Dec 14, 2021
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
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
Detailed Findings
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.