Press Release on October 17, 2019
POP releases findings of Policy Address instant poll
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 745 Hong Kong residents (including 157 landline, 147 mobile and 441 panel samples) after CE Carrie Lam delivered her third Policy Address speech by video yesterday. The survey was conducted by random telephone survey by real interviewers, as well as by online or telephone survey for previously recruited random panel samples. Results show that after excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 17% said they were satisfied with it, 65% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 47 percentage points, while the average rating is 29.7 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All figures are at their worst since records began in 1997. As for CE Carrie Lam, as compared to early October, her popularities have not changed much after she delivered her Policy Address yesterday. Her latest support rating now stands at 22.7 marks, approval rate 15% and disapproval 79%, giving a net approval rate of negative 64 percentage points. Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 12% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 22% said there was no change, while 61% said their confidence had decreased, giving a net effect of negative 49 percentage points on people’s confidence. The net figure is also at its worst since record began in 1998. The instant poll describes people’s instant reaction toward the Policy Address. Their reactions later remain to be seen. The effective response rate of the survey excluding panel samples is 80.0%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-6% and that of ratings is +/-2.4 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 16/10/2019 |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers, as well as online or telephone survey for previously recruited random panel samples |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size | : | 745 (including 157 landline, 147 mobile and 441 panel samples) |
| Effective response rate excluding panel samples[1] | : | 80.0% |
| Sampling error[2] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, that of net values not more than +/-6% and that of ratings not more than +/-2.4 at 95% confidence level |
| Weighting method | : | Rim-weighted according to figures provided by the Census and Statistics Department. The gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population came from “Mid-year population for 2018”, while the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and economic activity status distribution came from “Women and Men in Hong Kong – Key Statistics (2018 Edition)”. |
[1] Before September 2017, “overall response rate” was used to report surveys’ contact information. Starting from September 2017, “effective response rate” was used. In July 2018, POP further revised the calculation of effective response rate. Thus, the response rates before and after the change cannot be directly compared.
[2] All error figures in this release are calculated at 95% confidence level. “95% confidence level” means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times with different random samples, we would expect 95 times having the population parameter within the respective error margins calculated. Because of sampling errors, when quoting percentages, journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, whereas one decimal place can be used when quoting rating figures.
