HKU POP releases popularity figures of CE and the Government, the trust and confidence indicators and the annual June Fourth survey Back

 

Press Release on May 29, 2018

| Detailed Findings (Rating of Chief Executive Carrie Lam) | (People's Satisfaction with the HKSAR Government) |

| Detailed Findings (People's Trust in the HKSAR Government) | (People's Trust in the Beijing Central Government) |

| Detailed Findings (People's Trust in the Taiwan Government) | (People's Confidence in HK's Future) |

| Detailed Findings (People's Confidence in China's Future) |(People's Confidence in "One Country, Two Systems") |

| Detailed Findings (People's Satisfaction with Current Political, Economic and livelihood conditions) |

| Detailed Findings (June Fourth Incident) |

Special Announcements

1. From July 2017, apart from sampling landline numbers to conduct opinion surveys, the Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong has also added mobile numbers to the sampling frame. After three months of testing, in October 2017, POP formalized the use of mixed samples as its standard for regular opinion surveys using a landline and mobile sample ratio of 4 to 1. Starting from April 2018, POP further increased the proportion of mobile sample, which the landline and mobile sample ratio became 2 to 1. The figures released today by POP have already incorporated landline and mobile samples.

2. To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, POP today released via the "HKU POP SITE" (http://hkupop.hku.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.

Abstract

POP interviewed 1,009 Hong Kong people between 21 and 25 May 2018 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Our survey shows that the popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam have dropped significantly compared to two weeks ago. Her latest popularity rating is 52.7 marks, approval rate 39%, disapproval rate 44%, giving a net popularity of negative 5 percentage points. All these figures are the worst ones recorded since she took office. As for the SAR Government, its satisfaction rate now stands at 30%, dissatisfaction rate 48%, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 19 percentage points, also representing a significant drop of popularity. As for the society's appraisals, among economic, livelihood and political conditions, people remain to be least satisfied with the current political condition. The corresponding net satisfactions are positive 7, negative 31 and negative 52 percentage points.

As for the trust and confidence indicators, our survey shows that Hong Kong people's net trust in the local government has significantly dropped compared to two weeks ago, their net trusts in the Central Government and the Taiwan Government have also dropped compared to four months ago. The latest figures are negative 2, negative 14 and negative 33 percentage points respectively. As for the confidence indicators, all three have recorded significant decrease. People's confidence in the future of China remains the highest among the three, the latest net confidence being positive 30 percentage points, while the net confidence in the future of Hong Kong is negative 2 percentage points and the net confidence in "one country, two systems" is negative 14 percentage points, which is a record low since September 2014.

This is the 26th anniversary survey on the June Fourth Incident conducted by POP, marking its 29th anniversary. From a broad perspective, Hong Kong people's mainstream opinion still holds that the Chinese Government was wrong in 1989, people still support the Beijing students, and demand a reversion of the official stand on June Fourth. The percentages of those who consider the human rights condition in China worse than that in 1989 and those who think the condition will worsen in the next three years have increased to record high since this survey began in 1993. Hong Kong people continue to think that they have a responsibility to promote democratic and economic developments in China, but the percentage who believed they have no such responsibility to promote democratic development has reached its record high since this survey began in 1993. When asked to balance the priority between democratic and economic development that Hong Kong people should put more effort on, if one had to choose between the two, the ratio becomes 36% versus 35%. The difference is not big. However, when asked to balance the priority between democratic and economic development for China, again choosing one out of two, the ratio becomes 45% versus 32% in favour of democratic development. This probably reflects Hong Kong people's wish on the future development of the Mainland. Compared to a year ago, the popularity rating of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movement in China has not changed much. Its latest rating is 47.0 marks. The percentage of people who oppose to disbanding the Alliance is 45%, which remains to be the majority as compared to the 21% who support the disbanding.

The maximum sampling error of all percentage figures is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figures and net values need another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 56%.

Points to note:

[1] The address of the "HKU POP SITE" is http://hkupop.hku.hk, journalists can check out the details of the survey there.

[2] The sample size of this survey is 1,009 successful interviews, not 1,009 x 55.9% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.

[3] The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling error of rating figure and net value needs another calculation. "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. When quoting these figures, journalists can state "sampling error of rating not more than +/-1.7 and sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net values not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level".

[4] Because of sampling errors in conducting the survey(s) and the rounding procedures in processing the data, the figures cannot be too precise, and the totals may not be completely accurate. Therefore, when quoting percentages of the survey(s), journalists should refrain from reporting decimal places, but when quoting the rating figures, one decimal place can be used.

