Hong Kong Public Opinion Program releases results of the second survey (2019-07-30)

Jul 30, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials

Hong Kong Public Opinion Program releases results of the second survey

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.

Contact Information

Date of survey	:	17-19/7/2019[5]
Survey method	:	Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers
Target population	:	Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above
Sample size[1]	:	1,002 (including 501 landline and 501 mobile samples)[5]
Effective response rate[2]	:	59.8%[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 +/-3.3 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, the date of survey is 2-8/7/2019, the sample size is 1,025 (including 519 landline and 506 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 67.4%.

Popularity of CE and the Government

Latest Figures

Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam are summarized as follows:

Date of survey	6-9/5/19	20-23/5/19	3-6/6/19	17-20/6/19	2-8/7/19	17-19/7/19	Latest change
Sample size	1,018	1,013	1,006	1,015	1,025	1,002	—
Response rate	63.2%	61.9%	60.4%	58.7%	67.4%	59.8%	—
Latest findings	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error	—
Rating of CE Carrie Lam	44.3[6]	44.7	43.3	32.8[6]	33.4	30.1+/-2.0	-3.3[6]
Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam	32%[6]	32%	32%	23%[6]	26%	21+/-3%	-4%[6]
Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam	56%[6]	59%	57%	67%[6]	66%	70+/-3%	+4%[6]
Net approval rate	-24%[6]	-27%	-24%	-44%[6]	-40%	-49+/-5%	-9%[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	18-21/2/19	14-19/3/19	23-25/4/19	20-23/5/19	17-20/6/19	17-19/7/19	Latest change
Sample size[7]	1,001	1,024	1,031	1,013	1,015	1,002	—
Response rate	72.1%	73.1%	66.1%	61.9%	58.7%	59.8%	—
Latest findings	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error	—
Satisfaction rate of SARG performance[8]	29%	31%	30%	27%	18%[9]	18+/-3%	—
Dissatisfaction rate of SARG performance[8]	46%	49%	48%	55%[9]	72%[9]	70+/-4%	-1%
Net satisfaction rate	-17%	-18%	-19%	-28%	-53%[9]	-52+/-7%	+1%
Mean value[8]	2.6	2.6	2.6	2.5[9]	2.0[9]	2.0+/-0.1	—
Current economic condition: Satisfaction rate[8]	36%[9]	35%	33%	36%	31%[9]	28+/-3%	-3%
Current economic condition: Dissatisfaction rate[8]	37%	42%[9]	40%	41%	45%	47+/-3%	+3%
Net satisfaction rate	-1%[9]	-7%	-7%	-5%	-14%[9]	-19+/-5%	-5%
Mean value[8]	2.9[9]	2.8	2.8	2.8	2.7[9]	2.6+/-0.1	-0.1
Current livelihood condition: Satisfaction rate[8]	24%	27%	22%[9]	26%[9]	21%[9]	21+/-3%	—
Current livelihood condition: Dissatisfaction rate[8]	55%	54%	59%[9]	56%	62%[9]	64+/-3%	+2%
Net satisfaction rate	-31%	-27%	-37%[9]	-30%[9]	-41%[9]	-43+/-5%	-2%
Mean value[8]	2.4	2.5	2.4[9]	2.5[9]	2.3[9]	2.2+/-0.1	-0.1
Current political condition: Satisfaction rate[8]	17%	17%	17%	13%[9]	7%[9]	5+/-1%	-2%
Current political condition: Dissatisfaction rate[8]	61%	62%	64%	71%[9]	81%[9]	87+/-2%	+6%[9]
Net satisfaction rate	-44%	-45%	-48%	-58%[9]	-74%[9]	-82+/-3%	-7%[9]
Mean value[8]	2.2	2.2	2.1[9]	1.9[9]	1.6[9]	1.5+/-0.1	-0.1[9]

