感 | 6.59 | 5.87[5] | 6.12 | 5.74 | 5.93+/-0.29 | +0.19 |
| 重要性 | 6.19[5] | 5.54[5] | 5.63 | 5.50 | 5.40+/-0.30 | -0.09 | |
| 認同指數 | 62.4[5] | 55.2[5] | 57.3 | 54.6 | 54.9+/-3.0 | +0.3 | |
| 中華人民 共和國國民 |
認同感 | 5.91 | 4.82[5] | 5.24[5] | 4.90 | 5.16+/-0.32 | +0.26 |
| 重要性 | 5.68 | 4.79[5] | 4.99 | 4.77 | 4.99+/-0.33 | +0.21 | |
| 認同指數 | 57.1 | 46.2[5] | 49.6 | 46.8 | 49.3+/-3.2 | +2.6 | |
[3] 民研計劃在2020年3月前彙報的次樣本數目為加權數字，2020年3月開始則以原始數字彙報。
[4] 「認同指數」計算自個別樣本之認同感評分和重要性評分的幾何平均數再乘以10。若個別樣本欠缺認同感或重要性評分之數據，則由整體認同感平均分或重要性平均分所取代。
[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。
沒有涉及身分對立問題的獨立評分結果顯示，無論是按認同感、重要性或認同指數排名，「香港人」身分均繼續排行第一位，之後是「亞洲人」、「世界公民」、「中華民族一分子」、「中國人」和「中華人民共和國國民」。認同感評分分別為8.26、7.84、6.97、6.44、5.93及5.16。重要性評分則分別為7.89、6.65、6.53、6.04、5.40及4.99。把個別樣本之認同感評分和重要性評分的幾何平均數乘以10，就得出0至100分的「認同指數」，0分代表絕不投入，100分代表絕對投入，最新數字分別為79.5、70.1、66.5、60.7、54.9及49.3。對比半年前，只有「香港人」身份的各項指標錄得明顯下跌，其餘數字則沒有明顯變化。另外，「中國人」的重要性評分創2008年有紀錄以來新低。
至於採自行之已久的「香港人」與「中國人」身分對立提問方式的調查結果，則表列如下：
| 調查日期 | 3-6/12/18 | 17-20/6/19 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目[6] | 585 | 643 | 577 | 602 | 639 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 54.6% | 58.7% | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | -- |
| 最新結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- |
| 自稱為「香港人」之比率 | 40% | 53%[7] | 55% | 50% | 44+/-4% | -6%[7] |
| 自稱為「中國人」之比率 | 15% | 11%[7] | 11% | 13% | 15+/-3% | +3% |
| 自稱「香港人」和「中國人」 混合身分之比率 |
43% | 36%[7] | 32% | 36% | 38+/-4% | +2% |
| 自認為廣義「香港人」之比率 | 66% | 76%[7] | 78% | 75% | 69+/-4% | -7%[7] |
| 自認為廣義「中國人」之比率 | 32% | 23%[7] | 21% | 24% | 29+/-4% | +5%[7] |
[6] 民研計劃在2020年3月前彙報的次樣本數目為加權數字，2020年3月開始則以原始數字彙報。
[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。
如果把「香港人」和「中國人」身分對立比較，讓市民在「香港人」、「中國人」、「香港的中國人」和「中國的香港人」四者中選擇自己最認同的身分，有44%稱自己為「香港人」，15%自稱為「中國人」，14%自稱為「香港的中國人」，而25%則自稱為「中國的香港人」。換言之，69%認為自己是廣義的「香港人」(即回答「香港人」或「中國的香港人」)，29%認為自己是廣義的「中國人」(即回答「中國人」或「香港的中國人」)，38%則選擇了「香港人」和「中國人」的混合身分 (即回答「香港的中國人」或「中國的香港人」)。無論是狹義或廣義地自稱為「香港人」的比率，都比同樣定義的「中國人」比率為高。但與半年前比較，狹義或廣義地自稱為「香港人」的比率皆明顯下跌，而認為自己是廣義「中國人」的比率則比起半年前明顯上升。
