2021年6月22日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會直播
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
民研計劃於六月初由真實訪問員以隨機抽樣電話訪問方式成功訪問了1,008名香港居民。調查顯示，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」身份的認同感及認同指數錄得明顯下跌，其餘數字沒有明顯變化。另外，「亞洲人」的重要性及認同指數同創2016年6月以來新低。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。與半年前比較，全部數字均沒有明顯變化。調查的實效回應比率為55.1%。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+/-2.9。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 7-10/6/2021 |
| 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] | ： | 1,008 (包括507個固網及501個手機樣本) |
| 實效回應比率 | ： | 55.1% |
| 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+/-2.9 |
| 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《二零二零年年中人口數字》，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》（2020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 | 17-20/6/19 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | 7-10/6/21 | 最新變化 | |
| 樣本數目[3] | 607-692 | 596-677 | 575-690 | 529-648 | 586-703 | -- | |
| 回應比率 | 58.7% | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | 55.1% | -- | |
| 最新結果[4] | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- | |
| 香港人 | 認同感 | 8.61[5] | 8.51 | 8.57 | 8.26[5] | 7.78+/-0.20 | -0.47[5] |
| 重要性 | 8.46[5] | 8.42 | 8.34 | 7.89[5] | 7.80+/-0.20 | -0.09 | |
| 認同指數 | 84.6[5] | 82.6 | 83.1 | 79.5[5] | 76.3+/-1.9 | -3.3[5] | |
| 亞洲人 | 認同感 | 7.69[5] | 7.82 | 7.83 | 7.84 | 7.74+/-0.20 | -0.10 |
| 重要性 | 6.64[5] | 6.79 | 6.89 | 6.65 | 6.56+/-0.24 | -0.09 | |
| 認同指數 | 70.1[5] | 70.9 | 72.3 | 70.1 | 69.1+/-2.2 | -1.0 | |
| 世界公民 | 認同感 | 6.89 | 7.06 | 6.93 | 6.97 | 6.79+/-0.24 | -0.17 |
| 重要性 | 6.53 | 6.63 | 6.64 | 6.53 | 6.45+/-0.26 | -0.07 | |
| 認同指數 | 66.2 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 64.8+/-2.2 | -1.7 | |
| 中華民族 一分子 |
認同感 | 6.27[5] | 6.46 | 6.25 | 6.44 | 6.46+/-0.29 | +0.03 |
| 重要性 | 5.96[5] | 5.99 | 5.89 | 6.04 | 6.01+/-0.29 | -0.03 | |
| 認同指數 | 60.2[5] | 60.7 | 59.2 | 60.7 | 61.0+/-2.8 | +0.2 | |
| 中國人 | 認同感 | 5.87[5] | 6.12 | 5.74 | 5.93 | 6.02+/-0.28 | +0.09 |
| 重要性 | 5.54[5] | 5.63 | 5.50 | 5.40 | 5.59+/-0.29 | +0.18 | |
| 認同指數 | 55.2[5] | 57.3 | 54.6 | 54.9 | 56.0+/-2.9 | +1.0 | |
| 中華人民 共和國國民 |
認同感 | 4.82[5] | 5.24[5] | 4.90 | 5.16 | 5.30+/-0.29 | +0.14 |
| 重要性 | 4.79[5] | 4.99 | 4.77 | 4.99 | 5.08+/-0.29 | +0.10 | |
| 認同指數 | 46.2[5] | 49.6 | 46.8 | 49.3 | 50.5+/-2.9 | +1.1 | |
[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7.78、7.74、6.79、6.46、6.02及5.30。重要性評分則分別為7.80、6.56、6.45、6.01、5.59及5.08。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76.3、69.1、64.8、61.0、56.0及50.5。對比半年前，只有「香港人」身份的認同感及認同指數錄得明顯下跌，其餘數字沒有明顯變化。另外，「亞洲人」的重要性及認同指數同創2016年6月以來新低。
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 | 17-20/6/19 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | 7-10/6/21 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目[6] | 643 | 577 | 602 | 639 | 605 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 58.7% | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | 55.1% | -- |
| 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 | 53%[7] | 55% | 50% | 44%[7] | 44+/-4% | -- |
| 自稱為「中國人」之比率 | 11%[7] | 11% | 13% | 15% | 13+/-3% | -2% |
| 自稱「香港人」和「中國人」 混合身分之比率 |
36%[7] | 32% | 36% | 38% | 42+/-4% | +3% |
| 自認為廣義「香港人」之比率 | 76%[7] | 78% | 75% | 69%[7] | 72+/-4% | +4% |
| 自認為廣義「中國人」之比率 | 23%[7] | 21% | 24% | 29%[7] | 26+/-4% | -2% |
