HKU POP final farewell: Rift widens between Chinese and Hongkong identities, national pride plunges to one in fourBack

Press Release on June 27, 2019

| Detailed Findings (People's Ethnic Identity) |

| Detailed Findings (HKSAR Anniversary Surveys) |

Special Announcements

1. The Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP) would soon cease to operate, today it releases for the last time its tracking survey results, which show that the difference between Hong Kong people’s sense of identity between “Chinese” and “Hongkonger” has widened to 2.7 points, while those feeling proud of becoming a national citizen of China has dropped from over one-third last year to around one-quarter this year. All these indicators are at their record lows since the handover. Director of HKUPOP Robert Chung feels sorry and helpless at the result.

2. It is not sure whether such survey series would be continued under the Hong Kong Public Opinion Program (HKPOP) of the newly set up Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (HKPORI), depending on the support of the civil society. However, HKPOP will do everything it can to solicit resources to kick-start its “2022 One Country Two Systems Mid-term Review Project”, and “ethnic identity”, “police power and civil rights”, “freedom and rule of law”… are topics that we must cover. HKPOP will draft its “2022 Project Proposal” and plan for organizing large-scale international conferences and local deliberation forums in the coming three years, so as to mobilize community resources to serve the community.

3. HKPORI started to operate officially on May 4, 2019 as a civil society conscientious enterprise. It will hold its first event on July 1, to provide theoretical and technical support to some civil research teams in rally head-counting, as well as to provide an online platform for them to release their counts around the clock. We will announce the details in due course, please also check on the following website and social media accounts:

HKPORI Site – https://pori.hk
Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/HKPublicOpinionProgram
Twitter – https://www.twitter.com/hkporihkpop (HKPOP)
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/h.k.p.o.p

Abstract

HKUPOP successfully interviewed 1,015 Hong Kong residents by random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers in the second half of June. Results of the survey conducted after the two rallies against the extradition bill clearly reflects the impact of this incident to Hong Kong citizens’ ethnic identity recognition and feelings towards the handover of sovereignty. Regarding people’s ethnic identity, whether in terms of strength rating, importance rating or identity index, the identity of “Hongkongers” continues to rank first, followed by “Asians”, “global citizens”, “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese” and “citizens of the PRC”. Among them, the strength rating of the “Hongkongers” identity reaches all-time record high since 1997, while the importance rating and identity index also reach all-time record high since 2008. Meanwhile, the strength rating of the “Chinese” identity registers all-time record low since 1997, while other figures concerning “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese” and “citizens of the PRC” register all-time record low since 2007 or 2008.

If we follow the usual research method of using a dichotomy of “Hongkonger” versus “Chinese” identity, the proportions of people identifying as “Hongkongers” outnumber those of “Chinese” both in their narrow and broad senses. Similarly, the proportions of people identifying as “Hongkongers” in narrow or broad senses register all-time record high since 1997, whereas the proportions of people identifying as “Chinese” in narrow or broad senses register all-time record low since 1997.

Regarding the HKSAR anniversary survey, as the 22nd handover anniversary approaches, compared to this time last year, Hong Kong people’s sense of pride in becoming a national citizen of China has plunged by 11 percentage points to 27%, while the percentage of those not feeling proud surged by 14 percentage points to 71%, registering all-time record low and record high since 1997 respectively. As for people’s appraisal of the Central Government’s policies on Hong Kong, all figures have turned negative. The latest proportion of positive appraisal stands at 23%, negative appraisal at 53%, resulting in a net value of negative 30 percentage points, which is an all-time record low since 1999. Indepth analyses show that the younger the respondents, the less likely they feel proud of becoming a national citizen of China, and also the more negative they are toward the Central Government’s policies on Hong Kong. The effective response rate of the survey is 58.7%. The maximum sampling error of percentages is +/-4%, that of net values is +/-5% and that of ratings is +/-2.8 at 95% confidence level.

Contact Information

Date of survey	:	17-20/6/2019
Survey method	:	Random telephone survey conducted by real interviewers
Target population	:	Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above
Sample size^[1]	:	1,015 (including 677 landline and 338 mobile samples)
Effective response rate^[2]	:	58.7%
Sampling error^[3]	:	Sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, that of net values not more than +/-5% and that of ratings not more than +/-2.8 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] Starting from April 2018, HKUPOP revised the landline and mobile sample ratio to 2 to 1. The figures released today by HKUPOP have already incorporated landline and mobile samples.

[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, HKUPOP 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, HKUPOP 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.

Hong Kong People’s Ethnic Identity

Latest Figures

Latest figures on Hong Kong people’s ratings on different identities are tabulated as follows:

