Oct 29, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
POP releases findings of popularity of CE and the government,
popularity of Legislative Councillors and Public Sentiment Index
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 1,038 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in mid-October. Results show that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 20.2 marks. Her net popularity is negative 71 percentage points. Although her popularity has not dropped beyond sampling errors since the Policy Address was delivered, all popularity figures have registered new record lows since she took office and also across all CEs in history. The latest net satisfaction of the HKSAR Government stands at negative 69 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1997. The net trust value is negative 44 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1992. People’s net satisfaction rates with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions are negative 42, negative 57 and negative 85 percentage points respectively. The net satisfaction rates of political and economic conditions have registered historical lows since records began in 1992 and 2003 respectively. As for the popularity of Legislative Councillors, Claudia Mo, Tanya Chan, Junius Ho, Roy Kwong, Starry Lee and Alvin Yeung are the six councillors that top people’s mind now. In terms of rating, Roy Kwong tops the list with 59.0 marks. Tanya Chan ranks the 2nd with 52.3 marks. Claudia Mo, Starry Lee and Junius Ho followed behind with 48.8, 25.3 and 17.1 marks respectively. Among them, the rating of Starry Lee has dropped significantly compared with the last survey. As for the PSI, the latest figure is 50.5, further down by 4.3 points from early October, registering an all-time low since record began in 1992. The effective response rate of the survey is 63.2%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-7% and that of ratings is +/-3.3 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 17-23/10/2019[3] |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size | : | 1,038 (including 519 landline and 519 mobile samples)[3] |
| Effective response rate[1] | : | 63.2%[3] |
| Sampling error[2] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, that of net values not more than +/-7% and that of ratings not more than +/-3.3 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.
[3] For the naming stage of Legislative Councillors, the date of survey is 17-18/10/2019, the sample size is 512 (including 255 landline and 257 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 63.7%. For the rating stage, the date of survey is 21-23/10/2019, the sample size is 526 (including 264 landline and 262 mobile samples) and the effective response rate is 63.4%.
Popularity of CE and the Government
Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 15-20/8/19 | 2-4/9/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 30/9-3/10/19 | 16/10/19 | 17-23/10/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 1,023 | 1,046 | 1,061 | 1,004 | 745 | 1,038 | — |
| Response rate | 68.5% | 69.5% | 69.5% | 64.5% | 80.0% | 63.2% | — |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | — |
| Rating of CE Carrie Lam | 24.6[4] | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 22.7 | 20.2+/-1.8 | -2.4 |
| Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 17% | 19% | 18% | 15% | 15% | 11+/-2% | -3%[4] |
| Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam | 76%[4] | 75% | 74% | 80%[4] | 79% | 82+/-2% | +3% |
| Net approval rate | -59%[4] | -55% | -57% | -65%[4] | -64% | -71+/-4% | -6% |
[4] 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 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 16-19/9/19 | 17-23/10/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size[5] | 1,013 | 1,015 | 1,002 | 1,023 | 1,061 | 1,038 | — |
| Response rate | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 69.5% | 63.2% | — |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | — |
| Satisfaction rate of SARG performance[6] | 27% | 18%[7] | 18% | 14% | 12% | 10+/-2% | -2% |
| Dissatisfaction rate of SARG performance[6] | 55%[7] | 72%[7] | 70% | 77%[7] | 76% | 79+/-3% | +3% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -28% | -53%[7] | -52% | -63%[7] | -63% | -69+/-5% | -5% |
| Mean value[6] | 2.5[7] | 2.0[7] | 2.0 | 1.8[7] | 1.8 | 1.7+/-0.1 | -0.1[7] |
| Current economic condition: Satisfaction rate[6] |
36% | 31%[7] | 28% | 25% | 19%[7] | 19+/-2% | — |
| Current economic condition: Dissatisfaction rate[6] |
41% | 45% | 47% | 53%[7] | 55% | 61+/-3% | +7%[7] |
| Net satisfaction rate | -5% | -14%[7] | -19% | -29%[7] | -35% | -42+/-5% | -7%[7] |
| Mean value[6] | 2.8 | 2.7[7] | 2.6 | 2.5[7] | 2.4[7] | 2.3+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
| Current livelihood condition: Satisfaction rate[6] |
26%[7] | 21%[7] | 21% | 16%[7] | 13% | 14+/-2% | +1% |
| Current livelihood condition: Dissatisfaction rate[6] |
56% | 62%[7] | 64% | 69%[7] | 70% | 71+/-3% | +1% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -30%[7] | -41%[7] | -43% | -54%[7] | -57% | -57+/-5% | — |
| Mean value[6] | 2.5[7] | 2.3[7] | 2.2 | 2.1[7] | 2.0 | 2.0+/-0.1 | — |
| Current political condition: Satisfaction rate[6] |
13%[7] | 7%[7] | 5% | 5% | 3%[7] | 3+/-1% | — |
| Current political condition: Dissatisfaction rate[6] |
71%[7] | 81%[7] | 87%[7] | 88% | 85% | 88+/-2% | +3% |
| Net satisfaction rate | -58%[7] | -74%[7] | -82%[7] | -83% | -82% | -85+/-3% | -3% |
| Mean value[6] | 1.9[7] | 1.6[7] | 1.5[7] | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4+/-0.1 | — |
[5] The question on the satisfaction of SARG performance only uses sub-samples of the surveys concerned. The sub-sample size for this survey is 668.