[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」，13%自稱為「中國人」，13%自稱為「香港的中國人」，而28%則自稱為「中國的香港人」。換言之，72%認為自己是廣義的「香港人」(即回答「香港人」或「中國的香港人」)，26%認為自己是廣義的「中國人」(即回答「中國人」或「香港的中國人」)，42%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。與半年前比較，以上全部數字均沒有明顯變化。
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7-10/12/2020，而今次調查日期則為7-10/6/2021，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：
| 10/6/21 | 人大常委通過《反外國制裁法》 |
| 4/6/21 | 警方封鎖維園，阻止六四悼念集會 |
| 31/5/21 | 政府擬限制未接種疫苗者進入各類場所 |
| 30/5/21 | 政府和商界推出措施鼓勵接種疫苗 |
| 28/5/21 | 十位知名民主派人士就10月1日集會案被判罪成入獄 |
| 27/5/21 | 立法會通過修改選舉制度 |
| 25/5/21 | 政府宣布將為持雙程證者和難民接種新冠疫苗 |
| 21/5/21 | 部分大學和企業推出措施鼓勵接種疫苗 |
| 15/5/21 | 台灣新增180宗本地感染新冠肺炎個案 |
| 14/5/21 | 政府引用國安法凍結黎智英私人財產 |
| 11/5/21 | 政府購買東京奧運轉播權予五間電視台 |
| 2/5/21 | 政府擬規定外傭來港或續約須接種新冠疫苗 |
| 30/4/21 | 政府宣布全港外傭須接受強制檢測 |
| 27/4/21 | 政府以「疫苗氣泡」為基礎放寬部分防疫措施 |
| 26/4/21 | 香港及新加坡政府宣布兩地「航空旅遊氣泡」將於5月26日啟動 |
| 23/4/21 | 香港民族陣綫前成員管有炸藥罪成，判囚12年 |
| 16/4/21 | 九位知名民主派人士就8月18日集會案被判罪成入獄 |
| 15/4/21 | 政府舉辦「全民國家安全教育日」 |
| 13/4/21 | 政府將立法禁止公開呼籲不投票或投白票廢票 |
| 11/4/21 | 四款儲值支付工具將協助發放電子消費券 |
| 10/4/21 | 阿里巴巴違反《反壟斷法》，被罰182億元人民幣 |
| 30/3/21 | 人大常委通過修訂基本法，修改香港的選舉制度 |
| 25/3/21 | 國際品牌拒用新疆棉花，中國消費者發起抵制運動 |
| 19/3/21 | 中美官員於阿拉斯加會談 |
| 17/3/21 | 港澳辦和中聯辦就修改香港選舉制度舉辦座談會 |
| 11/3/21 | 全國人大會議通過修改香港的選舉制度 |
| 1/3/21 | 法庭通宵審議47名民主派人士保釋申請 |
| 28/2/21 | 47名民主派人士被控「串謀顛覆國家政權罪」 |
| 23/2/21 | 政府提出修例規管公職人員宣誓，列出負面行為清單，違者將取消資格 |
| 22/2/21 | 夏寶龍指中央政府將改變香港選舉制度，確保「愛國者治港」 |
| 19/2/21 | 政府公布香港電台的管治及管理檢討報告，並宣布由李百全接替梁家榮出任廣播處長 |
| 18/2/21 | 科興疫苗抵港，政府公布接種計劃 |
| 16/2/21 | 政府恢復晚市堂食，唯顧客須使用「安心出行」應用程式或登記資料 |
| 9/2/21 | 終審法院撤銷高等法院批准黎智英保釋的決定 |
| 29/1/21 | 英國政府公布BNO簽證移民詳情；中國及香港政府宣布不再承認BNO護照 |
| 27/1/21 | 林鄭月娥以視像形式向習近平述職 |
| 20/1/21 | 英國御用大律師David Perry辭任民主派集結案主控官 |
| 13/1/21 | 巴西當局公布科興疫苗整體有效率為50.4% |
| 7/1/21 | 美國國會確認拜登勝出總統大選，特朗普支持者闖入國會爆發衝突 |
| 6/1/21 | 警方以涉嫌違反國安法拘捕53名民主派初選相關人士 |
| 5/1/21 | 馬道立指倡議司法機構改革須有細節及理據 |
| 31/12/20 | 終審法院受理律政司上訴，黎智英還押候訊 |
| 30/12/20 | 12港人案中十人被判囚七個月至三年，兩名未成年者移交香港 |
| 25/12/20 | 黎智英獲准保釋，禁離家受訪發文 |
| 23/12/20 | 政府宣布設立疫苗保障基金，並讓市民選擇接種哪款疫苗 |
| 21/12/20 | 英國出現變種新冠病毒，港府禁止英國客機來港 |
| 12/12/20 | 黎智英被加控「勾結外國或境外勢力危害國家安全」罪 |
| 8/12/20 | 政府再收緊防疫措施，新增禁足及強制檢測權力 |
數據分析
調查顯示，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」身份的認同感及認同指數錄得明顯下跌，其餘數字沒有明顯變化。另外，「亞洲人」的重要性及認同指數同創2016年6月以來新低。
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。與半年前比較，全部數字均沒有明顯變化。
Jun 22, 2021
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
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 1,008 Hong Kong residents by a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in early June. Our survey 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, the strength rating and identity index of “Hongkongers” have significantly dropped, while other figures have not registered significant changes. Meanwhile, the importance rating and identity index of “Asians” have both registered record lows since June 2016. 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”. Compared with half a year ago, all figures have not registered significant changes. The effective response rate of the survey is 55.1%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4% and that of ratings is +/-2.9 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 7-10/6/2021 |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 1,008 (including 507 landline and 501 mobile samples) |
| Effective response rate | : | 55.1% |