Latest Figures
People’s satisfaction figures with this year’s Policy Address are summarized below together with the previous findings:
| Date of survey | Sample size[3] | Appraisal of Policy Address | |||||
| Satisfaction rate[4] | Half-half | Dissatisfaction rate[4] | Net satisfaction rate | Mean value[4] | Rating of Policy Address | ||
| 16/10/19 | 679 | 17+/-3%[6] | 8+/-2%[6] | 65+/-4%[6] | -47+/-6%[6] | 2.0+/-0.1[6] | 29.7+/-2.3[6] |
| 10/10/18 | 534 | 33%[6] | 24% | 34%[6] | -1%[6] | 2.9[6] | 48.5[6] |
| 11/10/17 | 526 | 48%[6] | 28%[6] | 14%[6] | 34%[6] | 3.5[6] | 62.4[6] |
| 18/1/17 | 512 | 34%[6] | 22% | 29%[6] | 5%[6] | 3.0[6] | 52.3[6] |
| 13/1/16 | 522 | 19%[6] | 23% | 39% | -20%[6] | 2.5[6] | 41.1[6] |
| 14/1/15 | 503 | 30%[6] | 24%[6] | 35% | -5%[6] | 2.8 | 49.5[6] |
| 15/1/14 | 611 | 36% | 30%[6] | 31%[6] | 5% | 3.0 | 54.1[6] |
| 16/1/13 | 759 | 36%[6] | 35% | 24%[6] | 11%[6] | 3.1 | 56.4[6] |
| 12/10/11 | 816 | 47%[6] | 32% | 18% | 28%[6] | 3.3 | 59.1 |
| 13/10/10 | 747 | 41%[6] | 33%[6] | 19%[6] | 22%[6] | 3.2 | 58.9[6] |
| 14/10/09 | 462 | 30% | 37% | 28% | 2% | 3.0 | 53.5 |
| 15/10/08 | 515 | 31%[6] | 35%[6] | 26%[6] | 4%[6] | 3.0 | 53.8[6] |
| 10/10/07 | 602 | 52%[6] | 29%[6] | 10%[6] | 42%[6] | 3.5 | 65.2[6] |
| 11/10/06 | 445 | 30%[6] | 37% | 22%[6] | 8%[6] | 3.0 | 55.8[6] |
| 12/10/05 | 377 | 48%[6] | 33% | 9%[6] | 39%[6] | 3.5 | 66.4[6] |
| 12/1/05 | 391 | 38%[6] | 30% | 20%[6] | 18%[6] | 3.2 | 56.3[6] |
| 7/1/04 | 381 | 25% | 26% | 33%[6] | -8% | 2.8 | 49.3 |
| 8/1/03[5] | 377 | 22%[6] | 29% | 27% | -5% | 2.8 | 51.6[6] |
| 10/10/01 | 433 | 29% | 33% | 28% | 1% | 3.0 | 56.7 |
| 11/10/00 | 262 | 25%[6] | 28% | 31% | -6%[6] | 2.9 | 55.2 |
| 6/10/99 | 236 | 31%[6] | 30% | 25%[6] | 6%[6] | 3.0 | 57.3 |
| 7/10/98 | 508 | 22%[6] | 35%[6] | 35%[6] | -14%[6] | 2.8 | — |
| 8/10/97 | 534 | 45% | 30%[6] | 14%[6] | 31% | 3.4 | — |
[3] Respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address have been excluded.
[4] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying all individual responses into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 marks according to their degree of positive level, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest, and then calculate the sample mean.
[5] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis.
[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.
After excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 17% said they were satisfied with it, 65% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 47 percentage points. The mean score is 2.0, meaning close to “quite dissatisfied” in general, while the average rating is 29.7 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All figures are at their worst since records began in 1997.
Figures on various Chief Executives’ popularity before and after the Policy Address Speech since 1997 are summarized as follows:
| Popularity of Tung Chee-hwa | ||||||||
| Date of PA Speech | 8/10/97 | 7/10/98 | 6/10/99 | 11/10/00 | 10/10/01 | 8/1/03 | 7/1/04 | 12/1/05 |
| CE’s rating before the PA | 65.8 | 55.8 | 54.0 | 48.2 | 48.4 | 46.6 | 42.9 | 47.2 |
