2021年12月14日香港民意研究所發佈會 – 傳媒參考資料
發佈會直播
講者:
鍾劍華 - 香港民意研究所副行政總裁
李傲然 - 前油尖旺區議員
任偉豪 - 復興經濟民生大聯盟
戴捷輝 - 香港民意研究所經理 (數據科學)
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
民研計劃於十一月底至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1,001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，全部數字均沒有明顯變化，但「香港人」的重要性及認同指數就創2017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，自稱為「中國人」的比率顯著上升，而自稱為「香港人」的比率則創2017年6月以來新低。調查的實效回應比率為44.9%。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+/-3.1。
樣本資料
| 調查日期 | ： | 29/11-3/12/2021 |
| 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] | ： | 1,001 (包括500個固網及501個手機樣本) |
| 實效回應比率 | ： | 44.9% |
| 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+/-3.1 |
| 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 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | 7-10/6/21 | 29/11-3/12/21 | 最新變化 | |
| 樣本數目[3] | 596-677 | 575-690 | 529-648 | 586-703 | 576-708 | -- | |
| 回應比率 | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | 55.1% | 44.9% | -- | |
| 最新結果[4] | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果 | 結果及誤差 | -- | |
| 香港人 | 認同感 | 8.51 | 8.57 | 8.26[5] | 7.78[5] | 7.94+/-0.20 | +0.16 |
| 重要性 | 8.42 | 8.34 | 7.89[5] | 7.80 | 7.64+/-0.22 | -0.16 | |
| 認同指數 | 82.6 | 83.1 | 79.5[5] | 76.3[5] | 75.9+/-2.1 | -0.3 | |
| 亞洲人 | 認同感 | 7.82 | 7.83 | 7.84 | 7.74 | 7.79+/-0.19 | +0.05 |
| 重要性 | 6.79 | 6.89 | 6.65 | 6.56 | 6.62+/-0.21 | +0.06 | |
| 認同指數 | 70.9 | 72.3 | 70.1 | 69.1 | 69.8+/-1.9 | +0.6 | |
| 世界公民 | 認同感 | 7.06 | 6.93 | 6.97 | 6.79 | 6.86+/-0.24 | +0.06 |
| 重要性 | 6.63 | 6.64 | 6.53 | 6.45 | 6.45+/-0.24 | -0.01 | |
| 認同指數 | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 64.8 | 65.0+/-2.1 | +0.2 | |
| 中華民族 一分子 |
認同感 | 6.46 | 6.25 | 6.44 | 6.46 | 6.38+/-0.30 | -0.09 |
| 重要性 | 5.99 | 5.89 | 6.04 | 6.01 | 6.06+/-0.31 | +0.05 | |
| 認同指數 | 60.7 | 59.2 | 60.7 | 61.0 | 60.7+/-3.0 | -0.2 | |
| 中國人 | 認同感 | 6.12 | 5.74 | 5.93 | 6.02 | 6.13+/-0.30 | +0.12 |
| 重要性 | 5.63 | 5.50 | 5.40 | 5.59 | 5.61+/-0.31 | +0.02 | |
| 認同指數 | 57.3 | 54.6 | 54.9 | 56.0 | 56.8+/-3.0 | +0.9 | |
| 中華人民 共和國國民 |
認同感 | 5.24[5] | 4.90 | 5.16 | 5.30 | 5.71+/-0.32 | +0.41 |
| 重要性 | 4.99 | 4.77 | 4.99 | 5.08 | 5.32+/-0.32 | +0.24 | |
| 認同指數 | 49.6 | 46.8 | 49.3 | 50.5 | 53.6+/-3.1 | +3.1 | |
[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7.94、7.79、6.86、6.38、6.13及5.71。重要性評分則分別為7.64、6.62、6.45、6.06、5.61及5.32。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75.9、69.8、65.0、60.7、56.8及53.6。對比半年前，以上全部數字均沒有明顯變化，但「香港人」的重要性及認同指數就創2017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 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | 7-10/6/21 | 29/11-3/12/21 | 最新變化 |
| 樣本數目[6] | 577 | 602 | 639 | 605 | 609 | -- |
| 回應比率 | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | 55.1% | 44.9% | -- |
| 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 | 55% | 50% | 44%[7] | 44% | 39+/-4% | -5% |
| 自稱為「中國人」之比率 | 11% | 13% | 15% | 13% | 18+/-3% | +5%[7] |
| 自稱為「香港的中國人」之比率 | 10% | 11% | 14% | 13% | 11+/-3% | -3% |
| 自稱為「中國的香港人」之比率 | 22% | 25% | 25% | 28% | 31+/-4% | +3% |
| 自稱「香港人」和「中國人」 混合身分之比率 |
32% | 36% | 38% | 42% | 42+/-4% | -- |
| 自認為廣義「香港人」之比率 | 78% | 75% | 69%[7] | 72% | 70+/-4% | -2% |
| 自認為廣義「中國人」之比率 | 21% | 24% | 29%[7] | 26% | 28+/-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39%稱自己為「香港人」，18%自稱為「中國人」，11%自稱為「香港的中國人」，而31%則自稱為「中國的香港人」。換言之，70%認為自己是廣義的「香港人」(即回答「香港人」或「中國的香港人」)，28%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，自稱為「中國人」的比率顯著上升，而自稱為「香港人」的比率則創2017年6月以來新低。
