HKU POP releases popularity figures of CE and principal officialsBack
Press Release on September 13, 2016
| Detailed Findings (Rating of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying) | Detailed Findings (Popularity of Principal Officials) |
Special Announcement
To facilitate academic study and rational discussion, Public Opinion Programme (POP) of The University of Hong Kong has already released for public examination some time ago via the “HKU POP SITE” (http://hkupop.pori.hk) the raw data of all 104 regular rating surveys of CE CY Leung, as well as the 181 regular rating surveys of former CE Donald Tsang and 239 regular rating surveys of former CE CH Tung, along with related demographics of respondents. POP today releases the raw data of the latest which is the 105th CE rating survey of CY Leung. Please follow normal academic standards when using or citing such data.
Abstract
POP interviewed 1,001 Hong Kong people between 5 and 8 September, 2016 by means of a random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers. Our latest survey conducted after the Legislative Council election in early September shows that the popularity rating of CE CY Leung has significantly decreased by 2.5 marks to 36.5 compared to two weeks ago, still below the warning line of 45 and only 0.3 mark away from the all-time record low of 36.2 registered in late May. His latest approval rate is 18%, disapproval rate 64%, giving a net popularity of negative 46 percentage points. As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Carrie Lam is 51.5 marks. Her approval rate is 42%, disapproval rate 24%, giving a net popularity of positive 18 percentage points. The latest support rating of FS John Tsang is 62.2 marks, approval rate 63%, disapproval rate 9%, thus a net popularity of positive 54 percentage points. As for SJ Rimsky Yuen, his support rating is 45.7 marks, approval rate 30%, disapproval rate 31%, giving a net popularity of negative 1 percentage point. In terms of popularity rating and approval rate, John Tsang continues to be the most popular Secretary of Department. Meanwhile, Carrie Lam’s support rating and net approval rate both drop to her all-time record lows since she became CS. As for the Directors of Bureaux, compared to one month ago, the net approval rates of 4 among the 13 Directors have gone up, 7 have gone down, while 2 remain unchanged. Among them, only Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So registers significant change in his net approval rate, down by 9 percentage points. Among all the Directors, Paul Chan, Lau Kong-wah and Eddie Ng register negative popularities, at negative 27, negative 27 and negative 43 percentage points respectively. Ko Wing-man continues to be the most popular Director, with a net approval rate of positive 69 percentage points. According to POP’s standard, Ko Wing-man falls under the category of “ideal” performer, John Tsang falls under the category of “successful” performer. The performance of Matthew Cheung, Carrie Lam, Anthony Cheung, Lai Tung-kwok, Wong Kam-sing, Gregory So, Rimsky Yuen, Raymond Tam, Paul Chan and Lau Kong-wah can be labeled as “mediocre”. That of Ceajer Chan, Clement Cheung and Nicholas Yang can be labeled as “inconspicuous”. CY Leung and Eddie Ng fall into the category of “depressing” performer, while no one falls into that of “disastrous”. The maximum sampling error of all approval and disapproval rates is +/-4 percentage points at 95% confidence level, while the sampling errors of rating figures and net approval rates need another calculation. The response rate of the survey is 74%. As the support rating of CE CY Leung continues to stand below the warning line of 45, Research Manager of POP, Frank Lee, reprints the abstracts of two articles written by Director of POP, Robert Chung, before on CE popularity, to discuss the possibility of a governance crisis. The articles can be downloaded in full from the POP Site.
Points to note:
[1] The address of the “HKU POP SITE” is http://hkupop.pori.hk, journalists can check out the details of the survey there.
[2] The sample size of this survey is 1,001 successful interviews, not 1,001 x 73.5% response rate. In the past, many media made this mistake.
[3] “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 +/-2.3, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, and sampling error of net values not more than +/-7% 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
POP today releases the latest popularity figures of CE CY Leung and various Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system. From 2014, POP enhanced the previous simple weighting method based on age and gender distribution to “rim weighting” based on age, gender and education (highest level attended) distribution. The latest figures released today have been rim-weighted according to provisional figures obtained from the Census and Statistics Department regarding the gender-age distribution of the Hong Kong population in 2016 mid-year and the educational attainment (highest level attended) distribution collected in the 2011 Census. Herewith the contact information for the latest survey:
|
Date of survey |
Overall sample size |
Response rate |
Maximum sampling error of percentages[6] |
|
5-8/9/2016 |
1,001 |
73.5% |
+/-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 and net approval rates are calculated according to the distribution of the scores collected.