| CE’s rating at PA instant poll | 66.1 | 56.1 | 54.3 | 50.7 | 50.6 | 47.3 | 44.6 | 48.4 |
| Change in CE’s rating | +0.3 | +0.3 | +0.3 | +2.5[8] | +2.2[8] | +0.7 | +1.7[8] | +1.2 |
| Popularity of Donald Tsang | ||||||||
| Date of Policy Address Speech | 12/10/05 | 11/10/06 | 10/10/07 | 15/10/08 | 14/10/09 | 13/10/10 | 12/10/11 | |
| CE’s rating before the PA | 68.0 | 62.9 | 65.8 | 52.7 | 55.2 | 55.4 | 48.4 | |
| CE’s rating at PA instant poll | 67.4 | 59.8 | 64.4 | 53.9 | 54.2 | 56.2 | 50.6 | |
| Change in CE’s rating | -0.6 | -3.1[8] | -1.4[8] | +1.2 | -1.0 | +0.8 | +2.2[8] | |
| CE’s net approval rate before the PA | 68% | 48% | 48% | 5% | 7% | -1% | -45% | |
| CE’s net approval rate at PA instant poll | 65% | 36% | 48% | 10% | 8% | 0% | -41% | |
| Change in CE’s net approval rate[7] | -3% | -12% [8] | — | +5% | +1% | +1% | +4% | |
| Popularity of CY Leung | ||||||||
| Date of Policy Address Speech | 16/1/13 | 15/1/14 | 14/1/15 | 13/1/16 | 18/1/17 | |||
| CE’s rating before the PA | 48.9 | 45.6 | 40.6 | 37.5 | 41.3 | |||
| CE’s rating at PA instant poll | 52.2 | 48.9 | 44.8 | 37.0 | 41.7 | |||
| Change in CE’s rating | +3.3[8] | +3.3[8] | +4.2[8] | -0.5 | +0.4 | |||
| CE’s net approval rate before the PA | -20% | -31% | -39% | -44% | -44% | |||
| CE’s net approval rate at PA instant poll | -11% | -24% | -35% | -54% | -57% | |||
| Change in CE’s net approval rate[7] | +9%[8] | +7%[8] | +4% | -10%[8] | -13%[8] | |||
| Popularity of Carrie Lam | ||||||||
| Date of Policy Address Speech | 11/10/17 | 10/10/18 | 16/10/19 | |||||
| CE’s rating before the PA | 59.6 | 52.3 | 22.3+/-1.9 | |||||
| CE’s rating at PA instant poll | 61.1 | 47.6 | 22.7+/-2.4 | |||||
| Change in CE’s rating | +1.5 | -4.7[8] | +0.3 | |||||
| CE’s net approval rate before the PA | 10% | 4% | -65+/-5% | |||||
| CE’s net approval rate at PA instant poll | 23% | -10% | -64+/-5% | |||||
| Change in CE’s net approval rate[7] | +13%[8] | -14%[8] | +1% | |||||
[7] Instant polls on Policy Address included CE’s approval rate since 2004, so it is not listed under Tung’s series.
[8] 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 on Carrie Lam’s popularity before and after the Policy Address speech are as follows:
| Date of survey | 1-6/8/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 2-4/9/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 30/9-3/10/19 | 16/10/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 1,015 | 1,023 | 1,046 | 1,061 | 1,004 | 745 | — |
| Response rate | 62.8% | 68.5% | 69.5% | 69.5% | 64.5% | 80.0% | — |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | — |
| Rating of CE Carrie Lam | 27.9 | 24.6[9] | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 22.7+/-2.4 | +0.3 |
| Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 20% | 17% | 19% | 18% | 15% | 15+/-2% | — |
| Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 72% | 76%[9] | 75% | 74% | 80%[9] | 79+/-3% | -1% |
| Net approval rate | -51% | -59%[9] | -55% | -57% | -65%[9] | -64+/-5% | +1% |
[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.
Instant poll shows that CE Carrie Lam’s popularity has not changed much since early October after she delivered her Policy Address yesterday. Her latest support rating is 22.7 marks, approval rate 15% and disapproval 79%, giving a net approval rate of negative 64 percentage points.