[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 546. [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	15-19/11/18	21-24/1/19	28/2-5/3/19	20-23/5/19	17-20/6/19	17-19/7/19	Latest change
Sample size	553	532	639	686	623	555	—
Response rate	67.9%	59.0%	72.2%	61.9%	58.7%	59.8%	—
Latest findings	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error	—
Trust in HKSAR Government[10]	45%[11]	44%	34%[11]	36%	28%[11]	29+/-4%	+2%
Distrust in HKSAR Government[10]	39%	37%	46%[11]	50%	60%[11]	60+/-4%	—
Net trust	6%	7%	-12%[11]	-14%	-32%[11]	-31+/-8%	+1%
Mean value[10]	3.0	3.0	2.7[11]	2.7	2.4[11]	2.3+/-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. From October to December 2018, HKUPOP conducted tests on the wordings used in different rating scales. Figures in the table are the combined results. Please visit the HKU POP Site for details. [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 30.1 marks. Her approval rate is 21%, disapproval rate 70%, giving a net popularity of negative 49 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 latest figures revealed that 18% were satisfied, whereas 70% were dissatisfied, thus net satisfaction stands at negative 52 percentage points. The mean score is 2.0, meaning “quite dissatisfied”. Regarding people’s trust in the HKSAR Government, 29% of the respondents expressed trust, 60% expressed not trust. The net trust value is negative 31 percentage points, while the mean score is 2.3, meaning between “half-half” and “quite distrust” in general.

As or people’s satisfaction with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions, the latest satisfaction rates were 28%, 21% and 5% respectively, while their net satisfaction rates in these conditions were negative 19, negative 43 and negative 82 percentage points. The mean scores of the economic and livelihood conditions were 2.6 and 2.2, meaning between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied” in general. The mean score of the political condition was 1.5, meaning between “quite dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. The net satisfaction rates of livelihood and political conditions have registered all-time low since records 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 be uploaded to “Opinion Daily” after they are verified by HKPOP.

For some of the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from 17 to 20 June, 2019 while this survey was conducted from 17 to 19 July, 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.

14/7/19	Protest against extradition bill in Shatin turns into 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 Cheng Yuet-ngor’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.
20/6/19	Anti-extradition bill protesters announce escalation of actions.
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.

Popularity of Cross-Strait Political Figures

In the naming survey, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 contemporary leaders in China or Taiwan whom they knew best. The top 12 nominees then entered the rating survey. In the rating survey, respondents were asked to rate individual political figures using a 0-100 scale, where 0 indicates absolutely no support, 100 indicates absolute support and 50 means half-half. After calculation, the bottom ones in terms of recognition rate were dropped; the remaining 10 were then ranked according to their support ratings to become the top 10 cross-strait political figures. Recent ratings of the top 10 cross-strait political figures are summarized below, in descending order of support ratings^[12]:

Date of survey	27-30/3/17	17-20/7/17	20-23/7/18	17-19/7/19		Latest change
Sample size	537-702	732-816[16]	500	557-690		—
Response rate	70.6%	63.9%	50.8%	59.8%		—
Latest findings[13]	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding & error	Recognition rate	—
Zhu Rongji	70.8{1}	67.5{1}[15]	66.8{1}	65.3+/-2.1{1}	83.0%	-1.4
Wen Jiabao	63.8{3}	58.7{2}[15]	59.1{3}	57.2+/-2.1{2}	91.6%	-1.8
Ma Ying-jeou	59.1{5}	53.0{6}[15]	56.7{5}[15]	53.2+/-1.9{3}	89.9%	-3.5[15]
Hu Jintao	58.8{6}	54.9{4}[15]	56.2{6}	53.0+/-2.1{4}	88.9%	-3.3[15]
Li Keqiang	60.8{4}	54.2{5}[15]	57.3{4}	50.5+/-2.3{5}	84.9%	-6.8[15]
Tsai Ing-wen	48.1{8}	45.4{7}[15]	43.0{8}	47.4+/-2.4{6}	90.5%	+4.4[15]
Xi Jinping	65.5{2}	57.6{3}[15]	59.3{2}	47.1+/-3.0{7}	94.6%	-12.3[15]
Jiang Zemin	48.6{7}	44.6{8}[15]	45.9{7}	43.8+/-2.3{8}	87.1%	-2.1
Lee Teng-hui	42.4{9}	39.1[14] [15]	39.9[14]	38.2+/-2.2{9}	79.8%	-1.8
Chen Shui-bian	25.0{10}	24.9{10}	24.7{10}	22.8+/-1.9{10}	88.6%	-1.8
Han Zheng	—	—	—	41.9+/-3.3[14]	48.3%	—
Han Kuo-yu	—	—	—	40.1+/-2.4[14]	68.5%	—
Li Peng	—	38.4{9}	38.5{9}	—	—	—
Wang Qishan	—	—	56.2[14]	—	—	—
Zhang Dejiang	49.0[14]	41.8[14] [15]	—	—	—	—
Lien Chan	50.6[14]	—	—	—	—	—

[12] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered. [13] Numbers in curly brackets { } indicate the rankings. [14] Recognition rates were comparatively low in the rating survey. [15] 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. [16] 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. After the update, the rating of Hu Jintao surpasses that of Li Keqiang and should be ranked the fourth in that survey.