As different questions involve different sub-samples, the sampling errors will vary accordingly. The table below briefly shows the relationship between sample size and maximum sampling errors for the readers to capture the corresponding changes:
|
Sample size (total sample or sub-sample) |
Sampling error of percentages[7] (maximum values) |
Sample size (total sample or sub-sample) |
Sampling error of percentages[7] (maximum values) |
|
1,300 |
+/- 2.8 % |
1,350 |
+/- 2.7 % |
|
1,200 |
+/- 2.9 % |
1,250 |
+/- 2.8 % |
|
1,100 |
+/- 3.0 % |
1,150 |
+/- 3.0 % |
|
1,000 |
+/- 3.2 % |
1,050 |
+/- 3.1 % |
|
900 |
+/- 3.3 % |
950 |
+/- 3.2 % |
|
800 |
+/- 3.5 % |
850 |
+/- 3.4 % |
|
700 |
+/- 3.8 % |
750 |
+/- 3.7 % |
|
600 |
+/- 4.1 % |
650 |
+/- 3.9 % |
|
500 |
+/- 4.5 % |
550 |
+/- 4.3 % |
|
400 |
+/- 5.0 % |
450 |
+/- 4.7 % |
[7] Based on 95% confidence interval.
Recent popularity figures of CE CY Leung are summarized as follows:
|
Date of survey |
20-23/6/16 |
4-7/7/16 |
18-21/7/16 |
5-11/8/16 |
19-25/8/16 |
5-8/9/16 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base |
1,006 |
1,004 |
1,013 |
1,004 |
1,003 |
1,001 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
69.5% |
68.9% |
73.6% |
72.4% |
71.4% |
73.5% |
-- |
|
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error [8] |
-- |
|
Rating of CE CY Leung |
38.4[9] |
40.1 |
40.1 |
40.8 |
39.0 |
36.5+/-1.8 |
-2.5[9] |
|
Vote of confidence in CE CY Leung |
19%[9] |
22% |
19%[9] |
22% |
19%[9] |
18+/-2% |
-1% |
|
Vote of no confidence in CE CY Leung |
61% |
58% |
63%[9] |
61% |
63% |
64+/-3% |
+1% |
|
Net approval rate |
-42% |
-36%[9] |
-44%[9] |
-39% |
-44% |
-46+/-5% |
-2% |
[8] 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 +/-1.8, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3%, sampling error of net approval rates not more than +/-5% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[9] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
Recent popularity figures of the three Secretaries of Departments under the accountability system are summarized below:
|
Date of survey |
5-7/4/16 |
3-5/5/16 |
6-8/6/16 |
4-7/7/16 |
5-11/8/16 |
5-8/9/16 |
Latest change |
|
Sample base[10] |
650-735 |
526-557 |
527-582 |
604-661 |
576-611 |
544-636 |
-- |
|
Overall response rate |
68.3% |
69.7% |
70.2% |
68.9% |
72.4% |
73.5% |
-- |
|
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error [11] |
-- |
|
Rating of CS Carrie Lam |
55.4 |
56.6 |
53.2[12] |
56.1[12] |
55.6 |
51.5+/-2.3 |
-4.1[12] |
|
Vote of confidence in CS Carrie Lam |
51% |
49% |
49% |
50% |
50% |
42+/-4% |
-8%[12] |
|
Vote of no confidence in CS Carrie Lam |
21% |
16%[12] |
21%[12] |
17%[12] |
16% |
24+/-4% |
+8%[12] |
|
Net approval rate |
30% |
33% |
28% |
33% |
34% |
18+/-7% |
-16%[12] |
|
Rating of FS John Tsang |
63.4 |
62.6 |
61.1 |
64.0[12] |
63.0 |
62.2+/-1.8 |
-0.8 |
|
Vote of confidence in FS John Tsang |
70% |
65%[12] |
64% |
64% |
64% |
63+/-4% |
-1% |
|
Vote of no confidence in FS John Tsang |
7% |
9% |
6%[12] |
6% |
5% |
9+/-2% |
+4%[12] |
|
Net approval rate |
64% |
56%[12] |
58% |
58% |
59% |
54+/-6% |
-5% |
|
Rating of SJ Rimsky Yuen |
48.3 |
49.0 |
44.8[12] |
48.7[12] |
46.1[12] |
45.7+/-2.2 |
-0.4 |
|
Vote of confidence in SJ Rimsky Yuen |
34% |
32% |
25%[12] |
30%[12] |
29% |
30+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Vote of no confidence in SJ Rimsky Yuen |
28% |
27% |
28% |
25% |
30%[12] |
31+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Net approval rate |
6% |
5% |
-3%[12] |
5%[12] |
-1% |
-1+/-6% |
-- |
[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. Starting from 2011, these questions only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[11] 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 various ratings not more than +/-2.3, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net approval rates not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[12] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
Latest popularity figures of Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system are summarized below, in descending order of net approval rates:
|
Date of survey |
4-7/7/16 |
5-11/8/16 |
5-8/9/16 |
Latest change |
|||
|
Sample base [13] |
569-633 |
571-633 |
564-637 |
-- |
|||
|
Overall response rate |
68.9% |
72.4% |
73.5% |
-- |
|||
|
Sample base for each question/
|
Base |
% |
Base |
% |
Base |
% & error [14] |
-- |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Ko Wing-man |
593 |
80%[15] |
571 |
72%[15] |
623 |
76+/-3% |