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7-10/6/2021，而今次調查日期則為29/11-3/12/2021，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：
| 2/12/21 | 政府將於12月10日推出「香港健康碼」 |
| 28/11/21 | Omicron變種病毒蔓延，各國收緊防疫措施 |
| 26/11/21 | 新冠肺炎新變種病毒於非洲蔓延，政府禁止非洲八國非港人入境 |
| 23/11/21 | 政府宣布12月9日起擴大強制使用「安心出行」應用程式範圍 |
| 19/11/21 | 候選人資格審查委員會公布立法會選舉候選人審查結果 |
| 16/11/21 | 習近平及拜登舉行視像會議 |
| 12/11/21 | 立法會選舉提名期結束，154人報名競逐90個席位 |
| 11/11/21 | 中共六中全會通過中共黨史上第三份歷史決議 |
| 26/10/21 | 政府將取消大部分豁免檢疫群組以促成中港通關 |
| 7/10/21 | 施政報告提出發展「北部都會區」 |
| 6/10/21 | 林鄭月娥發表任內最後一份施政報告 |
| 1/10/21 | 政府舉行國慶升旗儀式和酒會 |
| 25/9/21 | 孟晚舟獲釋返回中國 |
| 24/9/21 | 中國外交部發表《美國干預香港事務、支持反中亂港勢力事實清單》 |
| 20/9/21 | 364人當選選舉委員會委員 |
| 7/9/21 | 政府恢復「回港易」計劃，並將推出「來港易」計劃 |
| 6/9/21 | 中央政府公布前海發展方案 |
| 31/8/21 | 政府提出修例，放寬引入非本地培訓醫生條件 |
| 24/8/21 | 政府提出進一步修訂《電影檢查條例》，禁止不利國家安全電影上映 |
| 23/8/21 | 中央政府官員向港府官員講解「十四五規劃」 |
| 16/8/21 | 塔利班重奪阿富汗政權 |
| 15/8/21 | 民間人權陣線宣布解散 |
| 10/8/21 | 教協宣布即將解散 |
| 8/8/21 | 李慧詩奪得奧運女子爭先賽銅牌，港隊共奪得一金兩銀三銅 |
| 31/7/21 | 教育局全面終止與教協的工作關係 |
| 30/7/21 | 唐英傑就煽動分裂國家罪及恐怖活動罪被判囚9年 |
| 26/7/21 | 張家朗奪得奧運男子花劍個人賽金牌 |
| 16/7/21 | 夏寶龍提出對治港者的五項要求 |
| 2/7/21 | 一名男子於銅鑼灣刺警後自殺身亡 |
| 30/6/21 | 中國共產黨慶祝成立100周年 |
| 23/6/21 | 蘋果日報出版最後一份報紙，印刷量達一百萬份 |
| 17/6/21 | 警方以國安法拘捕蘋果日報高層並凍結公司資產 |
| 14/6/21 | G7峰會閉幕發表聯合公報多次提及中國 |
| 12/6/21 | 駱惠寧指叫喊「結束一黨專政」者是香港大敵 |
| 11/6/21 | 政府修訂《電影檢查條例》，禁止危害國家安全電影上映 |
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，全部數字均沒有明顯變化，但「香港人」的重要性及認同指數就創2017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，自稱為「中國人」的比率顯著上升，而自稱為「香港人」的比率則創2017年6月以來新低。
Dec 14, 2021
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Press Conference Live
Speakers:
Kim-Wah Chung - Deputy CEO, HKPORI
Owan Li - Former Yau Tsim Mong District Councillor
Wai-Ho Yam - Member, Alliance of Revitalizing Economy and Livelihood
Edward Tai - Manager (Data Science), HKPORI
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 1,001 Hong Kong residents by a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers from late November to early December. 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, all these figures have not registered significant changes, but the importance rating and identity index of “Hongkongers” have registered record lows since June 2017. 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, the proportion of people identifying themselves as “Chinese” has increased significantly, while that of “Hongkongers” has registered a record low since June 2017. The effective response rate of the survey is 44.9%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4% and that of ratings is +/-3.1 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 29/11-3/12/2021 |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 1,001 (including 500 landline and 501 mobile samples) |
| Effective response rate | : | 44.9% |
| Sampling error[2] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% and that of ratings not more than +/-3.1 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 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | 7-10/6/21 | 29/11-3/12/21 | Latest change | |
| Sample size[3] | 596-677 | 575-690 | 529-648 | 586-703 | 576-708 | -- | |
| Response rate | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | 55.1% | 44.9% | -- | |
| Latest findings[4] | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- | |