Latest survey revealed that, among the ten most well-known political figures in Mainland China and Taiwan, in terms of popularity rating, Zhu Rongji ranked first, attaining 65.3 marks. The 2nd to 5th ranks went to Wen Jiabao, Ma Ying-jeou, Hu Jintao and Li Keqiang with scores of 57.2, 53.2, 53.0 and 50.5 marks respectively. Tsai Ing-wen, Xi Jinping and Jiang Zemin occupied the 6th to 8th ranks with 47.4, 47.1 and 43.8 marks correspondingly. The 9th to 10th ranks fell to Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian with respective scores of 38.2 and 22.8 marks. For this latest survey, Han Zheng and Han Kuo-yu obtained support ratings of 41.9 and 40.1 marks respectively, but they were dropped due to their relatively low recognition rates.

On the awareness level, the top 10 cross-strait political figures are almost the same as in the previous survey. In terms of support rating, the rating of Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang, Ma Ying-jeou and Hu Jintao have changed significantly. Among them, that of Xi Jinping has dropped to its record low since he entered the list in March 2008, while that of Hu Jintao has dropped to its record low since he entered the list in May 1999. On the other hand, the rating of Tsai Ing-wen has increased significantly. Meanwhile, the ratings of Zhu Rongji and Wen Jiabao have changed within sampling errors, but they have dropped to record low since they entered the list in January 1998 and September 2003 respectively.

It should be noted that our list of “top 10 cross-strait political figures” only includes those best known to the Hong Kong public, ranked according to their support ratings. Other political figures may have very high or low support ratings, but they are excluded from the list because they are relatively less well-known.

Hong Kong People’s Feelings towards Different Governments and Peoples

In the naming survey, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 governments of countries or regions that they knew best apart from Hong Kong, Mainland, Taiwan and Macau. The top 5 nominees then entered the second stage survey. In the second stage survey, respondents were asked to rate their feeling towards the governments and peoples of Hong Kong, Mainland, Taiwan, Macau and the five countries or regions respectively. Hong Kong people’s feelings towards different governments and peoples are summarized as follows:

Date of survey		15-18/5/17	16-21/8/17	18-19/7/18	17-19/7/19
Sample size		586-642	763-811[20]	502	592-633
Response rate		71.5%	63.9%	47.4%	59.8%
Latest findings[17]		Findings	Findings	Findings	Finding & error	Latest change	Net difference with gov’ts / peoples
Hong Kong	People Positive	41%	46%[18]	50%	63+/-4%	+13%[18]	+82%
	People Negative	13%	13%	14%	12+/-3%	-1%
	Net value	28%	34%[18]	36%	51+/-6%	+14%[18]
	Government Positive	28%[18]	40%[18]	38%	26+/-4%	-12%[18]	-82%
	Government Negative	37%	32%[18]	34%	58+/-4%	+24%[18]
	Net value	-9%[18]	9%[18]	4%	-32+/-7%	-36%[18]
Mainland	People Positive	30%	32%	31%	30+/-4%	-2%	+22%
	People Negative	29%	27%	29%	34+/-4%	+5%
	Net value	1%[18]	4%	2%	-4+/-7%	-7%
	Government Positive	30%	32%	31%	25+/-4%	-6%[18]	-22%
	Government Negative	37%	35%	39%	51+/-4%	+12%[18]
	Net value	-8%	-3%	-8%	-26+/-7%	-19%[18]
Taiwan	People Positive	65%[18]	60%[18]	67%[18] [19]	76+/-3%	+10%[18]	+41%
	People Negative	4%	4%	5%	2+/-1%	-3%[18]
	Net value	61%[18]	56%	62%	75+/-4%	+13%[18]
	Government Positive	32%	24%[18]	34%[18]	52+/-4%	+18%[18]	-41%
	Government Negative	19%[18]	22%[18]	25%	19+/-3%	-6%[18]
	Net value	12%	2%[18]	9%	33+/-6%	+25%[18]
Macau	People Positive	50%	44%[18]	51%[18]	62+/-4%	+11%[18]	+40%
	People Negative	2%	4%[18]	4%	3+/-1%	-2%
	Net value	48%	40%[18]	47%[18]	60+/-4%	+13%[18]
	Government Positive	36%[18]	34%	37%	43+/-4%	+6%[18]	-40%
	Government Negative	18%[18]	17%	22%[18] [19]	23+/-3%	+1%
	Net value	18%[18]	18%	15%	20+/-6%	+5%

[17] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. [18] 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. [19] 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. [20] 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.