+4%[15] |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Ko Wing-man |
593 |
6% |
571 |
7% |
623 |
8+/-2% |
+1% |
|
Net approval rate |
593 |
74% |
571 |
64%[15] |
623 |
69+/-5% |
+5% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung |
569 |
44% |
583 |
45% |
617 |
47+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung |
569 |
21% |
583 |
17%[15] |
617 |
15+/-3% |
-2% |
|
Net approval rate |
569 |
23% |
583 |
27% |
617 |
32+/-6% |
+5% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan |
620 |
39% |
609 |
34%[15] |
579 |
36+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan |
620 |
9% |
609 |
9% |
579 |
12+/-3% |
+3% |
|
Net approval rate |
620 |
30% |
609 |
25% |
579 |
24+/-6% |
-1% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung |
591 |
38%[15] |
585 |
38% |
581 |
38+/-4% |
-- |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung |
591 |
21%[15] |
585 |
22% |
581 |
23+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Net approval rate |
591 |
16%[15] |
585 |
16% |
581 |
15+/-6% |
-1% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Clement Cheung |
619 |
20% |
625 |
21% |
596 |
21+/-4% |
-- |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Clement Cheung |
619 |
7%[15] |
625 |
8% |
596 |
11+/-3% |
+3% |
|
Net approval rate |
619 |
13% |
625 |
13% |
596 |
10+/-5% |
-3% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam |
593 |
28% |
576 |
27% |
566 |
29+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam |
593 |
22%[15] |
576 |
22% |
566 |
23+/-4% |
+1% |
|
Net approval rate |
593 |
6%[17] |
576 |
6% |
566 |
7+/-6% |
+1% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing |
618 |
29% |
602 |
27% |
617 |
30+/-4% |
+3% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing |
618 |
23%[15] |
602 |
23% |
617 |
26+/-4% |
+3% |
|
Net approval rate |
618 |
6%[17] |
602 |
5% |
617 |
5+/-6% |
-- |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So |
584 |
33%[15] |
619 |
32% |
637 |
30+/-4% |
-2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So |
584 |
29% |
619 |
22%[15] |
637 |
28+/-4% |
+6%[15] |
|
Net approval rate |
584 |
4%[18] [15] |
619 |
11%[15] |
637 |
2+/-6% |
-9%[15] |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok |
605 |
35% |
602 |
34% |
576 |
36+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok |
605 |
31% |
602 |
30% |
576 |
34+/-4% |
+4% |
|
Net approval rate |
605 |
4%[18] |
602 |
4% |
576 |
1+/-7% |
-3% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang |
602 |
19% |
614 |
19% |
570 |
21+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang |
602 |
23% |
614 |
24% |
570 |
21+/-4% |
-3% |
|
Net approval rate |
602 |
-4% |
614 |
-5% |
570 |
0+/-6% |
+5% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Development Paul Chan |
599 |
22% |
590 |
22% |
631 |
22+/-3% |
-- |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Development Paul Chan |
599 |
47% |
590 |
49% |
631 |
49+/-4% |
-- |
|
Net approval rate |
599 |
-25%[19] |
590 |
-27% |
631 |
-27+/-6%[19] |
-- |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah |
606 |
20%[15] |
633 |
18% |
564 |
19+/-3% |
+1% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah |
606 |
45%[15] |
633 |
40%[15] |
564 |
46+/-4% |
+6%[15] |
|
Net approval rate |
606 |
-25%[19] [15] |
633 |
-22% |
564 |
-27+/-6%[19] |
-5% |
|
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Education Eddie Ng |
633 |
18%[15] |
607 |
15% |
604 |
16+/-3% |
+1% |
|
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Education Eddie Ng |
633 |
54%[15] |
607 |
57% |
604 |
59+/-4% |
+2% |
|
Net approval rate |
633 |
-36%[15] |
607 |
-41% |
604 |
-43+/-6% |
-2% |
[13] Starting from 2006, these questions only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[14] 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 sampling error of net approval rates not more than +/-7% at 95% confidence level” when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[15] Such changes have gone beyond the sampling errors at the 95% confidence level under the same weighting method, meaning that they are statistically significant prima facie. However, whether numerical differences are statistically significant or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[16] Based on the figures in early July, in one decimal place, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam and Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing were 6.0 and 5.7 percentage points. Thus, they were ranked sixth and seventh at that time.
