Sep 17, 2019
Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute Press Conference – Press Materials
HKPOP today releases ratings of the top 5 Executive Councillors and top 10 political groups
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 conducted a double stage survey on the ratings of the top 5 Executive Councillors and top 10 political groups in early September by means of random telephone surveys conducted by real interviewers. Results show that Joseph Yam was the most popularly supported non-official Executive Councillor, attaining 44.2 marks. Regina Ip ranked 2nd, with 30.0 marks. The 3rd to 5th ranks went to Tommy Cheung, Fanny Law and Ronny Tong, who attained 27.4, 27.3 and 24.9 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by these top 5 non-official Executive Councillors was 30.8 marks. All of these Executive Councillors’ ratings are at their record lows.
As for the top 10 political groups, Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) re-entered the list since 2006 and became the most popularly supported political group, attaining 51.2 marks. Demosistō, Civic Party, Democratic Party and People Power ranked the 2nd to 5th with 45.2, 45.1, 44.6 and 42.5 marks correspondingly. The 6th to 10th ranks went to League of Social Democrats (LSD), Liberal Party, New People’s Party, Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) which attained 39.5, 37.6, 28.8, 28.5 and 26.8 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by the top 5 political groups was 45.7 marks, while that for the top 10 was 39.0 marks. Among the top 10, the ratings of CHRF, Demosistō and People Power are now at their record highs while those of Liberal Party, New People’s Party, FTU and DAB drop to their record lows since they first appeared on the list. The effective response rate of the rating survey is 69.9%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-2% and that of ratings is +/-3.0 at 95% confidence level.
Contact Information
| Date of survey | : | 2-3/9/2019 (Naming stage) 3-4/9/2019 (Rating stage) |
| Survey method | : | Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers |
| Target population | : | Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above |
| Sample size[1] | : | 510 (Naming stage; including 253 landline and 257 mobile samples) 536 (Rating stage; including 265 landline and 271 mobile samples) |
| Effective response rate[2] | : | 69.1% (Naming stage) 69.9% (Rating stage) |
| Sampling error[3] | : | Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-2% and that of ratings not more than +/-3.0 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, POP 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, POP 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.
Ratings of the Top 5 Executive Councillors
In the naming survey conducted from September 2 to 3, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 5 non-official Executive Councillors whom they knew best. The findings of the naming survey are summarized below, in descending order of naming rates [5]:
| Date of survey | 5-6/3/18 | 2-4/10/18 | 14-19/3/19 | 2-3/9/19 | Latest change in ranking |
| Sample size | 501 | 543 | 606 | 510 | — |
| Response rate | 57.7% | 46.8% | 73.1% | 69.1% | — |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | — |
| Regina Ip | 23%{1} | 18%{1} | 12%{2} | 31+/-2%{1} | ↑1 |
| Ronny Tong | 4%{4} | 7%{3} | 3%{3} | 19+/-2%{2} | ↑1 |
| Bernard Chan | 9%{2} | 11%{2} | 14%{1} | 16+/-2%{3} | ↓2 |
| Fanny Law | 6%{3} | 4%{4} | 2%{4} | 6+/-1%{4} | — |
| Joseph Yam | 3%{6} | 3%{5} | 2%{5} | 4+/-1%{5} | — |
| Tommy Cheung | 1%{10} | 2%{7} | <1%{14} | 3+/-1%{6} | ↑8 |
| Ip Kwok-him | 1%{8} | 1%{9} | 1%{6} | 3+/-1%{7} | ↓1 |
| Arthur Li | 3%{5} | 2%{6} | 1%{7} | 2+/-1%{8} | ↓1 |
| Laura Cha | 1%{9} | 1%{8} | 1%{8} | 2+/-1%{9} | ↓1 |
| Lam Ching-choi | — | <1%{11} | 1%{11} | 1+/-<1%{10} | ↑1 |
| Wong Kwok-kin | 1%{12} | — | 1%{10} | 1+/-<1%{11} | ↓1 |
| Jeffrey Lam | 1%{11} | — | 1%{9} | 1+/-<1%{12} | ↓3 |
| Martin Liao | <1%{14} | — | <1%{15} | <1+/-<1%{13} | ↑2 |
| Kenneth Lau | <1%{13} | 1%{10} | — | <1+/-<1%{14} | — |
| Cheung Kwok-kwan | 2%{7} | <1%{13} | <1%{13} | <1+/-<1%{15} | ↓2 |
| Chow Chung-kong | <1%{15} | <1%{12} | 1%{12} | <1+/-<1%{16} | ↓4 |
| Wrong answer | 14% | 12% | 17% | 17+/-2% | — |
| Don’t know/ hard to say |
65% | 68% | 70% | 54+/-2% | — |
[5] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
The naming survey conducted in early September showed that Regina Ip, Ronny Tong and Bernard Chan were named most frequently with naming rates of 31%, 19% and 16% respectively. Fanny Law and Joseph Yam followed, with naming rates of 6% and 4%. However, 17% made a wrong attempt at citing non-official Executive Councillors while 54% had no clue.
