Jul 16, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
Hong Kong Public Opinion Program releases results of its maiden 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.
Abstract
HKPOP successfully interviewed 1,025 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in early July. The effective response rate of the survey is 67.4%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-8% and that of ratings is +/-3.4 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 2-8/7/2019[5] |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 1,025 (including 519 landline and 506 mobile samples)[5] |
| Effective response rate[2] | : | 67.4%[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 +/-3.4 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 of Legislative Councillors, the date of survey is 2-4/7/2019, the sample size is 511 (including 259 landline and 252 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 65.6%. For the rating stage of Legislative Councillors, the date of survey is 5-8/7/2019, the sample size is 514 (including 260 landline and 254 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 69.1%.
Popularity of CE and Principal Officials
Latest Figures
To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, HKPOP will later release on its website (https://www.pori.hk) the raw data and related respondents’ demographics of the latest rating survey of CE Carrie Lam, together with those of regular rating surveys of former CEs CH Tung, Donald Tsang and CY Leung released earlier, for public examination. Please follow normal academic standards when using or citing such data.
Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 23-25/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 1,031 | 1,018 | 1,013 | 1,006 | 1,015 | 1,025 | — |
| Response rate | 66.1% | 63.2% | 61.9% | 60.4% | 58.7% | 67.4% | — |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | — |
| Rating of CE Carrie Lam | 49.0 | 44.3[6] | 44.7 | 43.3 | 32.8[6] | 33.4+/-2.1 | +0.5 |
| Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 36% | 32%[6] | 32% | 32% | 23%[6] | 26+/-3% | +3% |
| Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 49% | 56%[6] | 59% | 57% | 67%[6] | 66+/-3% | -1% |
| Net approval rate | -13% | -24%[6] | -27% | -24% | -44%[6] | -40+/-5% | +4% |
[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 three Secretaries of Departments under the accountability system are summarized below:
| Date of survey | 27/2/19 | 28/2-5/3/19 | 8-11/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size[7] | 621 | 591-680 | 634-673 | 592-642 | 553-616 | 583-641 | — |
| Response rate | 78.2% | 72.2% | 63.9% | 63.2% | 60.4% | 67.4% | — |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | — |
| Rating of CS Matthew Cheung | — | 47.7 | 45.9 | 43.5 | 43.2 | 38.0+/-2.4 | -5.3[8] |
| Vote of confidence in CS Matthew Cheung | — | 26% | 25% | 23% | 29%[8] | 26+/-4% | -3% |
| Vote of no confidence in CS Matthew Cheung | — | 28% | 27% | 29% | 32% | 38+/-4% | +7%[8] |
| Net approval rate | — | -1% | -2% | -6% | -2% | -12+/-7% | -9%[8] |
| Rating of FS Paul Chan | 40.5 | 39.7 | 38.2 | 34.2[8] | 36.1 | 29.5+/-2.2 | -6.5[8] |
| Vote of confidence in FS Paul Chan | 19% | 21% | 18% | 16% | 19% | 17+/-3% | -2% |
| Vote of no confidence in FS Paul Chan | 49% | 52% | 53% | 51% | 47% | 57+/-4% | +10%[8] |
| Net approval rate | -31% | -30% | -35% | -35% | -28% | -40+/-6% | -12%[8] |
| Rating of SJ Teresa Cheng | — | 34.4 | 34.2 | 29.5[8] | 29.5 | 21.6+/-2.2 | -7.9[8] |
| Vote of confidence in SJ Teresa Cheng | — | 14% | 17% | 11%[8] | 16%[8] | 10+/-3% | -5%[8] |
| Vote of no confidence in SJ Teresa Cheng | — | 53% | 46%[8] | 52%[8] | 56% | 68+/-4% | +12%[8] |
| Net approval rate | — | -40% | -30%[8] | -41%[8] | -40% | -58+/-6% | -18%[8] |
[7] The frequency of this series of questions is different from that of CE popularity ratings. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the same intervals. The survey conducted on 27/2/2019 was the Budget instant survey and only asked rating of FS as well as his vote of confidence.
[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.