The survey also gauged the change of people’s confidence in the future of Hong Kong after CE Carrie Lam delivered her Policy Address. Results are as follows:
| Date of survey | Sample size[10] | Confidence in the future of Hong Kong | ||||
| Increased | Unchanged | Decreased | Don’t know / hard to say | Net effect on confidence | ||
| 16/10/19 | 679 | 12+/-2%[11] | 22+/-3% | 61+/-4%[11] | 6+/-2% | -49+/-5%[11] |
| 10/10/18 | 534 | 23%[11] | 25%[11] [12] | 45%[11] | 7%[11] | -22%[11] |
| 11/10/17 | 526 | 40%[11] | 39% | 19%[11] | 3%[11] | 21%[11] |
| 18/1/17 | 511 | 24%[11] | 36%[11] | 32%[11] | 7%[11] | -8%[11] |
| 13/1/16 | 521 | 16%[11] | 31% | 44%[11] | 10%[11] | -27%[11] |
| 14/1/15 | 501 | 22% | 35% | 38%[11] | 5% | -16% |
| 15/1/14 | 846 | 24%[11] | 38% | 32%[11] | 5%[11] | -9%[11] |
| 16/1/13 | 913 | 31% | 38%[11] | 23% | 7%[11] | 8% |
| 12/10/11 | 957 | 29% | 45% | 21% | 5% | 8%[11] |
| 13/10/10 | 914 | 31%[11] | 45% | 18%[11] | 6% | 14%[11] |
| 14/10/09 | 749 | 27%[11] | 47%[11] | 22%[11] | 5% | 5%[11] |
| 15/10/08 | 761 | 23%[11] | 38%[11] | 32%[11] | 7% | -9%[11] |
| 10/10/07 | 388 | 53%[11] | 31%/-5%[11] | 7%[11] | 9% | 46%[11] |
| 11/10/06 | 431 | 25%[11] | 51%[11] | 16%[11] | 8% | 9%[11] |
| 12/10/05 | 476 | 54%[11] | 33%[11] | 5%[11] | 8%[11] | 49%[11] |
| 12/1/05 | 658 | 34% | 41% | 12%[11] | 14% | 22%[11] |
| 7/1/04 | 602 | 32%[11] | 40% | 16%[11] | 12% | 16%[11] |
| 8/1/03[13] | 513 | 25% | 40%[11] | 22% | 14%[11] | 3% |
| 10/10/01 | 591 | 22% | 50%[11] | 21%[11] | 7%[11] | 1%[11] |
| 11/10/00 | 292 | 22%[11] | 40% | 15% | 22%[11] | 7%[11] |
| 6/10/99 | 233 | 40%[11] | 36%[11] | 16%[11] | 8% | 24%[11] |
| 7/10/98 | 505 | 21% | 52% | 22% | 5% | -1% |
[10] Respondents who did not answer this question because they had not heard of / did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address have been excluded.
[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.
[12] 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 changes would not have gone beyond the sampling errors.
[13] The 2003 Policy Address instant poll was conducted for two days. Only figures registered in the first day of fieldwork are listed in this table for direct comparison and analysis.
Results show that after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 12% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 22% said there was no change, while 61% said their confidence had decreased, giving a net effect of negative 49 percentage points on people’s confidence. The figure is at its worst since record began in 1998.
Data Analysis
Our latest Policy Address instant poll shows that after excluding those respondents who said they did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 17% said they were satisfied with it, 65% were dissatisfied, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 47 percentage points, while the average rating is 29.7 marks on a scale of 0 to 100. All figures are at their worst since records began in 1997.
As for CE Carrie Lam, as compared to early October, her popularities have not changed much after she delivered her Policy Address yesterday. Her latest support rating now stands at 22.7 marks, approval rate 15% and disapproval 79%, giving a net approval rate of negative 64 percentage points.
Moreover, after excluding those who did not have any knowledge of the Policy Address, 12% said their confidence in the future of Hong Kong had increased, 22% said there was no change, while 61% said their confidence had decreased, giving a net effect of negative 49 percentage points on people’s confidence. The net figure is also at its worst since record began in 1998.
The instant poll describes people’s instant reaction toward the Policy Address. Their reactions later remain to be seen.
Additional information: “Outline of our operation for the Policy Address instant survey of 2019”
- After the HKSAR government announced the date of Policy Address, we started our planning for the instant survey.
- About one week ago, we began our manpower deployment and internal preparation.
- On the day CE announced the Address, we monitored the media and the Internet closely, and drafted the questionnaire.
- Our survey began at around 1pm on that day, involving around sixty interviewers and other staff. Our original target was to conduct at least 500 successful cases. We stopped the poll at around 8pm, after collecting 745 samples.
- Data verification and quantitative analyses followed immediately. The preliminary results were released at around 9pm, at the same time we started to draft the press release.
- On the following day, the survey findings were verified again, while our website was re-designed. Our press release was finalized, and we held a press conference to announce the detailed findings to the public.