[17] Based on the figures in early July, in one decimal place, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok and Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So were 4.0 and 3.7 percentage points. Thus, they were ranked eighth and ninth at that time.
[18] Based on the figures in early July, in one decimal place, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Development Paul Chan and Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah were -24.8 and -25.0 percentage points. Thus, they were ranked eleventh and twelfth at that time.
[19] Based on the figures in the latest survey, in one decimal place, the respective net approval rates of Secretary for Development Paul Chan and Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah are -26.7 and -26.9 percentage points. Thus, they are ranked eleventh and twelfth this time.
The latest survey showed that, CE CY Leung scored 36.5 marks, and 18% supported him as CE, his net approval rate is negative 46 percentage points. Meanwhile, the corresponding ratings of CS Carrie Lam, FS John Tsang and SJ Rimsky Yuen were 51.5, 62.2 and 45.7 marks, and 42%, 63% and 30% would vote for their reappointment correspondingly. Their net approval rates are positive 18, positive 54 and negative 1 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 Ko Wing-man, attaining positive 69 percentage points. The 2nd and 3rd places belong to Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan with net approval rates of positive 32 and positive 24 percentage points respectively. Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung, Secretary for the Civil Service Clement Cheung, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam, Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So, Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok, Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang, Secretary for Development Paul Chan, Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah and Secretary for Education Eddie Ng ranked 4th to 13th, their corresponding net approval rates are positive 15, positive 10, positive 7, positive 5, positive 2, positive 1, 0, negative 27, negative 27 and negative 43 percentage points. In other words, only Ko Wing-man scored a net approval rate of over 50% among all Directors of Bureaux.
Opinion Daily
In January 2007, POP opened a feature page called “Opinion Daily” at the “POP Site”, to record significant events and selected polling figures on a day-to-day basis, in order to let readers judge by themselves the reasons for the ups and downs of different opinion figures. In July 2007, POP collaborated with Wisers Information Limited whereby Wisers supplies to POP each day starting from July 24, a record of significant events of that day, according to the research method designed by POP. These daily entries would be uploaded to “Opinion Daily” as soon as they are verified by POP.
For the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey of some items was conducted from 5 to 11 August, 2016 while this survey was conducted from 5 to 8 September, 2016. 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.
|
6/9/16 |
Chief Executive CY Leung comments on the results of Legislative Council election. |
|
5/9/16 |
Announcement of 2016 Legislative Council election results. |
|
4/9/16 |
More than 2 million voters cast their votes in 2016 Legislative Council election. |
|
2/9/16 |
Media report on the issue of 2016 Legislative Council election. |
|
22/8/16 |
Media report on the issue of China’s Olympic gold medal winners visiting Hong Kong. |
|
19/8/16 |
Media report on the contaminated pork that have been sent to the retailers. |
|
16/8/16 |
The State Council approves the implementation plan for Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect. |
|
6/8/16 |
Cora Ho, the returning officer, receives a threatening letter with a razor blade enclosed. |
Commentary
Note: The following commentary was written by Research Manager of POP, Frank Lee.
Our latest survey conducted after the Legislative Council election in early September shows that the popularity rating of CE CY Leung has significantly decreased by 2.5 marks to 36.5 compared to two weeks ago, still below the warning line of 45 and only 0.3 mark away from the all-time record low of 36.2 registered in late May. His latest approval rate is 18%, disapproval rate 64%, giving a net popularity of negative 46 percentage points.
As for the Secretaries of Departments, the latest support rating of CS Carrie Lam is 51.5 marks. Her approval rate is 42%, disapproval rate 24%, giving a net popularity of positive 18 percentage points. The latest support rating of FS John Tsang is 62.2 marks, approval rate 63%, disapproval rate 9%, thus a net popularity of positive 54 percentage points. As for SJ Rimsky Yuen, his support rating is 45.7 marks, approval rate 30%, disapproval rate 31%, giving a net popularity of negative 1 percentage point. In terms of popularity rating and approval rate, John Tsang continues to be the most popular Secretary of Department. Meanwhile, Carrie Lam’s support rating and net approval rate both drop to her all-time record lows since she became CS.