民意日誌
民研計劃於2007年開始與慧科訊業有限公司合作，由慧科訊業按照民研計劃設計的分析方法，將每日大事記錄傳送至民研計劃，經民研計劃核實後成為「民意日誌」。
由於本新聞公報所涉及的調查項目，上次調查日期為1-4/6/2020，而今次調查日期則為7-10/12/2020，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：
| 2/12/20 | 前香港眾志成員黃之鋒、林朗彥及周庭被判囚7至13.5個月 |
| 21/11/20 | 警方以涉嫌違反國安法資助分裂國家罪拘捕網台主持等3人 |
| 17/11/20 | 林鄭月娥及張曉明於基本法頒布30周年法律高峰論壇發表演說 |
| 11/11/20 | 人大常委取消4名民主派立法會議員資格 |
| 6/11/20 | 國務院副總理韓正與林鄭月娥會晤 |
| 29/10/20 | 中共五中全會通過「十四五」規劃 |
| 23/10/20 | 習近平出席抗美援朝周年紀念大會並發表演說 |
| 13/10/20 | 習近平出席深圳經濟特區成立慶祝活動 |
| 30/9/20 | 駱惠寧、董建華及香港高官慶祝中華人民共和國成立七十一周年 |
| 12/9/20 | 12名香港青年被扣押深圳逾兩周，被捕人士家屬召開記者會 |
| 27/8/20 | 中國海警於8月23日截獲赴台快艇，拘捕12名香港青年 |
| 26/8/20 | 警方就7．21事件以暴動罪拘捕13名白衣人以外人士 |
| 8/8/20 | 香港政府發表聲明譴責美國制裁11名中港官員 |
| 6/8/20 | 美國擴大「乾淨網絡」計劃，進一步限制中國科技公司 |
| 1/8/20 | 國家衛生健康委員會首批人員扺港 |
| 24/7/20 | 美國國務卿蓬佩奧發表對華政策演說，中國要求美國關閉駐成都總領事館 |
| 22/7/20 | 美國要求中國72小時內關閉駐休斯敦總領事館 |
| 15/7/20 | 美國總統特朗普簽署《香港自治法案》 |
| 6/7/20 | 政府刊憲公布國安法實施細則 |
| 3/7/20 | 中央及特區政府公布多項關於國安法的人事任命 |
| 1/7/20 | 七一示威中十人被指違反國安法被捕 |
| 30/6/20 | 國安法獲通過並生效 |
| 26/6/20 | 美國參議院通過《香港自治法案》 |
| 18/6/20 | 人大常委會審議國安法 |
| 13/6/20 | 北京爆發新冠肺炎疫情 |
| 12/6/20 | 中央政府批評有組織發動罷課公投 |
| 8/6/20 | 張曉明在基本法頒布30周年網上研討會發表演說 |
數據分析
最新調查結果顯示，以沒有涉及身分對立問題的獨立評分計，無論是按認同感、重要性或認同指數排名，「香港人」身分均繼續排行第一位，之後是「亞洲人」、「世界公民」、「中華民族一分子」、「中國人」和「中華人民共和國國民」。對比半年前，只有「香港人」身份的各項指標錄得明顯下跌，其餘數字則沒有明顯變化。另外，「中國人」的重要性評分創2008年有紀錄以來新低。
如果把「香港人」和「中國人」身分對立比較，讓市民在「香港人」、「中國人」、「香港的中國人」和「中國的香港人」四者中選擇自己最認同的身分，無論是狹義或廣義地自稱為「香港人」的比率，都比同樣定義的「中國人」比率為高。但與半年前比較，狹義或廣義地自稱為「香港人」的比率皆明顯下跌，而認為自己是廣義「中國人」的比率則比起半年前明顯上升。
Dec 22, 2020
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
Press Release on December 22, 2020
POP releases survey on Hong Kong people’s ethnic identity
Special Announcement
The predecessor of Hong Kong Public Opinion Program (HKPOP) was The Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP). “POP” in this release can refer to HKPOP or its predecessor HKUPOP.