Those 6 who were named most frequently then entered the rating survey. In the rating survey conducted from September 3 to 4, 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 1 councillor in terms of recognition rate was dropped; the remaining 5 were then ranked according to their support ratings to become the top 5 Executive Councillors. Recent ratings of the top 5 Executive Councillors are summarized below, in descending order of their ratings [6]:
| Date of survey | 15-20/3/18 | 11-12/10/18 | 8-11/4/19 | 3-4/9/19 | Latest change | |
| Sample size | 567-643 | 503 | 557-655 | 536 | — | |
| Response rate | 62.5% | 65.3% | 63.9% | 69.9% | — | |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | Recognition rate | — |
| Joseph Yam | 58.2{1} | 54.7{1}[7][8] | 58.1{1}[7] | 44.2+/-2.7{1} | 90.4% | -13.9[7] |
| Regina Ip | 49.7{2}[7] | 46.0{3}[7][8] | 48.3{2} | 30.0+/-2.8{2} | 99.1% | -18.3[7] |
| Tommy Cheung | — | — | — | 27.4+/-2.5{3} | 81.7% | — |
| Fanny Law | 41.1{4} | 42.3{4} | 42.9{4} | 27.3+/-2.5{4} | 90.5% | -15.7[7] |
| Ronny Tong | 49.1{3} | 46.7{2} | 45.9{3} | 24.9+/-2.6{5} | 91.7% | -21.0[7] |
| Bernard Chan | 49.4[9] | 49.3[9] | 52.8 [7][9] | 35.1+/-2.6[9] | 78.9% | -17.7[7] |
| Ip Kwok-him | — | — | 41.0{5} | — | — | — |
| Arthur Li | 37.8{5} | 40.4{5} | — | — | — | — |
[6] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[7] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are 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.
[8] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level because of a change in the weighting method. If the new weighting method was used on the previous dataset, the changes would not have gone beyond the sampling errors.
[9] Ratings with recognition rates not reaching top 10 in the rating survey are not counted.
Latest rating survey showed that Joseph Yam was the most popularly supported non-official Executive Councillor, attaining 44.2 marks. Regina Ip ranked 2nd, with 30.0 marks. The 3rd to 5th ranks went to Tommy Cheung, Fanny Law and Ronny Tong, who attained 27.4, 27.3 and 24.9 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by these top 5 non-official Executive Councillors was 30.8 marks. All of these Executive Councillors’ ratings are at their record lows.
Ratings of the Top 10 Political Groups
In the naming survey conducted from September 2 to 3, respondents could name, unprompted, up to 10 political groups which they knew best. Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), Democratic Party, Civic Party, Liberal Party and Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) were the top 5 political groups mentioned most frequently. Please refer to the relevant table at the website of HKPOP for the rest of the list. Those 12 which were named most frequently then entered the rating survey. In the rating survey conducted from September 3 to 4, respondents were asked to rate individual political groups using a 0-100 scale, where 0 indicates absolutely no support, 100 indicates absolute support and 50 means half-half. After calculation, the bottom 2 political groups in terms of recognition rate were dropped; the remaining 10 were then ranked according to their support ratings to become the top 10 political groups. It should be noted that because political groups are not yet legal entities in Hong Kong, such definitions are rather vague, and so-called political groups are constantly evolving. As a result, strange names may appear in the list of groups mentioned by respondents in the naming survey. In order to avoid personal bias, our research team will eliminate groups which fall outside the popular definition only after the naming survey. Recent ratings of the top 10 political groups are summarized below, in descending order of support ratings [10]:
| Date of survey | 16-19/4/18 | 2-4/10/18 | 23-25/4/19 | 3-4/9/19 | Latest change | |
| Sample size | 549-639 | 524-574 | 537-698 | 536 | — | |
| Response rate | 56.4% | 46.8% | 66.1% | 69.9% | — | |
| Latest findings | Finding | Finding | Finding | Finding & error | Recognition rate | — |
| CHRF | — | — | — | 51.2+/-3.0{1} | 91.3% | — |
| Demosistō | — | — | 38.2 [13] | 45.2+/-2.9{2} | 91.4% | +7.0[11] |
| Civic Party | 46.5{1} | 47.1{2} | 46.6{1} | 45.1+/-2.6{3} | 91.9% | -1.5 |
| Democratic Party | 44.4{4} | 44.1{4} | 42.2{2} | 44.6+/-2.5{4} | 96.3% | +2.4 |
| People Power | 36.3{10} | 35.4{10} | 37.7{10} | 42.5+/-2.8{5} | 88.2% | +4.8[11] |
| LSD | 40.2{9}[11] | 38.2{9} | 38.1{9} | 39.5+/-2.7{6} | 86.5% | +1.4 |
| Liberal Party | 44.2{5} | 44.7{3} | 41.9{4}[11] | 37.6+/-2.1{7} | 91.8% | -4.3[11] |
| New People’s Party | 41.2{6}[11] | 43.1{7} | 38.9{7}[11] | 28.8+/-2.7{8} | 84.9% | -10.2[11] |
| FTU | 41.1{7}[11] | 47.3{1}[11] | 42.2{3}[11] | 28.5+/-2.6{9} | 95.4% | -13.7[11] |
| DAB | 40.4{8} | 43.6{6} | 38.7{8}[11] | 26.8+/-2.9{10} | 96.8% | -11.9[11] |
| HKCTU | — | — | — | 38.6+/-2.5[13] | 82.3% | — |
| Labour Party | 44.9{2} | 44.0{5} | 41.3{5} | 37.9+/-2.5[13] | 77.7% | -3.4[11] |
| ADPL | 44.6{3} | 41.4{8}[11][12] | 40.7{6} | — | — | — |
| BPA | 36.3[13] | 36.6[13] | 35.1 [13] | — | — | — |
| NWS | — | 44.7[13] | — | — | — | — |
| Youngspiration | 32.0[11][13] | — | — | — | — | — |
[10] If the rounded figures are the same, numbers after the decimal point will be considered.