| Sampling error[2] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% and that of ratings not more than +/-2.9 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 2020”, while the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and economic activity status distribution came from “Women and Men in Hong Kong - Key Statistics (2020 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 | 17-20/6/19 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | 7-10/6/21 | Latest change | |
| Sample size[3] | 607-692 | 596-677 | 575-690 | 529-648 | 586-703 | -- | |
| Response rate | 58.7% | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | 55.1% | -- | |
| Latest findings[4] | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- | |
| Hongkongers | Strength rating | 8.61[5] | 8.51 | 8.57 | 8.26[5] | 7.78+/-0.20 | -0.47[5] |
| Importance rating | 8.46[5] | 8.42 | 8.34 | 7.89[5] | 7.80+/-0.20 | -0.09 | |
| Identity index | 84.6[5] | 82.6 | 83.1 | 79.5[5] | 76.3+/-1.9 | -3.3[5] | |
| Asians | Strength rating | 7.69[5] | 7.82 | 7.83 | 7.84 | 7.74+/-0.20 | -0.10 |
| Importance rating | 6.64[5] | 6.79 | 6.89 | 6.65 | 6.56+/-0.24 | -0.09 | |
| Identity index | 70.1[5] | 70.9 | 72.3 | 70.1 | 69.1+/-2.2 | -1.0 | |
| Global citizens | Strength rating | 6.89 | 7.06 | 6.93 | 6.97 | 6.79+/-0.24 | -0.17 |
| Importance rating | 6.53 | 6.63 | 6.64 | 6.53 | 6.45+/-0.26 | -0.07 | |
| Identity index | 66.2 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 64.8+/-2.2 | -1.7 | |
| Members of the Chinese race | Strength rating | 6.27[5] | 6.46 | 6.25 | 6.44 | 6.46+/-0.29 | +0.03 |
| Importance rating | 5.96[5] | 5.99 | 5.89 | 6.04 | 6.01+/-0.29 | -0.03 | |
| Identity index | 60.2[5] | 60.7 | 59.2 | 60.7 | 61.0+/-2.8 | +0.2 | |
| Chinese | Strength rating | 5.87[5] | 6.12 | 5.74 | 5.93 | 6.02+/-0.28 | +0.09 |
| Importance rating | 5.54[5] | 5.63 | 5.50 | 5.40 | 5.59+/-0.29 | +0.18 | |
| Identity index | 55.2[5] | 57.3 | 54.6 | 54.9 | 56.0+/-2.9 | +1.0 | |
| Citizens of the PRC |
Strength rating | 4.82[5] | 5.24[5] | 4.90 | 5.16 | 5.30+/-0.29 | +0.14 |
| Importance rating | 4.79[5] | 4.99 | 4.77 | 4.99 | 5.08+/-0.29 | +0.10 | |
| Identity index | 46.2[5] | 49.6 | 46.8 | 49.3 | 50.5+/-2.9 | +1.1 | |
[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 7.78, 7.74, 6.79, 6.46, 6.02 and 5.30 respectively, while the importance ratings are 7.80, 6.56, 6.45, 6.01, 5.59 and 5.08 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 76.3, 69.1, 64.8, 61.0, 56.0 and 50.5 respectively. Compared with half a year ago, the strength rating and identity index of “Hongkongers” have significantly dropped, while other figures have not registered significant changes. Meanwhile, the importance rating and identity index of “Asians” have both registered record lows since June 2016.
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 | 17-20/6/19 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | 7-10/6/21 | Latest change |
| Sample size[6] | 643 | 577 | 602 | 639 | 605 | -- |
| Response rate | 58.7% | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | 55.1% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Identified as “Hongkongers” | 53%[7] | 55% | 50% | 44%[7] | 44+/-4% | -- |
| Identified as “Chinese” | 11%[7] | 11% | 13% | 15% | 13+/-3% | -2% |
| Identified with a mixed identity of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese” | 36%[7] | 32% | 36% | 38% | 42+/-4% | +3% |