[5] The data of this survey is collected by means of random telephone interviews conducted by real interviewers, not by any interactive voice system (IVS). If a research organization uses "computerized random telephone survey" to camouflage its IVS operation, it should be considered unprofessional.


Latest Figures

From July 2017, POP enhanced the previous weighting method that has been used for quite a few years. Apart from age, gender and education, economic activity group is now also taken into account when adjusting data. The latest figures released today have been rim-weighted according to figures collected in the 2016 By-census regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population and the 2017 educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution and economic activity status distribution obtained from the Census and Statistics Department. The mobile sample has also been rim-weighted according to the basic Public Sentiment Index (PSI) figures collected in the landline sample. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:

Date of survey

Effective sample size

Effective response rate

Maximum sampling error
of percentages[6]

21-25/5/2018

1,009

55.9%

+/-3%

[6] Errors are calculated at 95% confidence level using full sample size. "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Questions using only sub-samples would have bigger sampling error. Sampling errors of ratings are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.


I. Popularity of CE and the Government

Recent popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam and the HKSAR Government, as well as people's appraisal of society's conditions are summarized as follows:

Date of survey

1-6/3/18

15-20/3/18

2-4/4/18

16-19/4/18

4-9/5/18

21-25/5/18

Latest change

Sample base

1,002

1,006

1,003

1,001

1,017

1,009

--

Effective response rate

64.7%

62.5%

57.9%

56.4%

59.5%

55.9%

--

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding & error[7]

--

Rating of CE Carrie Lam

56.3

56.8

55.6

53.9

57.8[9]

52.7+/-1.7

-5.1[9]

Vote of confidence in CE Carrie Lam

47%

44%

42%

45%

49%[9]

39+/-3%

-10%[9]

Vote of no confidence in CE Carrie Lam

41%

41%

44%

41%

35%[9]

44+/-3%

+9%[9]

Net approval rate

6%

3%

-2%

4%

13%[9]

-5+/-6%

-18%[9]

Satisfaction rate of SARG performance[8]

34%[9]

37%

31%[9]

35%

37%

30+/-4%

-7%[9]

Dissatisfaction rate of SARG performance[8]

42%

40%

49%[9]

42%[9]

41%

48+/-4%

+7%[9]

Net satisfaction rate

-8%[9]

-2%

-18%[9]

-7%[9]

-3%

-19+/-7%

-16%[9]

Mean value[8]

2.8

(Base=601)

2.8

(Base=548)

2.6[9]

(Base=605)

2.8[9]

(Base=621)

2.9

(Base=552)

2.7+/-0.1

(Base=542)

-0.2[9]

Trust in HKSAR Government[8]

44%

47%

42%[9]

43%

47%

41+/-4%

-6%[9]

Distrust in HKSAR Government[8]

40%

33%[9]

42%[9]

35%[9]

35%

43+/-4%

+8%[9]

Net trust

4%

14%[9]

0%[9]

8%[9]

11%

-2+/-8%

-13%[9]

Mean value[8]

2.9[9]

(Base=595)

3.1[9]

(Base=537)

2.9[9]

(Base=603)

3.0

(Base=622)

3.1

(Base=551)

2.8+/-0.1

(Base=542)

-0.3[9]

Current economic condition:
Satisfaction rate[8]

44%

46%

41%[9]

41%

51%[9]

43+/-3%

-8%[9]

Current economic condition:
Dissatisfaction rate[8]

33%

33%

38%[9]

38%

26%[9]

35+/-3%

+9%[9]

Net satisfaction rate

11%[9]

13%

3%[9]

2%

25%[9]

7+/-6%

-18%[9]

Mean value[8]

3.1

(Base=976)

3.1

(Base=994)

2.9[9]

(Base=987)

2.9

(Base=989)

3.2[9]

(Base=1,005)

3.0+/-0.1

(Base=988)

-0.2[9]

Current livelihood condition:
Satisfaction rate[8]

30%

28%

28%

28%

35%[9]

25+/-3%

-10%[9]

Current livelihood condition:
Dissatisfaction rate[8]

50%

53%

57%[9]

51%[9]

43%[9]

55+/-3%

+12%[9]

Net satisfaction rate

-20%

-25%

-29%

-23%[9]

-8%[9]

-31+/-5%

-23%[9]

Mean value[8]

2.6

(Base=988)

2.5

(Base=997)

2.4

(Base=995)

2.6[9]

(Base=990)

2.8[9]

(Base=1,006)

2.5+/-0.1

(Base=990)