Latest popularity figures of Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system are summarized below, in descending order of net approval rates[9]:
| Date of survey | 8-11/4/19 | 6-9/5/19 | 3-6/6/19 | 2-8/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size[10] | 558-619 | 581-635 | 565-638 | 601-643 | — |
| Response rate | 63.9% | 63.2% | 60.4% | 67.4% | — |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | — |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan | 48% | 48% | 50% | 45+/-4% | -4% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan | 13% | 13% | 12% | 14+/-3% | +2% |
| Net approval rate | 36% | 35% | 38% | 32+/-6% | -6% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau | 44% | 42% | 39% | 42+/-4% | +3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau | 11% | 15% | 13% | 13+/-3% | +1% |
| Net approval rate | 32% | 27% | 26% | 29+/-6% | +3% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing | 38% | 33%[11] | 38%[11] | 38+/-4% | — |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing | 21% | 22% | 20% | 20+/-3% | -1% |
| Net approval rate | 17% | 10% | 18% | 18+/-6% | +1% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong | 39% | 32%[11] | 38%[11] | 38+/-4% | +1% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong | 22% | 28%[11] | 23%[11] | 21+/-3% | -2% |
| Net approval rate | 17% | 4%[11] | 15%[11] | 17+/-6% | +2% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law | 34% | 34% | 31% | 35+/-4% | +4% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law | 11% | 13% | 19%[11] | 19+/-3% | — |
| Net approval rate | 23% | 20% | 12%[11] | 16+/-6% | +5% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau | 25% | 23% | 24% | 22+/-3% | -3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau | 8% | 9% | 10% | 14+/-3% | +4%[11] |
| Net approval rate | 17% | 14% | 15% | 8+/-5% | -7%[11] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Development Michael Wong | 25% | 23% | 26% | 23+/-3% | -3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Development Michael Wong | 15% | 15% | 14% | 18+/-3% | +4%[11] |
| Net approval rate | 9% | 9% | 13% | 5+/-5% | -8%[11] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang | 24% | 22% | 23% | 25+/-4% | +3% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang | 24% | 29%[11] | 24%[11] | 27+/-4% | +4% |
| Net approval rate | 0% | -7% | -1% | -2+/-6% | -1% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip | 21% | 21% | 20% | 19+/-3% | -1% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip | 17% | 21% | 22% | 30+/-4% | +8%[11] |
| Net approval rate | 4% | 0% | -2% | -11+/-6% | -9%[11] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan | 24% | 24% | 26% | 24+/-3% | -2% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan | 36% | 40% | 34%[11] | 38+/-4% | +4% |
| Net approval rate | -12% | -16% | -8% | -14+/-6% | -6% |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung | 25% | 21% | 24% | 20+/-3% | -4% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung | 36% | 38% | 32%[11] | 46+/-4% | +15%[11] |
| Net approval rate | -11% | -18% | -7%[11] | -26+/-6% | -19%[11] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah | 24% | 22% | 22% | 21+/-3% | -1% |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah | 35% | 42%[11] | 40% | 49+/-4% | +8%[11] |
| Net approval rate | -11% | -20% | -18% | -28+/-6% | -10%[11] |
| Vote of confidence in Secretary for Security John Lee | 31% | 29% | 27% | 21+/-3% | -5%[11] |
| Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Security John Lee | 30%[11] | 34% | 40%[11] | 59+/-4% | +19%[11] |
| Net approval rate | 2%[11] | -5% | -13% | -38+/-7% | -25%[11] |
[9] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[10] The frequency of this series of questions is different from that of CE popularity ratings. Comparisons, if made, should be synchronized using the same intervals.
[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.
The latest survey showed that CE Carrie Lam scored 33.4 marks, and 26% supported her as CE, her net approval rate is negative 40 percentage points. Meanwhile, the corresponding ratings of CS Matthew Cheung, FS Paul Chan and SJ Teresa Cheng were 38.0, 29.5 and 21.6 marks, while 26%, 17% and 10% would vote for their reappointments correspondingly. Their net approval rates are negative 12, negative 40 and negative 58 percentage points respectively.