| Identified as “Hongkongers” in broad sense |
76%[7] | 78% | 75% | 69%[7] | 72+/-4% | +4% |
| Identified as “Chinese” in broad sense |
23%[7] | 21% | 24% | 29%[7] | 26+/-4% | -2% |
[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”, 13% as “Chinese”, 13% as “Chinese in Hong Kong” and 28% as “Hongkongers in China”. In other words, 72% identified themselves as “Hongkongers” in a broad sense (i.e. either as “Hongkongers” or “Hongkongers in China”), 26% identified themselves as “Chinese” in a broad sense (i.e. either as “Chinese” or “Chinese in Hong Kong”), while 42% 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”. Compared with half a year ago, all the above figures have not registered significant changes.
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 7 to 10 December, 2020 while this survey was conducted from 7 to 10 June, 2021. 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.
| 10/6/21 | NPCSC passes “Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law”. |
| 4/6/21 | Police locks down Victoria Park to prevent June 4 vigil. |
| 31/5/21 | The government plans to restrict unvaccinated persons from entering various premises. |
| 30/5/21 | The government and the business sector launch initiatives to encourage vaccination. |
| 28/5/21 | 10 famous democrats are convicted and jailed for 10.1 assembly. |
| 27/5/21 | The Legislative Council passes amendments to Hong Kong’s electoral system. |
| 25/5/21 | The government announces it will arrange vaccination for holders of the Exit-entry Permit and refugees. |
| 21/5/21 | Some universities and corporations launch initiatives to encourage vaccination. |
| 15/5/21 | Taiwan confirms 180 local infections with coronavirus disease. |
| 14/5/21 | The government freezes Jimmy Lai’s personal assets under the national security law. |
| 11/5/21 | The government purchases the broadcasting rights of the Tokyo Olympics for five television stations. |
| 2/5/21 | The government plans to require foreign domestic helpers to be vaccinated to come to Hong Kong or renew contracts. |
| 30/4/21 | The government imposes mandatory testing for all foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong. |
| 27/4/21 | The government relaxes some anti-epidemic measures with “vaccine bubble” as the basis. |
| 26/4/21 | The governments of Hong Kong and Singapore announce that Air Travel Bubble arrangement will begin on May 26. |
| 23/4/21 | Former member of Hong Kong National Front is jailed for 12 years for possessing explosives. |
| 16/4/21 | 9 famous democrats are convicted and jailed for 8.18 assembly. |
| 15/4/21 | The government holds “National Security Education Day”. |
| 13/4/21 | The government will make law to ban public call to not vote or cast blank or spoilt votes. |
| 11/4/21 | Four stored value facilities will assist in the distribution of electronic consumption vouchers. |
| 10/4/21 | Alibaba is fined RMB 18.2 billion for violating anti-monopoly law. |
| 30/3/21 | NPCSC passes amendments to the Basic Law to amend Hong Kong’s electoral system. |
| 25/3/21 | Chinese consumers start a boycott campaign against international brands refusing to use Xinjiang cottons. |
| 19/3/21 | China and US officials meet in Alaska. |
| 17/3/21 | The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the Liaison Office hold seminars on amending Hong Kong’s electoral system. |