-0.3[9]

Current political condition:
Satisfaction rate[8]

18%

18%

17%

17%

18%

14+/-2%

-4%[9]

Current political condition:
Dissatisfaction rate[8]

65%

64%

67%

64%

60%[9]

66+/-3%

+6%[9]

Net satisfaction rate

-47%

-47%

-50%

-47%

-43%

-52+/-5%

-9%[9]

Mean value[8]

2.2

(Base=954)

2.1

(Base=934)

2.1

(Base=966)

2.1

(Base=955)

2.3[9]

(Base=979)

2.1+/-0.1

(Base=936)

-0.2[9]

[7] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Media can state "sampling error of rating not more than +/-1.7, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net values not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.

[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. This question only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sample size for this series is 547.

[9] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 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.


The latest survey showed that CE Carrie Lam scored 52.7 marks, and 39% supported her as CE, her net approval rate is negative 5 percentage points. Regarding people's appraisal of the overall performance of the HKSAR Government, the latest figures revealed that 30% were satisfied, whereas 48% were dissatisfied, thus net satisfaction stands at negative 19 percentage points. The mean score is 2.7, meaning between "half-half" and "quite dissatisfied" in general. Meanwhile, 41% of the respondents trusted the HKSAR Government, the net trust value is negative 2 percentage points, while the mean score is 2.8, which is close to "half-half". As for people's satisfaction with the current economic, livelihood and political conditions, the latest satisfaction rates were 43%, 25% and 14% respectively, while their net satisfaction rates in these conditions were positive 7, negative 31 and negative 52 percentage points. The mean scores of the economic, livelihood and political conditions were 3.0, 2.5 and 2.1, meaning between "half-half" and "quite dissatisfied" in general.

II. Trust and Confidence Indicators

Recent popularity figures of SAR, Beijing Central and Taiwan Governments and people's confidence in the future as well as "one country, two systems" are summarized below:

Date of survey

15-20/3/18

2-4/4/18

16-19/4/18

4-9/5/18

21-25/5/18

Latest change

Sample size[10]

1,006

1,003

1,001

1,017

1,009

--

Effective response rate

62.5%

57.9%

56.4%

59.5%

55.9%

--

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding & error[12]

--

(Repeated listing)

Trust in HKSAR Government[13]

47%

42%[14]

43%

47%

41+/-4%

-6%[14]

Distrust in HKSAR Government[13]

33%[14]

42%[14]

35%[14]

35%

43+/-4%

+8%[14]

Net trust

14%[14]

0%[14]

8%[14]

11%

-2+/-8%

-13%[14]

Mean value[13]

3.1[14]

(Base=537)

2.9[14]

(Base=603)

3.0

(Base=622)

3.1

(Base=551)

2.8+/-0.1

(Base=542)

-0.3[14]

Date of survey

21-24/3/17

13-15/6/17

1-6/9/17

3-4/1/18

21-25/5/18

Latest change

Sample size[10]

1,073

1,004

1,010[11]

1,000

1,009

--

Response rate*

72.4%

69.8%

51.0%

58.3%

55.9%

--

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding & error[12]

--

Trust in Beijing Government[13]

40%

37%

36%

38%

34+/-4%

-4%

Distrust in Beijing Government[13]

38%

40%

45%[14]

45%

48+/-4%

+3%

Net trust

3%

-3%

-9%[14]

-7%

-14+/-8%

-7%

Mean value[13]

3.0

(Base=630)

2.9

(Base=552)

2.8

(Base=681)

2.8

(Base=583)

2.7+/-0.1

(Base=533)

-0.1

Trust in Taiwan Government[13]

22%[14]

19%

17%

17%

17+/-3%

--

Distrust in Taiwan Government[13]

43%

46%

41%

41%

50+/-4%

+9%[14]

Net trust

-21%

-27%

-24%

-25%

-33+/-7%

-8%[14]

Mean value[13]

2.6

(Base=564)

2.5

(Base=488)

2.5

(Base=553)

2.5

(Base=416)

2.4+/-0.1

(Base=403)

-0.1

Confidence in HK's future

52%

49%

55%[14]

51%

46+/-4%

-5%[14]

No-confidence in HK's future

43%

40%

39%

43%

48+/-4%

+5%[14]

Net confidence

10%

9%

17%[14]

8%[14]

-2+/-8%

-10%[14]

Confidence in China's future

64%

66%

65%[14]

70%[14]

61+/-4%

-9%[14]

No-confidence in China's future

30%

26%

27%

25%

31+/-4%

+6%[14]

Net confidence

34%

40%

37%[14]

45%[14]

30+/-8%

-15%[14]

Confidence in "one country,
two systems"

52%[14]

49%

49%

47%

40+/-4%

-7%[14]

No-confidence in "one country,
two systems"

43%

43%

46%

47%

54+/-4%

+7%[14]

Net confidence

9%

6%

3%

0%

-14+/-8%

-14%[14]

* "Overall response rate" was used before September 2017, thereafter, "effective response rate" was used.