Abstract
POP successfully interviewed 1,009 Hong Kong residents by a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in early December. Latest results using independent rating questions that do not involve choosing one among identities show that whether in terms of strength rating, importance rating or identity index, the identity of “Hongkongers” continues to rank first, followed by “Asians”, “global citizens”, “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese” and “citizens of the PRC”. Compared with half a year ago, only figures related to “Hongkongers” have significantly decreased, while other figures have not registered significant change. Meanwhile, the importance rating of “Chinese” has registered historical low since the question was first asked in 2008. If we use a dichotomy of “Hongkonger” versus “Chinese” identity and ask people to make a choice among four identities, namely, “Hongkongers”, “Chinese”, “Chinese in Hong Kong” and “Hongkongers in China”, whether in their narrow and broad senses, the proportions of people identifying themselves as “Hongkongers” outnumber those of “Chinese”. However, the proportions of people identifying themselves as “Hongkongers” in their narrow and broad senses have both decreased significantly compared with half a year ago, whereas the percentage of people who identified themselves as “Chinese” in a broad sense has increased significantly since half a year ago. The effective response rate of the survey is 70.0%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4% and that of ratings is +/-3.2 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 7-10/12/2020 |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 1,009 (including 506 landline and 503 mobile samples) |
| Effective response rate | : | 70.0% |
| Sampling error[2] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% and that of ratings not more than +/-3.2 at 95% conf. 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 2019”, while the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and economic activity status distribution came from “Women and Men in Hong Kong - Key Statistics (2019 Edition)”. |
[1] This figure is the total sample size of the survey. Some questions may only involve a subsample, the size of which can be found in the tables below.
[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
Latest figures on Hong Kong people’s ratings on different identities are tabulated as follows:
| Date of survey | 3-6/12/18 | 17-20/6/19 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | Latest change | |
| Sample size[3] | 543-607 | 607-692 | 596-677 | 575-690 | 529-648 | -- | |
| Response rate | 54.6% | 58.7% | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | -- | |
| Latest findings[4] | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- | |
| Hongkongers | Strength rating | 8.34 | 8.61[5] | 8.51 | 8.57 | 8.26+/-0.20 | -0.31[5] |
| Importance rating | 8.02[5] | 8.46[5] | 8.42 | 8.34 | 7.89+/-0.21 | -0.45[5] | |
| Identity index | 80.8 | 84.6[5] | 82.6 | 83.1 | 79.5+/-1.9 | -3.6[5] | |
| Asians | Strength rating | 8.07 | 7.69[5] | 7.82 | 7.83 | 7.84+/-0.21 | +0.01 |
| Importance rating | 7.05 | 6.64[5] | 6.79 | 6.89 | 6.65+/-0.24 | -0.25 | |
| Identity index | 74.1 | 70.1[5] | 70.9 | 72.3 | 70.1+/-2.2 | -2.1 | |
| Global citizens | Strength rating | 6.86 | 6.89 | 7.06 | 6.93 | 6.97+/-0.26 | +0.03 |
| Importance rating | 6.49 | 6.53 | 6.63 | 6.64 | 6.53+/-0.26 | -0.11 | |
| Identity index | 65.6 | 66.2 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5+/-2.1 | -0.1 | |
| Members of the Chinese race | Strength rating | 6.98 | 6.27[5] | 6.46 | 6.25 | 6.44+/-0.32 | +0.19 |
| Importance rating | 6.67 | 5.96[5] | 5.99 | 5.89 | 6.04+/-0.34 | +0.16 | |
| Identity index | 67.3 | 60.2[5] | 60.7 | 59.2 | 60.7+/-3.2 | +1.5 | |
| Chinese | Strength rating | 6.59 | 5.87[5] | 6.12 | 5.74 | 5.93+/-0.29 | +0.19 |
| Importance rating | 6.19[5] | 5.54[5] | 5.63 | 5.50 | 5.40+/-0.30 | -0.09 | |
| Identity index | 62.4[5] | 55.2[5] | 57.3 | 54.6 | 54.9+/-3.0 | +0.3 | |
| Citizens of the PRC |
Strength rating | 5.91 | 4.82[5] | 5.24[5] | 4.90 | 5.16+/-0.32 | +0.26 |
| Importance rating | 5.68 | 4.79[5] | 4.99 | 4.77 | 4.99+/-0.33 | +0.21 | |
| Identity index | 57.1 | 46.2[5] | 49.6 | 46.8 | 49.3+/-3.2 | +2.6 | |
[3] Before March 2020, weighted count was used to report subsample size. Starting from March 2020, raw count was used instead.