As for the Directors of Bureaux, according to the net approval rates, results revealed that the top position goes to Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan, attaining positive 32 percentage points. The 2nd place belongs to Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau with a net approval rate of positive 29 percentage points. Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing, Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong, Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law, Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau, Secretary for Development Michael Wong, Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip, Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung, Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah and Secretary for Security John Lee ranked 3rd to 13th, their corresponding net approval rates are positive 18, positive 17, positive 16, positive 8, positive 5, negative 2, negative 11, negative 14, negative 26, negative 28 and negative 38 percentage points. In other words, no Director scored a net approval rate of over 50%.
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 3 to 6 June, 2019 while this survey was conducted from 2 to 8 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.
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 16/6/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around two million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill. |
| 15/6/19 | Carrie Lam announces the suspension of the extradition bill. |
| 14/6/19 | Multiple Executive Council members suggest suspending the extradition bill. |
| 12/6/19 | The police uses tear gas rounds, beanbag shots and rubber bullets as anti-extradition bill sit-ins turn into a conflict between protesters and the police. |
| 11/6/19 | Protesters plan to surround the Legislative Council Complex as the second reading of the extradition bill will be resumed tomorrow. |
| 9/6/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.03 million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill. |
Popularity of Legislative Councillors
In the naming survey, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 councillors whom they knew best. Claudia Mo, Roy Kwong, Alvin Yeung, Starry Lee, Regina Ip and Priscilla Leung were the top 6 councillors mentioned most frequently, they therefore entered the rating survey. In the rating survey, respondents were asked to rate individual councillors using a 0-100 scale, where 0 indicates absolutely no support, 100 indicates absolute support and 50 means half-half. After calculation, the bottom councillor in terms of recognition rate was dropped; the remaining 5 were then ranked according to their support ratings to become the top 5 Legislative Councillors. Recent ratings of the top 5 Legislative Councillors are summarized below, in descending order of support ratings[12]:
| Date of survey | 3-5/7/18 | 1-6/11/18 | 14-19/3/19 | 5-8/7/19 | Latest change | |
| Sample size | 525-575 | 520-555 | 582-697 | 514 | — | |
| Response rate | 49.5% | 58.9% | 73.1% | 69.1% | — | |
| Latest findings[13] | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | Recognition rate | — |
| Alvin Yeung | 52.2[15] | 52.2[15] | 49.4[15] | 57.4+/-3.2{1} | 82.3% | +8.0[14] |
| Claudia Mo | 48.2{6} | 45.3{6} | 44.5{7} | 47.4+/-3.1{2} | 95.5% | +2.9 |
| Starry Lee | 45.9{7} | 43.1{8} | 43.4{8} | 33.5+/-2.9{3} | 93.6% | -9.9[14] |
| Regina Ip | 50.0{4} | 48.4{4} | 48.3{4} | 33.1+/-2.9{4} | 97.1% | -15.2[14] |
| Priscilla Leung | 41.6{9} | 36.6{9}[14] | 38.9{9} | 27.1+/-2.9{5} | 90.2% | -11.8[14] |
| Roy Kwong | — | — | — | 61.6+/-3.4[15] | 81.8% | — |
| Michael Tien | 57.7{1} | 57.0{1} | 55.1{1} | — | — | — |
| James To | 51.3{2} | 52.4{2} | 52.1{2} | — | — | — |
| Eddie Chu | 49.5{5} | 50.7[15] | 48.7{3} | — | — | — |
| Tanya Chan | 50.2{3}[14] | 49.4{3} | 47.4{5} | — | — | — |
| Paul Tse | — | 44.1{7} | 45.5{6} | — | — | — |
| Holden Chow | — | — | 35.5{10} | — | — | — |
| Raymond Chan | 46.3[15] | — | 44.5[15] | — | — | — |
| Leung Yiu-chung | — | 46.8{5} | — | — | — | — |
| Chiang Lai-wan | 37.9{10} | 33.6{10}[14] | — | — | — | — |
| Andrew Leung | 43.4{8} | — | — | — | — | — |
[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] 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.
[15] Recognition rates were comparatively low in the rating survey.
The latest survey showed that Alvin Yeung was the most popularly supported councillor, attaining 57.4 marks. Claudia Mo ranked the 2nd with 47.4 marks. Starry Lee, Regina Ip and Priscilla Leung followed behind with 33.5, 33.1 and 27.1 marks respectively. In the latest survey, Roy Kwong obtained a support rating of 61.6 marks, but was dropped due to his relatively low recognition rate.