As for the Directors of Bureaux, compared to one month ago, the net approval rates of 4 among the 13 Directors have gone up, 7 have gone down, while 2 remain unchanged. Among them, only Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So registers significant change in his net approval rate, down by 9 percentage points. Among all the Directors, Paul Chan, Lau Kong-wah and Eddie Ng register negative popularities, at negative 27, negative 27 and negative 43 percentage points respectively. Ko Wing-man continues to be the most popular Director, with a net approval rate of positive 69 percentage points.
According to POP’s standard, Ko Wing-man falls under the category of “ideal” performer, John Tsang falls under the category of “successful” performer. The performance of Matthew Cheung, Carrie Lam, Anthony Cheung, Lai Tung-kwok, Wong Kam-sing, Gregory So, Rimsky Yuen, Raymond Tam, Paul Chan and Lau Kong-wah can be labeled as “mediocre”. That of Ceajer Chan, Clement Cheung and Nicholas Yang can be labeled as “inconspicuous”. CY Leung and Eddie Ng fall into the category of “depressing” performer, while no one falls into that of “disastrous”.
The following table summarizes the grading of CE and the principal officials for readers’ easy reference:
|
“Ideal”: those with approval rates of over 66%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets |
|
Secretary for Food and Health Ko Wing-man (76%) |
|
“Successful”: those with approval rates of over 50%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets |
|
FS John Tsang Chun-wah (63%) |
|
“Mediocre”: those not belonging to other 5 types; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets |
|
Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (47%); CS Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (42%); Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung (38%); Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok (36%); Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing (30%)[20]; Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So Kam-leung (30%)[20]; SJ Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung (30%) [20]; Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam Chi-yuen (29%); Secretary for Development Paul Chan Mo-po (22%); Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah (19%) |
|
|
|
“Inconspicuous”: those with recognition rates of less than 50%; ranked by their approval rates; the first figure inside bracket is approval rate while the second figure is recognition rate |
|
Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan Ka-keung (36%, 47%); Secretary for the Civil Service Clement Cheung Wan-ching (21%, 33%)[21]; Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang Wei-hsiung (21%, 42%) [21] |
|
|
|
“Depressing”: those with disapproval rates of over 50%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets |
|
CE Leung Chun-ying (64%); Secretary for Education Eddie Ng Hak-kim (59%); |
|
“Disastrous”: those with disapproval rates of over 66%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets |
[20] In two decimal places, the respective approval rates of Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So Kam-leung and SJ Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung are 30.44%, 30.03% and 29.98%.
[21] In two decimal places, the respective approval rates of Secretary for the Civil Service Clement Cheung Wan-ching and Secretary for Innovation and Technology Nicholas Yang Wei-hsiung are 21.11% and 21.09%.
Since the support rating of CE CY Leung continues to stand below the warning line of 45, I reprint again the abstracts of two articles written by Robert Ting-Yiu Chung, Director of POP, before on CE popularity for public reference, to discuss the possibility of a governance crisis. The articles can be downloaded in full from the POP Site.
“The Popularity of Tung Chee-hwa from All Angles” (released on 14/5/2003): “According to our experience, a political figure with less than 50 marks can be said to have fallen into negative popularity, while a score of less than 45 marks can indicate credibility crisis. Using this analysis, Tung has been negatively popular among the general public since August 2002, and in March 2003, he has sunk into a credibility crisis…”
“New Perspectives on Chief Executive Ratings” (released on 12/6/2003): “Concurrent tests showed that a support rating of 55 marks was more or less equivalent to a ‘vote share’ of 45%, 50 marks could be converted to round about 30%, 45 marks to 20%, and 40 marks to 10% to 15%... In late 1990, after the ‘approval rate’ of Margaret Thatcher sank to 25%, she withdrew from the election for the leader of the British Conservative Party, thereby gave up her job as the Prime Minister of UK, a post which she held since 1979. In early 1997, John Major lost his post of Prime Minister to Tony Blair, after his ‘approval rate’ hovered around the level of 30% for a long time. As for former USA President Bill Clinton, his lowest ever ‘approval rate’ within his 8-year terms of office was as high as 37%...”
Future Release (Tentative)
- September 20, 2016 (Tuesday) 1pm to 2pm: Ratings of top 5 Executive Councillors