[4] “Identity index” is calculated for each respondent by taking the geometric mean of the strength and importance ratings and then multiplied by 10. If either the strength or importance rating of a respondent is missing, it is substituted by 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.
Results of independent rating questions that do not involve choosing one among identities show that whether in terms of strength rating, importance rating or identity index, the identity of “Hongkongers” continues to rank first, followed by “Asians”, “global citizens”, “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese” and “citizens of the PRC”. The strength ratings are 8.26, 7.84, 6.97, 6.44, 5.93 and 5.16 respectively, while the importance ratings are 7.89, 6.65, 6.53, 6.04, 5.40 and 4.99 respectively. Taking the geometric mean of the strength and importance ratings of each respondent and then multiply it by 10, we have an “identity index” between 0 and 100, with 0 meaning no feeling and 100 meaning extremely strong feeling. The latest figures are 79.5, 70.1, 66.5, 60.7, 54.9 and 49.3 respectively. Compared with half a year ago, only figures related to “Hongkongers” have significantly decreased, while other figures have not registered significant change. Meanwhile, the importance rating of “Chinese” has registered historical low since the question was first asked in 2008.
As for the results from the survey mode used for long on Hong Kong people’s sense of ethnic identity, latest figures are tabulated as follows:
| Date of survey | 3-6/12/18 | 17-20/6/19 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | Latest change |
| Sample size[6] | 585 | 643 | 577 | 602 | 639 | -- |
| Response rate | 54.6% | 58.7% | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Identified as “Hongkongers” | 40% | 53%[7] | 55% | 50% | 44+/-4% | -6%[7] |
| Identified as “Chinese” | 15% | 11%[7] | 11% | 13% | 15+/-3% | +3% |
| Identified with a mixed identity of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese” | 43% | 36%[7] | 32% | 36% | 38+/-4% | +2% |
| Identified as “Hongkongers” in broad sense |
66% | 76%[7] | 78% | 75% | 69+/-4% | -7%[7] |
| Identified as “Chinese” in broad sense |
32% | 23%[7] | 21% | 24% | 29+/-4% | +5%[7] |
[6] Before March 2020, weighted count was used to report subsample size. Starting from March 2020, raw count was used instead.
[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.
If we use a dichotomy of “Hongkonger” versus “Chinese” identity and ask people to make a choice among four identities, namely, “Hongkongers”, “Chinese”, “Chinese in Hong Kong” and “Hongkongers in China”, 44% identified themselves as “Hongkongers”, 15% as “Chinese”, 14% as “Chinese in Hong Kong” and 25% as “Hongkongers in China”. In other words, 69% identified themselves as “Hongkongers” in a broad sense (i.e. either as “Hongkongers” or “Hongkongers in China”), 29% identified themselves as “Chinese” in a broad sense (i.e. either as “Chinese” or “Chinese in Hong Kong”), while 38% chose a mixed identity of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese” (i.e. either as “Chinese in Hong Kong” or “Hongkongers in China”). Whether in their narrow and broad senses, the proportions of people identifying themselves as “Hongkongers” outnumber those of “Chinese”. However, the proportions of people identifying themselves as “Hongkongers” in their narrow and broad senses have both decreased significantly compared with half a year ago, whereas the percentage of people who identified themselves as “Chinese” in a broad sense has increased significantly since half a year ago.
Opinion Daily
In 2007, POP started collaborating with Wisers Information Limited whereby Wisers supplies to POP a record of significant events of that day according to the research method designed by POP. These daily entries would then become “Opinion Daily” after they are verified by POP.