Hong Kong people’s feelings towards some other governments and peoples are summarized as follows, in descending order of net values towards the peoples:

Date of survey		15-18/5/17	16-21/8/17	18-19/7/18	17-19/7/19
Sample size		548-660	765-807[23]	502	598-616
Response rate		71.5%	63.9%	47.4%	59.8%
Latest findings[21]		Findings	Findings	Findings	Finding & error	Latest change	Net difference with peoples / gov’ts
Japan	People Positive	62%[22]	59%[22]	68%[22]	76+/-3%	+8%[22]	+61%
	People Negative	9%	7%	6%	3+/-1%	-3%[22]
	Net value	53%[22]	52%	63%[22]	73+/-4%	+10%[22]
	Government Positive	25%[22]	21%	33%[22]	39+/-4%	+6%[22]	-61%
	Government Negative	39%	39%	31%[22]	27+/-4%	-4%
	Net value	-13%[22]	-18%	2%[22]	12+/-6%	+10%[22]
United Kingdom	People Positive	50%	46%	54%[22]	63+/-4%	+9%[22]	+24%
	People Negative	3%[22]	5%	6%	5+/-2%	-1%
	Net value	47%[22]	42%	48%	58+/-5%	+10%[22]
	Government Positive	46%[22]	38%[22]	46%[22]	51+/-4%	+4%	-24%
	Government Negative	8%[22]	12%[22]	14%	17+/-3%	+3%
	Net value	38%[22]	26%[22]	32%	34+/-6%	+2%
Germany	People Positive	48%	38%[22]	52%[22]	56+/-4%	+4%	+7%
	People Negative	3%	2%	2%	2+/-1%	+1%
	Net value	45%	36%[22]	50%[22]	53+/-4%	+3%
	Government Positive	47%[22]	39%[22]	48%[22]	53+/-4%	+5%	-7%
	Government Negative	4%	4%	3%	7+/-2%	+4%[22]
	Net value	43%[22]	34%[22]	45%[22]	46+/-5%	+1%
United States	People Positive	39%[22]	34%	39%	48+/-4%	+8%[22]	+63%
	People Negative	12%	11%	15%[22]	9+/-2%	-6%[22]
	Net value	27%	23%	24%	39+/-5%	+15%[22]
	Government Positive	19%	14%[22]	15%	24+/-3%	+9%[22]	-63%
	Government Negative	35%[22]	49%[22]	56%[22]	48+/-4%	-8%[22]
	Net value	-16%[22]	-35%[22]	-41%	-24+/-7%	+17%[22]
France	People Positive	35%	34%	41%[22]	42+/-4%	+2%	+13%
	People Negative	7%	7%	5%	6+/-2%	+1%
	Net value	27%	28%	35%[22]	36+/-5%	+1%
	Government Positive	28%[22]	26%	34%[22]	33+/-4%	-1%	-13%
	Government Negative	5%	7%	5%	10+/-3%	+6%[22]
	Net value	23%[22]	19%	29%[22]	23+/-5%	-7%

[21] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. [22] 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. [23] 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.

Our latest survey shows that, in terms of net affinity, Hong Kong people feel more positively about all other peoples than their governments. As regards people’s feeling towards different peoples, from high to low net affinity, the order goes: Taiwan, Japan, Macau, the United Kingdom, Germany, Hong Kong, the United States, France and China. Among them, only the net affinity for Chinese people was negative. Regarding people’s feeling towards different governments, from high to low net affinity, the order goes: Germany, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, France, Macau, Japan, the United States, China and Hong Kong. Among them, the net affinity for the governments of the United States, China and Hong Kong were negative.

Compared to last year’s figures, the net affinity of Hong Kong people towards the people of Hong Kong, Macau and the United Kingdom, the people and governments of Taiwan, Japan and the United States have increased beyond sampling errors, while the net affinity of Hong Kong people towards the governments of Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China have dropped significantly. Regarding the four cross-strait societies, the net affinity of Hong Kong people towards fellow Hongkongers is now at its highest since May 2008, that towards the governments of Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China are at their lowest since the survey series started in April 1997, while that towards the people of Taiwan and Macau are at their highest since the survey series began in December 2007.