[10] Some questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned. The sub-sample sizes of the surveys range from 513 to 555, and the increased sampling errors have already been reflected in the figures tabulated.

[11] 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.

[12] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Media can state "sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4% and of net values not more than +/-8% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.

[13] 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.

[14] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 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.


Latest survey revealed that 41% of the respondents trusted the HKSAR Government, 34% trusted the Beijing Central Government, and 17% trusted the Taiwan Government. The net trust values are negative 2, negative 14 and negative 33 percentage points, while the mean scores of these trust indicators are 2.8, 2.7 and 2.4 respectively, meaning between "half-half" and "quite distrust" in general. On the other hand, 46% of the respondents had confidence in Hong Kong's future, 61% had confidence in China's future, while 40% of the respondents were confident in "one country, two systems". The three net confidence values are negative 2, positive 30 and negative 14 percentage points respectively.

III. Annual June Fourth Survey

Figures of latest annual June Fourth survey are summarized as follows:

Date of survey

17-22/5/14

22-28/5/15

16-19/5/16

22-25/5/17

21-25/5/18

Latest change

Sample base

1,005

1,089

1,001

1,003

1,009

--

Response rate*

66.8%

65.1%

67.6%

69.7%

55.9%

--

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding & error[15]

--

Proportion of respondents believing:

The Beijing students did the right thing

48%[16]

49%

47%

46%

50+/-3%

+4%[16]

The Beijing students did the wrong thing

17%

17%

17%

22%[16]

17+/-2%

-5%[16]

The Chinese Government did the right thing

12%

14%

11%[16]

12%

11+/-2%

-1%

The Chinese Government did the wrong thing

64%

63%

66%

69%

68+/-3%

-1%

There should be a reversion of the official stand on the incident

56%[16]

52%[16]

59%[16]

55%[16]

54+/-3%

-1%

There should not be a reversion of the official stand on the incident

20%[16]

24%[16]

20%[16]

27%[16]

24+/-3%

-3%

China's human rights condition has improved since 1989

56%[16]

61%[16]

46%[16]

53%[16]

47+/-3%

-6%[16]

China's human rights condition has worsened since 1989

19%

15%[16]

24%[16]

23%

28+/-3%

+5%[16]

China's human rights condition would improve after 3 years

40%

44%[16]

32%[16]

38%[16]

34+/-3%

-4%[16]

China's human rights condition would worsen after 3 years

19%

16%[16]

25%[16]

23%

31+/-3%

+8%[16]

HK people have a responsibility to instigate the development of democracy in China

65%

66%

62%[16]

58%[16]

56+/-3%

-2%

HK people have no responsibility to instigate the development of democracy in China

21%

24%

27%

30%

31+/-3%

+1%

HK people have a responsibility to instigate economic development in China

62%[16]

62%

57%[16]

58%

59+/-3%

+1%

HK people have no responsibility to instigate economic development in China

26%

28%

34%[16]

36%

33+/-3%

-3%

HK people should put more effort on instigating economic than democratic development in China

31%[16]

29%

29%

32%

35+/-3%

+3%

HK people should put more effort on instigating democratic than economic development in China

37%[16]

37%

36%

38%

36+/-3%

-2%

China should emphasize more on economic development

28%

28%

29%

32%

32+/-3%

--

China should emphasize more on democratic development

45%

41%[16]

44%

46%

45+/-3%

-1%

* "Overall response rate" was used before September 2017, thereafter, "effective response rate" was used.

[15] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Media can state "sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.

[16] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 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.


This year's survey findings revealed that 50% of the respondents believed that the Beijing students did the right thing in 1989, while 17% believed that they did the wrong thing. Meanwhile, with regard to the way the Chinese Government handled the matter at that time, 11% regarded it as correct and 68% regarded it as wrong.

The findings also showed that 54% of the respondents supported a reversion of the official stand on the incident while 24% did not. Regarding the human rights condition in China, 47% of the respondents believed that China's human rights condition has been improved since 1989, and 34% anticipated that China's human rights condition will be improved after 3 years.