| Hongkongers | Strength rating | 8.51 | 8.57 | 8.26[5] | 7.78[5] | 7.94+/-0.20 | +0.16 |
| Importance rating | 8.42 | 8.34 | 7.89[5] | 7.80 | 7.64+/-0.22 | -0.16 | |
| Identity index | 82.6 | 83.1 | 79.5[5] | 76.3[5] | 75.9+/-2.1 | -0.3 | |
| Asians | Strength rating | 7.82 | 7.83 | 7.84 | 7.74 | 7.79+/-0.19 | +0.05 |
| Importance rating | 6.79 | 6.89 | 6.65 | 6.56 | 6.62+/-0.21 | +0.06 | |
| Identity index | 70.9 | 72.3 | 70.1 | 69.1 | 69.8+/-1.9 | +0.6 | |
| Global citizens | Strength rating | 7.06 | 6.93 | 6.97 | 6.79 | 6.86+/-0.24 | +0.06 |
| Importance rating | 6.63 | 6.64 | 6.53 | 6.45 | 6.45+/-0.24 | -0.01 | |
| Identity index | 66.7 | 66.6 | 66.5 | 64.8 | 65.0+/-2.1 | +0.2 | |
| Members of the Chinese race | Strength rating | 6.46 | 6.25 | 6.44 | 6.46 | 6.38+/-0.30 | -0.09 |
| Importance rating | 5.99 | 5.89 | 6.04 | 6.01 | 6.06+/-0.31 | +0.05 | |
| Identity index | 60.7 | 59.2 | 60.7 | 61.0 | 60.7+/-3.0 | -0.2 | |
| Chinese | Strength rating | 6.12 | 5.74 | 5.93 | 6.02 | 6.13+/-0.30 | +0.12 |
| Importance rating | 5.63 | 5.50 | 5.40 | 5.59 | 5.61+/-0.31 | +0.02 | |
| Identity index | 57.3 | 54.6 | 54.9 | 56.0 | 56.8+/-3.0 | +0.9 | |
| Citizens of the PRC |
Strength rating | 5.24[5] | 4.90 | 5.16 | 5.30 | 5.71+/-0.32 | +0.41 |
| Importance rating | 4.99 | 4.77 | 4.99 | 5.08 | 5.32+/-0.32 | +0.24 | |
| Identity index | 49.6 | 46.8 | 49.3 | 50.5 | 53.6+/-3.1 | +3.1 | |
[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 7.94, 7.79, 6.86, 6.38, 6.13 and 5.71 respectively, while the importance ratings are 7.64, 6.62, 6.45, 6.06, 5.61 and 5.32 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 75.9, 69.8, 65.0, 60.7, 56.8 and 53.6 respectively. Compared with half a year ago, all these figures have not registered significant changes, but the importance rating and identity index of “Hongkongers” have registered record lows since June 2017.
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 | 4-10/12/19 | 1-4/6/20 | 7-10/12/20 | 7-10/6/21 | 29/11-3/12/21 | Latest change |
| Sample size[6] | 577 | 602 | 639 | 605 | 609 | -- |
| Response rate | 62.8% | 64.3% | 70.0% | 55.1% | 44.9% | -- |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | -- |
| Identified as “Hongkongers” | 55% | 50% | 44%[7] | 44% | 39+/-4% | -5% |
| Identified as “Chinese” | 11% | 13% | 15% | 13% | 18+/-3% | +5%[7] |
| Identified as “Chinese in Hong Kong” | 10% | 11% | 14% | 13% | 11+/-3% | -3% |
| Identified as “Hongkongers in China” | 22% | 25% | 25% | 28% | 31+/-4% | +3% |
| Identified with a mixed identity of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese” | 32% | 36% | 38% | 42% | 42+/-4% | -- |
| Identified as “Hongkongers” in broad sense |
78% | 75% | 69%[7] | 72% | 70+/-4% | -2% |
| Identified as “Chinese” in broad sense |
21% | 24% | 29%[7] | 26% | 28+/-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”, 39% identified themselves as “Hongkongers”, 18% as “Chinese”, 11% as “Chinese in Hong Kong” and 31% as “Hongkongers in China”. In other words, 70% identified themselves as “Hongkongers” in a broad sense (i.e. either as “Hongkongers” or “Hongkongers in China”), 28% 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, the proportion of people identifying themselves as “Chinese” has increased significantly, while that of “Hongkongers” has registered a record low since June 2017.