For the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from 1 to 4 June, 2020 while this survey was conducted from 7 to 10 December, 2020. 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.
| 2/12/20 | Former Demosistō member Joshua Wong, Ivan Lam and Agnes Chow are sentenced to 7 to 13.5 months in prison. |
| 21/11/20 | Police arrests 3 people including an online radio host who allegedly violated the national security law by providing financial assistance to secession. |
| 17/11/20 | Carrie Lam and Zhang Xiaoming deliver speech at the Basic Law 30th Anniversary Legal Summit. |
| 11/11/20 | NPCSC disqualifies 4 democrats in LegCo. |
| 6/11/20 | Vice-Premier of the State Council Han Zheng meets Carrie Lam. |
| 29/10/20 | The fifth plenary session of the Communist Party of China Central Committee passes the 15th Five-Year Plan. |
| 23/10/20 | Xi Jinping attends anniversary event of the Korean War and delivers a speech. |
| 13/10/20 | Xi Jinping attends anniversary celebration of the establishment of the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone. |
| 30/9/20 | Luo Huining, Tung Chee-hwa and principal officials of Hong Kong celebrates the 71st anniversary of the founding of the PRC. |
| 12/9/20 | Twelve Hong Kong youngsters have been detained in Shenzhen for over two weeks. Their family members hold a press conference. |
| 27/8/20 | China Coast Guard intercepted a speedboat to Taiwan on August 23 and arrested 12 young Hong Kong people. |
| 26/8/20 | Police arrests 13 people who were not “people in white” for rioting in the 7.21 incident. |
| 8/8/20 | The Hong Kong government issues statement condemning US sanction on 11 Chinese or Hong Kong government officials. |
| 6/8/20 | The US expands the “Clean Network” to further limit Chinese technology firms. |
| 1/8/20 | The first team from the National Health Commission arrives in Hong Kong. |
| 24/7/20 | US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivers a speech on China policy, while China orders the US to close its consulate in Chengdu. |
| 22/7/20 | The US orders China to close its consulate in Houston within 72 hours. |
| 15/7/20 | US President Donald Trump signs the Hong Kong Autonomy Act. |
| 6/7/20 | The implementation rules for the national security law are gazetted by the government. |
| 3/7/20 | The Central Government and the SAR Government announce multiple personnel appointments concerning the national security law. |
| 1/7/20 | Ten people are arrested for allegedly violating the national security law in the July 1 protest. |
| 30/6/20 | The national security law is passed and comes into effect. |
| 26/6/20 | The US Senate passes the Hong Kong Autonomy Act. |
| 18/6/20 | The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress discusses the national security law. |
| 13/6/20 | Coronavirus outbreak occurs in Beijing. |
| 12/6/20 | The Central Government criticizes groups for organizing referendum for class boycott. |
| 8/6/20 | Zhang Xiaoming delivers speech at a webinar to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Basic Law’s promulgation. |
Data Analysis
Latest results using independent rating questions that do not involve choosing one among identities show that whether in terms of strength rating, importance rating or identity index, the identity of “Hongkongers” continues to rank first, followed by “Asians”, “global citizens”, “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese” and “citizens of the PRC”. Compared with half a year ago, only figures related to “Hongkongers” have significantly decreased, while other figures have not registered significant change. Meanwhile, the importance rating of “Chinese” has registered historical low since the question was first asked in 2008.
If we use a dichotomy of “Hongkonger” versus “Chinese” identity and ask people to make a choice among four identities, namely, “Hongkongers”, “Chinese”, “Chinese in Hong Kong” and “Hongkongers in China”, whether in their narrow and broad senses, the proportions of people identifying themselves as “Hongkongers” outnumber those of “Chinese”. However, the proportions of people identifying themselves as “Hongkongers” in their narrow and broad senses have both decreased significantly compared with half a year ago, whereas the percentage of people who identified themselves as “Chinese” in a broad sense has increased significantly since half a year ago.