Moreover, 56% of the respondents believed that Hong Kong people had a responsibility to instigate the development of democracy in China, whereas on the economic aspect, 59% believed that Hong Kong people had such a responsibility. When comparing democratic and economic development, 35% of the respondents believed Hong Kong people should put more effort on instigating economic development in China, while 36% of the respondents put more weight on the development of democracy. Furthermore, 32% believed that China should emphasize more on its economic development, while 45% believed that China should emphasize more on the development of democracy.

Latest figures regarding the HK Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movement in China ("the Alliance") are as follows:

Date of survey

17-22/5/14

22-28/5/15

16-19/5/16

22-25/5/17

21-25/5/18

Latest change

Sample base

1,005

1,089

1,001

1,003

1,009

--

Response rate*

66.8%

65.1%

67.6%

69.7%

55.9%

--

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding

Finding & e rror[17]

--

Popularity rating of the HK Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movement in China ("the Alliance")

50.1[18]

44.6[18]

50.1[18]

46.9[18]

47.0+/-1.7

+0.1

The Alliance should be disbanded

18%

26%[18]

21%[18]

25%[18]

21+/-3%

-4%[18]

The Alliance should not be disbanded

44%

38%[18]

51%[18]

46%[18]

45+/-3%

-1%

* "Overall response rate" was used before September 2017, thereafter, "effective response rate" was used.

[17] All error figures in the table are calculated at 95% confidence level. "95% confidence level" means that if we were to repeat a certain survey 100 times, using the same questions each time but with different random samples, we would expect 95 times getting a figure within the error margins specified. Media can state "sampling error of rating not more than +/-1.7, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.

[18] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 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.


Lastly, regarding the Alliance, 21% of the respondents said the Alliance should be disbanded, 45% said no. The latest popularity rating of the Alliance was 47.0 marks.

Commentary

Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Lee.

Our latest survey conducted in late May shows that the popularity figures of CE Carrie Lam have dropped significantly compared to two weeks ago. Her latest popularity rating is 52.7 marks, approval rate 39%, disapproval rate 44%, giving a net popularity of negative 5 percentage points. All these figures are the worst ones recorded since she took office.

As for the SAR Government, its satisfaction rate now stands at 30%, dissatisfaction rate 48%, giving a net satisfaction rate of negative 19 percentage points, also representing a significant drop of popularity. As for the society's appraisals, among economic, livelihood and political conditions, people remain to be least satisfied with the current political condition. The corresponding net satisfactions are positive 7, negative 31 and negative 52 percentage points.

As for the trust and confidence indicators, our survey shows that Hong Kong people's net trust in the local government has significantly dropped compared to two weeks ago, their net trusts in the Central Government and the Taiwan Government have also dropped compared to four months ago. The latest figures are negative 2, negative 14 and negative 33 percentage points respectively.

As for the confidence indicators, all three have recorded significant decrease. People's confidence in the future of China remains the highest among the three, the latest net confidence being positive 30 percentage points, while the net confidence in the future of Hong Kong is negative 2 percentage points and the net confidence in "one country, two systems" is negative 14 percentage points, which is a record low since September 2014.

This is the 26th anniversary survey on the June Fourth Incident conducted by POP, marking its 29th anniversary. From a broad perspective, Hong Kong people's mainstream opinion still holds that the Chinese Government was wrong in 1989, people still support the Beijing students, and demand a reversion of the official stand on June Fourth. The percentages of those who consider the human rights condition in China worse than that in 1989 and those who think the condition will worsen in the next three years have increased to record high since this survey began in 1993. Hong Kong people continue to think that they have a responsibility to promote democratic and economic developments in China, but the percentage who believed they have no such responsibility to promote democratic development has reached its record high since this survey began in 1993. When asked to balance the priority between democratic and economic development that Hong Kong people should put more effort on, if one had to choose between the two, the ratio becomes 36% versus 35%. The difference is not big. However, when asked to balance the priority between democratic and economic development for China, again choosing one out of two, the ratio becomes 45% versus 32% in favour of democratic development. This probably reflects Hong Kong people's wish on the future development of the Mainland. Compared to a year ago, the popularity rating of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movement in China has not changed much. Its latest rating is 47.0 marks. The percentage of people who oppose to disbanding the Alliance is 45%, which remains to be the majority as compared to the 21% who support the disbanding.

Future Release (Tentative)

  • June 5, 2018 (Tuesday) 12pm to 2pm: Popularity of Disciplinary Forces, Ratings of the Best Corporations