[11] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at 95% confidence level, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are 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] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 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] Ratings with recognition rates not reaching top 10 in the rating survey are not counted.
The latest survey showed that Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) re-entered the list since 2006 and became the most popularly supported political group, attaining 51.2 marks. Demosistō, Civic Party, Democratic Party and People Power ranked the 2nd to 5th with 45.2, 45.1, 44.6 and 42.5 marks correspondingly. The 6th to 10th ranks went to League of Social Democrats (LSD), Liberal Party, New People’s Party, Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) which attained 39.5, 37.6, 28.8, 28.5 and 26.8 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by the top 5 political groups was 45.7 marks, while that for the top 10 was 39.0 marks. For this latest survey, Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) and Labour Party obtained support ratings of 38.6 and 37.9 marks respectively, but they were dropped due to their relatively low recognition rates. Among the top 10, the ratings of CHRF, Demosistō and People Power are now at their record highs while those of Liberal Party, New People’s Party, FTU and DAB drop to their record lows since they first appeared on the list.
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 become “Opinion Daily” after they are verified by HKPOP.
For the polling items covered in this press release, the earliest previous survey was conducted from 14 to 19 March, 2019 while this survey was conducted from 3 to 4 September, 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.
| 4/9/19 | Carrie Lam announces the formal withdrawal of the extradition bill. |
| 3/9/19 | The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office holds a press conference regarding the anti-extradition bill movement. |
| 30/8/19 | Several pro-democracy Legislative Councilors and Demosistō members are arrested. |
| 27/8/19 | Carrie Lam says government is responsible for looking all laws in Hong Kong to stop chaos. |
| 20/8/19 | Carrie Lam announces the government would set up a platform for dialogue with Hong Kong citizens. |
| 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. |
| 15/8/19 | The government announces a series of relief measures, which will cost $19.1 billion. |
| 9/8/19 | Carrie Lam says protests would affect Hong Kong’s economy. |
| 20/7/19 | The pro-establishment camp organizes a “Safeguard Hong Kong” rally at Tamar Park. |
| 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. |
| 9/6/19 | The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.03 million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill. |
| 11/5/19 | Pro-establishment and pan-democrats Legislative councilors clash during a meeting on the proposed changes to the extradition bill. |
Data Analysis
The survey conducted in early September shows that Joseph Yam was the most popularly supported non-official Executive Councillor, attaining 44.2 marks. Regina Ip ranked 2nd, with 30.0 marks. The 3rd to 5th ranks went to Tommy Cheung, Fanny Law and Ronny Tong, who attained 27.4, 27.3 and 24.9 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by these top 5 non-official Executive Councillors was 30.8 marks. All of these Executive Councillors’ ratings are at their record lows.
As for the top 10 political groups, Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) re-entered the list since 2006 and became the most popularly supported political group, attaining 51.2 marks. Demosistō, Civic Party, Democratic Party and People Power ranked the 2nd to 5th with 45.2, 45.1, 44.6 and 42.5 marks correspondingly. The 6th to 10th ranks went to League of Social Democrats (LSD), Liberal Party, New People’s Party, Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) which attained 39.5, 37.6, 28.8, 28.5 and 26.8 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by the top 5 political groups was 45.7 marks, while that for the top 10 was 39.0 marks. Among the top 10, the ratings of CHRF, Demosistō and People Power are now at their record highs while those of Liberal Party, New People’s Party, FTU and DAB drop to their record lows since they first appeared on the list.