| 11/3/21 | The National People’s Congress passes bill on amending Hong Kong’s electoral system. |
| 1/3/21 | The court reviews 47 democrats’ bail application overnight. |
| 28/2/21 | 47 democrats are charged with “conspiracy to commit subversion”. |
| 23/2/21 | The government proposes amendments to laws to regulate oath-taking by public officers, compiling a negative list of behaviours, violators of which will be disqualified. |
| 22/2/21 | Xia Baolong says the Central Government will change the electoral system in Hong Kong to make sure it will be “patriots ruling Hong Kong”. |
| 19/2/21 | The government releases the Governance and Management of RTHK Review Report, and announces that Li Pak-chuen will replace Leung Ka-wing as the Director of Broadcasting. |
| 18/2/21 | Sinovac vaccines arrive in Hong Kong. The government announces the vaccination plan. |
| 16/2/21 | The government lifts the dine-in ban during nighttime, but customers will need to use the “LeaveHomeSafe” app or register. |
| 9/2/21 | The Court of Final Appeal sets aside the High Court’s decision to grant bail to Jimmy Lai. |
| 29/1/21 | The British government announces details of migration using BNO visa; the Chinese and Hong Kong governments announce they will no longer recognise BNO passports. |
| 27/1/21 | Carrie Lam reports to Xi Jinping on her work via video conferencing. |
| 20/1/21 | Queen’s Counsel David Perry steps down as prosecutor in an assembly case involving democrats. |
| 13/1/21 | Brazil authority announces that the general efficacy of Sinovac vaccine is 50.4%. |
| 7/1/21 | The US Congress confirms Biden’s victory in presidential election. Trump supporters break into the US Congress and conflicts occur. |
| 6/1/21 | Police arrests 53 democrats involved in the pro-democracy primaries who allegedly violated the national security law. |
| 5/1/21 | Geoffrey Ma says details and justifications are needed to call for judicial reform. |
| 31/12/20 | The Court of Final Appeal grants leave to appeal to the Department of Justice. Jimmy Lai is remanded in custody. |
| 30/12/20 | Ten among the 12 Hong Kong people case are sentenced to 7 months to 3 years in prison, while two minors are transferred to Hong Kong. |
| 25/12/20 | Jimmy Lai is granted bail, but barred from leaving home, giving interviews and publishing articles. |
| 23/12/20 | The government sets up indemnity fund for vaccine and lets citizens choose which type of vaccine to take. |
| 21/12/20 | New strains of COVID-19 virus are found in the UK. The Hong Kong government bans passenger flights from the UK. |
| 12/12/20 | Jimmy Lai is additionally charged with “collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security”. |
| 8/12/20 | The government tightens anti-epidemic measures again and empower authorities to impose lockdown and mandatory testing. |
Data Analysis
Our survey 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, the strength rating and identity index of “Hongkongers” have significantly dropped, while other figures have not registered significant changes. Meanwhile, the importance rating and identity index of “Asians” have both registered record lows since June 2016.
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”. Compared with half a year ago, all figures have not registered significant changes.