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 June, 2021 while this survey was conducted from 29 November to 3 December, 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.
| 2/12/21 | The government will launch “Hong Kong Health Code” on December 10. |
| 28/11/21 | Various countries tighten anti-epidemic measures due to the spread of Omicron variant. |
| 26/11/21 | The government bans non-residents arriving from eight African countries due to the spread of new coronavirus variant in Africa. |
| 23/11/21 | The government announces the extension of mandatory use of “LeaveHomeSafe” app to more premises starting from December 9. |
| 19/11/21 | The Candidate Eligibility Review Committee announces the review results of candidates for the Legislative Council election. |
| 16/11/21 | Xi Jinping and Biden meet virtually. |
| 12/11/21 | Nomination period for Legislative Council election ends with 154 candidates competing for 90 seats. |
| 11/11/21 | The sixth plenary session of the Communist Party of China Central Committee passes the third historical resolution in party history. |
| 26/10/21 | The government will axe most quarantine exemptions to facilitate border reopening with mainland China. |
| 7/10/21 | The Policy Address proposes developing the “Northern Metropolis”. |
| 6/10/21 | Carrie Lam delivers the last Policy Address during her term of office. |
| 1/10/21 | The government holds a flag-raising ceremony and a reception in celebration of the National Day. |
| 25/9/21 | Meng Wanzhou is freed and returns to China. |
| 24/9/21 | China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs publishes the “Fact Sheet: U.S. Interference in Hong Kong Affairs and Support for Anti-China, Destabilizing Forces”. |
| 20/9/21 | 364 members of the Election Committee are elected. |
| 7/9/21 | The government resumes the Return2hk Scheme and will launch the Come2hk Scheme. |
| 6/9/21 | The Central Government releases the development plan of Qianhai. |
| 31/8/21 | The government proposes amendments to relax requirements for non-locally trained doctors to practise in Hong Kong. |
| 24/8/21 | The government further amends the “Film Censorship Ordinance” to ban exhibition of films that are contrary to the interests of national security. |
| 23/8/21 | Officials from the Central Government explain the 14th five-year plan to Hong Kong government officials. |
| 16/8/21 | The Taliban takes control of Afghanistan again. |
| 15/8/21 | Civil Human Rights Front announces its disbandment. |
| 10/8/21 | The Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union announces it will be dissolved. |
| 8/8/21 | Sarah Lee wins bronze in the women’s cycling sprint in the Olympics, meaning one gold, two silver and three bronze medals for Hong Kong. |
| 31/7/21 | The Education Bureau terminates all working relations with Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union. |
| 30/7/21 | Tong Ying-kit is jailed for 9 years for inciting secession and terrorism. |
| 26/7/21 | Edgar Cheung wins gold in the men’s foil individual competition in the Olympics. |
| 16/7/21 | Xia Baolong spells out five qualities people who govern Hong Kong must possess. |
| 2/7/21 | A man kills himself after stabbing a police officer in Causeway Bay. |
| 30/6/21 | Chinese Communist Party celebrates its 100th anniversary. |
| 23/6/21 | Apple Daily prints one million copies of its final issue. |
| 17/6/21 | Police arrests senior executives of Apple Daily and freezes assets of the company under the national security law. |
| 14/6/21 | G7 summit ends and issues communique that mentions China multiple times. |
| 12/6/21 | Luo Huining says people who shout “end one-party rule” are enemies of Hong Kong. |
| 11/6/21 | The government amends the “Film Censorship Ordinance” to ban exhibition of films that endanger national security. |
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, all these figures have not registered significant changes, but the importance rating and identity index of “Hongkongers” have registered record lows since June 2017.
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, the proportion of people identifying themselves as “Chinese” has increased significantly, while that of “Hongkongers” has registered a record low since June 2017.