[6] 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.
[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.
Recent figures regarding people’s trust in the HKSAR Government are summarized as follows:
| Date of survey | 28/2-5/3/19 | 20-23/5/19 | 17-20/6/19 | 17-19/7/19 | 15-20/8/19 | 17-23/10/19 | Latest change |
| Sample size | 639 | 686 | 623 | 555 | 632 | 623 | — |
| Response rate | 72.2% | 61.9% | 58.7% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 63.2% | — |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | — |
| Trust in HKSAR Government[8] | 34%[9] | 36% | 28%[9] | 29% | 27% | 23+/-3% | -4% |
| Distrust in HKSAR Government[8] | 46%[9] | 50% | 60%[9] | 60% | 64% | 68+/-4% | +4% |
| Net trust | -12%[9] | -14% | -32%[9] | -31% | -37% | -44+/-7% | -8% |
| Mean value[8] | 2.7[9] | 2.7 | 2.4[9] | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.1+/-0.1 | -0.1 |
[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.
Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 20.2 marks. Her approval rate is 11%, disapproval rate 82%, giving a net popularity of negative 71 percentage points. Although her popularity has not dropped beyond sampling errors since the Policy Address was delivered, all popularity figures have registered record lows again since she became CE.
Regarding the HKSAR Government, the latest satisfaction rate is 10%, whereas 79% were dissatisfied, thus net satisfaction stands at negative 69 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1997. The mean score is 1.7, meaning between “quite dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. Regarding people’s trust in the HKSAR Government, 23% of the respondents expressed trust, 68% expressed distrust. The net trust value is negative 44 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1992. The mean score is 2.1, meaning close to “quite distrust” in general.
As for people’s satisfaction with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions, the latest satisfaction rates are 19%, 14% and 3% respectively, while the net satisfaction rates are negative 42, negative 57 and negative 85 percentage points respectively. The mean score of economic condition is 2.3, meaning between “half-half” and “quite dissatisfied” in general; that of livelihood condition is 2.0, meaning close to “quite dissatisfied” in general; that of political condition is 1.4, meaning between “quite dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” in general. The net satisfaction rate of political condition has registered all-time low since record began in 1992, while that of economic condition has registered record low since December 2003.
Popularity of Legislative Councillors
In the naming survey, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 councillors whom they knew best. Claudia Mo, Tanya Chan, Junius Ho, Roy Kwong, Starry Lee and Alvin Yeung 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[10]:
| Date of survey | 1-6/11/18 | 14-19/3/19 | 5-8/7/19 | 21-23/10/19 | Latest change | |
| Sample size | 520-555 | 582-697 | 514 | 526 | — | |
| Response rate | 58.9% | 73.1% | 69.1% | 63.4% | — | |
| Latest findings[11] | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | Recognition rate | — |
| Roy Kwong | — | — | 61.6[13] | 59.0+/-3.3{1} | 81.1% | -2.7 |
| Tanya Chan | 49.4{3} | 47.4{5} | — | 52.3+/-3.3{2} | 91.9% | — |
| Claudia Mo | 45.3{6} | 44.5{7} | 47.4{2} | 48.8+/-3.1{3} | 93.2% | +1.4 |
| Starry Lee | 43.1{8} | 43.4{8} | 33.5{3}[12] | 25.3+/-2.7{4} | 87.2% | -8.2[12] |
| Junius Ho | — | — | — | 17.1+/-2.6{5} | 93.5% | — |
| Alvin Yeung | 52.2[13] | 49.4[13] | 57.4{1}[12] | 57.7+/-3.2[13] | 79.3% | +0.3 |
| Regina Ip | 48.4{4} | 48.3{4} | 33.1{4}[12] | — | — | — |
| Priscilla Leung | 36.6{9}[12] | 38.9{9} | 27.1{5}[12] | — | — | — |
| Michael Tien | 57.0{1} | 55.1{1} | — | — | — | — |
| James To | 52.4{2} | 52.1{2} | — | — | — | — |
| Eddie Chu | 50.7[13] | 48.7{3} | — | — | — | — |
| Paul Tse | 44.1{7} | 45.5{6} | — | — | — | — |
| Holden Chow | — | 35.5{10} | — | — | — | — |
| Raymond Chan | — | 44.5[13] | — | — | — | — |
| Leung Yiu-chung | 46.8{5} | — | — | — | — | — |
| Ann Chiang | 33.6{10}[12] | — | — | — | — | — |
[10] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[11] Numbers in curly brackets { } indicate the rankings.