Taiwan and Tibetan Issues
Latest Figures
People’s latest views towards various Taiwan and Tibetan issues are summarized below:
| Date of survey | 2-7/8/17 | 1-6/2/18 | 6-9/8/18 | 7-11/1/19 | 2-8/7/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 707-830[16] | 696-786 | 553-612 | 505-550 | 575-648 | — |
| Response rate | 67.0% | 62.5% | 51.2% | 55.6% | 67.4% | — |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | — |
| Confidence in cross-strait reunification | 26%[17] | 30%[17] | 35% | 28%[17] | 27+/-4% | -1% |
| No confidence in cross-strait reunification | 62% | 62% | 56%[17] [18] | 60% | 65+/-4% | +5% |
| Net confidence | -37%[17] | -32% | -22% | -33%[17] | -38+/-7% | -6% |
| Taiwan rejoining the United Nations: Support rate | 46% | 54%[17] | 59% | 54% | 57+/-4% | +4% |
| Taiwan rejoining the United Nations: Opposition rate | 35% | 32% | 29% | 29% | 27+/-4% | -2% |
| Net support | 11% | 22%[17] | 30% | 25% | 31+/-7% | +6% |
| Taiwan independence: Support rate | 33%[17] | 33% | 34% | 35% | 44+/-4% | +9%[17] |
| Taiwan independence: Opposition rate | 52%[17] | 54% | 54% | 50% | 44+/-4% | -6%[17] |
| Net support | -19%[17] | -20% | -20% | -16% | 0+/-8% | +15%[17] |
| Believe “one country, two systems” is applicable to Taiwan | 30%[17] | 35%[17] | 35% | 29%[17] | 27+/-4% | -1% |
| Believe “one country, two systems” is not applicable to Taiwan | 54%[17] | 53% | 50% | 59%[17] | 63+/-4% | +5% |
| Net value of applicability | -24%[17] | -18% | -14% | -30%[17] | -36+/-7% | -6% |
| Tibet independence: Support rate | 16% | 19% | 19% | 19% | 26+/-4% | +6%[17] |
| Tibet independence: Opposition rate | 63% | 63% | 63% | 58% | 53+/-4% | -6% |
| Net support | -47% | -44% | -44% | -39% | -27+/-7% | +12%[17] |
[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.
[17] 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.
[18] 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.
Latest survey revealed that 27% of Hong Kong people interviewed were confident in the ultimate reunification across the strait while 65% expressed no confidence, with net confidence at negative 38 percentage points; 57% supported Taiwan’s rejoining the United Nations while 27% opposed that, with net support at positive 31 percentage points; 44% each supported and opposed the independence of Taiwan; 27% believed “one country, two systems” was applicable to Taiwan while 63% believed it was not, with a net value of applicability at negative 36 percentage points. Regarding Tibetan issues, 53% of Hong Kong people interviewed opposed the independence of Tibet whereas 26% showed support, with net support at negative 27 percentage points.
Data Analysis
Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 33.4 marks. Her approval rate is 26%, disapproval rate 66%, giving a net popularity of negative 40 percentage points. All popularity figures have slightly recovered from the historical lows two weeks ago, and all changes registered are within sampling errors.
As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Matthew Cheung is 38.0 marks, approval rate 26%, disapproval rate 38%, giving a net popularity of negative 12 percentage points. His rating and net approval rate have again registered new record lows since he took office. The latest support rating of FS Paul Chan is 29.5 marks, approval rate 17%, disapproval rate 57%, thus a net popularity of negative 40 percentage points. His rating has registered a new record low since he took office. As for SJ Teresa Cheng, her support rating is 21.6 marks, approval rate 10%, disapproval rate 68%, giving a net popularity of negative 58 percentage points. Her rating and net approval rate have registered new record lows since she took office. In terms of popularity rating and net approval rate, Matthew Cheung continues to be the most popular Secretary of Department.