It should be noted, however, that our survey only covers regions and countries best known to Hong Kong people. Hong Kong people may well like or dislike other places much more, but because they are not the most well-known places, they do not appear on the list by design.

Public Sentiment Index

The Public Sentiment Index (PSI) compiled by HKUPOP 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): 67.4 (-4.5)	Government Appraisal (GA): 64.8 (-3.1)	Society Appraisal (SA): 69.6 (-4.9)

Recent values of PSI, GA, SA and 10 fundamental figures are tabulated as follows:

Cut-off date	12/5/19	26/5/19	9/6/19	23/6/19	8/7/19	19/7/19	Latest change
Public Sentiment Index (PSI)	90.3	89.4	89.1	71.5	71.9	67.4	-4.5
Government Appraisal (GA)	88.0	85.5	85.0	67.2	67.9	64.8	-3.1
Rating of CE	44.3	44.7	43.3	32.8	33.4	30.1	-3.3
Net approval rate of CE	-24%	-27%	-24%	-44%	-40%	-49%	-9%
Mean value of people’s satisfaction with SARG	2.6[24]	2.5	2.5[24]	2.0	2.0[24]	2.0	—
Mean value of people’s trust in SARG	2.7[24]	2.7	2.7[24]	2.4	2.4[24]	2.3	—
Society Appraisal (SA)	87.4[24]	88.3	88.3[24]	74.5	74.5[24]	69.6	-4.9
People’s satisfaction with political condition	2.1[24]	1.9	1.9[24]	1.6	1.6[24]	1.5	-0.1
Weighting index of political condition	0.30[24]	0.30[24]	0.30[24]	0.32	0.32[24]	0.32[24]	—
People’s satisfaction with economic condition	2.8[24]	2.8	2.8[24]	2.7	2.7[24]	2.6	-0.1
Weighting index of economic condition	0.34[24]	0.34[24]	0.34[24]	0.34	0.34[24]	0.34[24]	—
People’s satisfaction with livelihood condition	2.4[24]	2.5	2.5[24]	2.3	2.3[24]	2.2	-0.1
Weighting index of livelihood condition	0.35[24]	0.35[24]	0.35[24]	0.35	0.35[24]	0.35[24]	—

[24] HKUPOP 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 67.4, down by 4.5 points from early July. 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 3.1 points to 64.8, whereas the Society Appraisal (SA) Score that reflects people’s appraisal of the social environment decreases by 4.9 points to 69.6. They can be considered as among the worst 1% and 2% respectively.

Data Analysis

Our latest survey conducted before the incident of men in white shirts attacking citizens in Yuen Long on July 21 shows that the popularity of CE Carrie Lam has reached another record low. Her rating now stands at 30.1 marks, approval rate 21%, disapproval rate 70%, giving a net popularity of negative 49 percentage points. For the HKSAR Government, its popularity is similar as one month ago, with net satisfaction at negative 52 percentage points and net trust value is negative 31 percentage points. The latest net satisfaction rates with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions are negative 19, negative 43 and negative 82 percentage points. Among them, those of livelihood and political conditions have registered all-time low since records began in 1992.

Among the ten Mainland China and Taiwan political figures most well-known to Hong Kong people, in terms of popularity rating, Zhu Rongji ranked first, attaining 65.3 marks. The 2nd to 10th ranks went to Wen Jiabao, Ma Ying-jeou, Hu Jintao, Li Keqiang. Tsai Ing-wen, Xi Jinping, Jiang Zemin, Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. Among them, that of Xi Jinping has dropped to its record low since he entered the list in March 2008, that of Hu Jintao has dropped to its record low since he entered the list in May 1999, that of Zhu Rongji has dropped to its record low since January 1998, and that of Wen Jiabao has dropped to record low since he entered the list in September 2003.

Regarding Hong Kong people’s feelings towards different governments and peoples, overall speaking, Hong Kong people feel more positively about all other peoples than their governments. As for the four cross-strait societies, the net affinity of Hong Kong people towards fellow Hongkongers is now at its highest since May 2008, that towards the governments of Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China are at their lowest since the survey series started in April 1997, while that towards the people of Taiwan and Macau are at their highest since the survey series began in December 2007.

The latest PSI stands at 67.4, down by 4.5 points from early July.