[12] 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.
[13] Recognition rates were comparatively low in the rating survey.
The latest survey shows that Roy Kwong is the most popularly supported councillor, attaining 59.0 marks. Tanya Chan ranks the 2nd with 52.3 marks. Claudia Mo, Starry Lee and Junius Ho followed behind with 48.8, 25.3 and 17.1 marks respectively. Among them, the rating of Starry Lee has dropped significantly compared with the last survey. In the latest survey, Alvin Yeung obtained a rating of 57.7 marks, but was dropped due to his relatively low recognition rate. Meanwhile, the ratings of Claudia Mo and Alvin Yeung have registered record high since records began in 2017, that of Starry Lee has registered record low since record began in 2015, while that of Tanya Chan has registered record high since mid-2012.
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.
Public Sentiment Index
The Public Sentiment Index (PSI) compiled by POP 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): 50.5 (-4.3) |
Government Appraisal (GA): 49.9 (-5.3) |
Society Appraisal (SA): 54.2 (-2.4) |
Recent values of PSI, GA, SA and 10 fundamental figures are tabulated as follows:
| Cut-off date | 6/8/19 | 20/8/19 | 4/9/19 | 19/9/19 | 3/10/19 | 23/10/19 | Latest change |
| Public Sentiment Index (PSI) | 66.6 | 58.0 | 58.5 | 55.9 | 54.7 | 50.5 | -4.3 |
| Government Appraisal (GA) | 63.4 | 56.5 | 57.3 | 57.3 | 55.1 | 49.9 | -5.3 |
| Rating of CE | 27.9 | 24.6 | 25.4 | 24.9 | 22.3 | 20.2 | -2.1 |
| Net approval rate of CE | -51% | -59% | -55% | -57% | -65% | -71% | -6% |
| Mean value of people’s satisfaction with SARG | 2.0[14] | 1.8 | 1.8[14] | 1.8 | 1.8[14] | 1.7 | -0.1 |
| Mean value of people’s trust in SARG | 2.3[14] | 2.2 | 2.2[14] | 2.2[14] | 2.2[14] | 2.1 | -0.1 |
| Society Appraisal (SA) | 69.6[14] | 61.1 | 61.1[14] | 56.6 | 56.6[14] | 54.2 | -2.4 |
| People’s satisfaction with political condition | 1.5[14] | 1.4 | 1.4[14] | 1.4 | 1.4[14] | 1.4 | — |
| Weighting index of political condition | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | 0.32[14] | — |
| People’s satisfaction with economic condition | 2.6[14] | 2.5 | 2.5[14] | 2.4 | 2.4[14] | 2.3 | -0.1 |
| Weighting index of economic condition | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | 0.34[14] | — |
| People’s satisfaction with livelihood condition | 2.2[14] | 2.1 | 2.1[14] | 2.0 | 2.0[14] | 2.0 | — |
| Weighting index of livelihood condition | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | 0.35[14] | — |
[14] POP 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 50.5, down by 4.3 points from early October. 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 decreases by 5.3 points to 49.9, whereas the Society Appraisal (SA) Score that reflects people’s appraisal of the social environment decreases by 2.4 points to 54.2. They can both be considered as among the worst 1%. The PSI, GA and SA have all registered all-time low since records began in 1992.