As for the Directors of Bureaux, compared to one month ago, the net approval rates of 4 among 13 Directors have gone up while 9 have gone down. Those of Secretary for Security John Lee, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung, Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip, Secretary for Development Michael Wong and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Lau have changed beyond sampling errors, which decreased by 25, 19, 10, 9, 8 and 7 percentage points respectively. The net approval rates of Secretary for Security John Lee, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung and Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip are at their record low since they took office. Among all the Directors, Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip, Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung, Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah and Secretary for Security John Lee register negative popularities, at negative 2, negative 11, negative 14, negative 26, negative 28 and negative 38 percentage points respectively. Sophia Chan continues to be the most popular Director, with a net approval rate of positive 32 percentage points.
According to HKPOP’s standard, no one falls under the category of “ideal” or “successful” performer. The performance of Sophia Chan, Edward Yau, Law Chi-kwong, Wong Kam-sing, Joshua Law, Matthew Cheung, Nicholas Yang, Frank Chan, Lau Kong-wah and Kevin Yeung can be labeled as “mediocre”. That of Michael Wong, James Lau and Patrick Nip can be labeled as “inconspicuous”. Carrie Lam, John Lee and Paul Chan fall into the category of “depressing” performer, while Teresa Cheng falls into that of “disastrous”.
The following table summarizes the grading of CE Carrie Lam and the principal officials for readers’ easy reference:
| “Ideal”: those with approval rates of over 66%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets[22] |
| “Successful”: those with approval rates of over 50%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets[22] |
| “Mediocre”: those not belonging to other 5 types; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets[22] |
| Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan Siu-chee (45%); Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau Tang-wah (42%); Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong (38%); Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing (38%); Secretary for the Civil Service Joshua Law Chi-kong (35%); CS Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (26%); Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang Wei-hsiung (25%); Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan Fan (24%); Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah (21%); Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung (20%) |
| “Inconspicuous”: those with recognition rates of less than 50%; ranked by their approval rates[22]; the first figure inside bracket is approval rate while the second figure is recognition rate |
| Secretary for Development Michael Wong Wai-lun (23%, 41%); Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury James Henry Lau Jr (22%, 35%); Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick Nip Tak-kuen (19%, 48%) |
| “Depressing”: those with disapproval rates of over 50%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets[22] |
| CE Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (66%); Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu (59%); FS Paul Chan Mo-po (57%) |
| “Disastrous”: those with disapproval rates of over 66%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets[22] |
| SJ Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah (68%) |
[19] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
As for the popularity of Legislative Councillors, compared to four months ago, the rating of Alvin Yeung has significantly increased and registered a new record high, while the ratings of Regina Ip, Priscilla Leung and Starry Lee have significantly decreased and registered new record lows. In terms of relative rankings, Alvin Yeung ranks first, Claudia Mo ranks second, followed by Starry Lee, Regina Ip and Priscilla Leung. It should be noted, however, that our list of “top 5” only includes LegCo members who are best known to the public, ranked according to their support ratings. Some of the other councillors may well have very high or low support ratings, but because they are not the most well-known councillors, they do not appear on the “top 5” list by design. For the current survey, since the recognition rate of Roy Kwong is comparatively low, he does not enter the list even though he has got quite a high rating.
As for Taiwan and Tibetan issues, the support rate of Taiwan independence has increased dramatically, approaching the opposition rate for the first time since the survey question was first asked in 1993, both figures are at 44% now. In general, Hong Kong people continue to support giving Taiwan more international space. People’s net support for Taiwan rejoining the United Nations stands at positive 31 percentage points, which is a record high since August 1993. Besides, the net value of those who believed “one country, two systems” should be applicable to Taiwan stands at negative 36 percentage points, which is again a record low since the survey question was first asked in 1996. People continue to be pessimistic about cross-strait reunification. The latest net confidence stands at negative 38 percentage points, which is also a record low since the survey question was first asked in 1993. Regarding Tibetan issue, Hong Kong people who oppose the independence of Tibet continue to outnumber those who support it, but the net support rate has increased dramatically to negative 27 percentage points, which is a record high since the end of 1994. As for the reasons affecting the ups and downs of these figures, we leave it to our readers to form their own judgment using detailed records displayed in our “Opinion Daily”.