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 earliest previous survey was conducted from 5 to 8 July, 2019 while this survey was conducted from 17 to 23 October, 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:
| 23/10/19 | Chan Tong-kai is released from prison. |
| 22/10/19 | Taiwan requests to send officers to Hong Kong to escort Chan Tong-kai to Taiwan for trial. |
| 20/10/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in Kowloon district. |
| 16/10/19 | Carrie Lam delivers the 2019 Policy Address. |
| 13/10/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 6/10/19 | Anti-mask law rally turns into conflicts between protestors and the police in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 5/10/19 | Anti-mask law rally turns into conflicts between protestors and the police in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 4/10/19 | The government officially enacts anti-mask law by invoking emergency law. |
| 1/10/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong, the police shoots a protester with a live bullet in Tsuen Wan. |
| 29/9/19 | Anti-totalitarianism rally turns into conflicts between protestors and the police in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 28/9/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front organizes a rally at Tamar Park to commemorate 5th anniversary of Umbrella Movement. |
| 26/9/19 | Carrie Lam attends the first Community Dialogue session. |
| 22/9/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in Shatin and multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 21/9/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long. |
| 18/9/19 | The Jockey Club cancels night race due to safety concerns. |
| 15/9/19 | Protest on Hong Kong Island turns into conflicts between protestors and the police. |
| 14/9/19 | Conflicts occur between people with the national flag and those against the extradition bill. |
| 10/9/19 | MTR releases screenshots of 8.31 CCTV footage. |
| 8/9/19 | Rally in support of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act turns into conflicts between protestors and the police. |
| 7/9/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters call for blocking the airport and nearby roads. |
| 4/9/19 | Carrie Lam announces the formal withdrawal of the extradition bill. |
| 2/9/19 | Secondary and tertiary students boycott class on first day of school. |
| 1/9/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters hold a demonstration near Hong Kong International Airport. |
| 31/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 30/8/19 | Several pro-democracy Legislative Councillors and Demosistō members are arrested. |
| 25/8/19 | Protest against extradition bill in Tsuen Wan turns into a conflict between protestors and the police, a police officer fires a warning shot into the air. |
| 24/8/19 | Protest against extradition bill in Kwun Tong turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 24/8/19 | MTR partially suspends train service due to protest against extradition bill. |
| 18/8/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.7 million people participated in the rally against the extradition bill. |
| 17/8/19 | The pro-establishment camp organizes a “Safeguard Hong Kong” rally at Tamar Park. |
| 16/8/19 | Cathay Pacific CEO and the chief customer and commercial officer resign. |
| 13/8/19 | Protest against extradition bill at Hong Kong International Airport turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 12/8/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters hold a demonstration at Hong Kong International Airport. |
| 11/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 10/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 9/8/19 | The Civil Aviation Administration of China issues a warning of major aviation safety risks to Cathay Pacific. |
| 5/8/19 | Rallies in multiple districts in Hong Kong are held during strike resulting in conflicts between protestors and the police. |
| 4/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 3/8/19 | Protests and conflicts between protestors and the police occur in multiple districts in Hong Kong. |
| 30/7/19 | 44 people are charged with rioting in the conflict in Central and Sheung Wan. |
| 28/7/19 | Protest against police violence on Hong Kong Island turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 27/7/19 | The “Reclaim Yuen Long” march turns into a conflict between protestors and the police. |
| 22/7/19 | Men dressed in white indiscriminately attacked citizens in Yuen Long last night. |
| 21/7/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters surround the Liaison Office. |
| 20/7/19 | The pro-establishment camp organizes a “Safeguard Hong Kong” rally at Tamar Park. |
| 14/7/19 | Protest against extradition bill in Shatin turns into a 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. |
| 9/7/19 | Carrie Lam says the extradition bill is “dead”. |
| 7/7/19 | Anti-extradition bill protesters rally in Kowloon. |
Data Analysis
Our latest survey shows that the popularity rating of CE Carrie Lam now stands at 20.2 marks. Her net popularity is negative 71 percentage points. Although her popularity has not dropped beyond sampling errors since the Policy Address was delivered, all popularity figures have registered new record lows since she took office and also across all CEs in history. The latest net satisfaction of the HKSAR Government stands at negative 69 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1997. The net trust value is negative 44 percentage points, the lowest since record began in 1992. People’s net satisfaction rates with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions are negative 42, negative 57 and negative 85 percentage points respectively. The net satisfaction rates of political and economic conditions have registered historical lows since records began in 1992 and 2003 respectively.
As for the popularity of Legislative Councillors, Claudia Mo, Tanya Chan, Junius Ho, Roy Kwong, Starry Lee and Alvin Yeung are the six councillors that top people’s mind now. In terms of rating, Roy Kwong tops the list with 59.0 marks. Tanya Chan ranks the 2nd with 52.3 marks. Claudia Mo, Starry Lee and Junius Ho followed behind with 48.8, 25.3 and 17.1 marks respectively. Among them, the rating of Starry Lee has dropped significantly compared with the last survey.
As for the PSI, the latest figure is 50.5, further down by 4.3 points from early October, registering an all-time low since record began in 1992.