Date of survey		13-15/6/17	4-6/12/17	4-7/6/18	3-6/12/18	*17-20/6/19*	*Latest change*
Sample size		633-725	645-727	564-682	543-607	*607-692*	--
Response rate		69.8%	61.0%	56.3%	54.6%	*58.7%*	--
Latest findings^[5]		Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	*Finding* & *error*	--
Hongkongers	Strength rating	7.65^[6]	8.27^[6]	8.54^[6]	8.34	*8.61+/-0.16*	*+0.27^[6]*
	Importance rating	7.49^[6]	7.89^[6]	8.30^[6]	8.02^[6]	*8.46+/-0.17*	*+0.44^[6]*
	Identity index	73.8^[6]	78.9^[6]	83.0^[6]	80.8	*84.6+/-1.6*	*+3.8^[6]*
Asians	Strength rating	7.85	7.88	8.16^[6]	8.07	*7.69+/-0.20*	*-0.38^[6]*
	Importance rating	6.70^[6]	7.01^[6]	6.99	7.05	*6.64+/-0.22*	*-0.41^[6]*
	Identity index	70.7^[6]	72.8^[6]	74.1	74.1	*70.1+/-2.0*	*-4.0^[6]*
Global citizens	Strength rating	6.88	7.12^[6]	6.61^[6]	6.86	*6.89+/-0.21*	*+0.03*
	Importance rating	6.60^[6]	6.55	6.30	6.49	*6.53+/-0.22*	*+0.04*
	Identity index	66.4^[6]	66.9	63.5^[6]	65.6	*66.2+/-1.9*	*+0.6*
Members of the Chinese race	Strength rating	6.74^[6]	7.08^[6]	7.10	6.98	*6.27+/-0.27*	*-0.71^[6]*
	Importance rating	6.40^[6]	6.62	6.68	6.67	*5.96+/-0.27*	*-0.71^[6]*
	Identity index	64.4^[6]	67.3^[6]	68.0	67.3	*60.2+/-2.6*	*-7.1^[6]*
Chinese	Strength rating	6.53^[6]	6.89^[6]	6.89	6.59	*5.87+/-0.27*	*-0.73^[6]*
	Importance rating	6.30^[6]	6.64^[6]	6.67	6.19^[6]	*5.54+/-0.28*	*-0.65^[6]*
	Identity index	62.5^[6]	66.0^[6]	66.6	62.4^[6]	*55.2+/-2.8*	*-7.2^[6]*
Citizens of the PRC	Strength rating	5.84^[6]	6.00	5.85	5.91	*4.82+/-0.28*	*-1.09^[6]*
	Importance rating	5.49^[6]	5.83^[6]	5.68	5.68	*4.79+/-0.28*	*-0.89^[6]*
	Identity index	54.8^[6]	58.0^[6]	56.3	57.1	*46.2+/-2.7*	*-10.8^[6]*

[5] “Identity index” is calculated for each respondent by taking the geometric mean of the strength and importance ratings and then multiplied by 10. If either the strength or importance rating of a respondent is missing, it is substituted by the sample mean.

[6] 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.

The above figures were collected from independent rating questions and did not involve the dichotomy issue of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese”. Latest findings showed that the identity ratings for “Hongkongers”, “Asians” and “global citizens” were 8.61, 7.69 and 6.89 marks respectively, whereas those for “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese” and “citizens of PRC” were 6.27, 5.87 and 4.82 marks respectively. As for the importance ratings, “Hongkongers”, “Asians” and “global citizens” scored 8.46, 6.64 and 6.53 marks respectively, while those for “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese” and “citizens of PRC” were 5.96, 5.54 and 4.79 marks respectively.

Taking the geometric mean of the strength and importance ratings of each respondent and then multiply it by 10, we have an “identity index” between 0 and 100, with 0 meaning no feeling and 100 meaning extremely strong feeling. Using these identity indices, the order of Hong Kong people’s six identities was “Hongkongers”, “Asians”, “global citizens”, “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese” and “citizens of PRC”. Their scores were 84.6, 70.1, 66.2, 60.2, 55.2 and 46.2 marks respectively.

As for the results from the survey mode used for long on Hong Kong people’s sense of ethnic identity, latest figures are tabulated as follows:

Date of survey	13-15/6/17	4-6/12/17	4-7/6/18	3-6/12/18	*17-20/6/19*	*Latest change*
Sample size	661	633	614	585	*643*	--
Response rate	69.8%	61.0%	56.3%	54.6%	*58.7%*	--
Latest findings	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	*Finding* & *error*	--
Identified as “Hongkongers”	37%	39%	41%	40%	*53+/-4%*	*+13%^[7]*
Identified as “Chinese”	21%^[7]	14%^[7]	18%^[7]	15%	*11+/-2%*	*-4%^[7]*
Identified with a mixed identity of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese”	40%^[7]	45%^[7]	39%^[7]	43%	*36+/-4%*	*-7%^[7]*
Identified as “Hongkongers” in broad sense	63%	68%^[7]	67%	66%	*76+/-3%*	*+10%^[7]*
Identified as “Chinese” in broad sense	35%	31%	30%	32%	*23+/-3%*	*-9%^[7]*

[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.

When asked to make a choice among 4 given identities, namely, “Hongkongers”, “Chinese”, “Chinese in Hong Kong” and “Hongkongers in China”, 53% of the respondents identified themselves as “Hongkongers”, 11% as “Chinese”, 12% as “Chinese in Hong Kong”, while 23% identified themselves as “Hongkongers in China”. In other words, 76% of the respondents identified themselves as “Hongkongers” in a broad sense (i.e. either as “Hongkongers” or “Hongkongers in China”), 23% identified themselves as “Chinese” in a broad sense (i.e. either as “Chinese” or “Chinese in Hong Kong”), while 36% chose a mixed identity of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese” (i.e. either as “Chinese in Hong Kong” or “Hongkongers in China”).

Opinion Daily

In 2007, HKUPOP started collaborating with Wisers Information Limited whereby Wisers supplies to HKUPOP a record of significant events of that day according to the research method designed by HKUPOP. These daily entries would then be uploaded to “Opinion Daily” after they are verified by HKUPOP.

For some of the polling items covered in this press release, the previous survey was conducted from 3 to 6 December, 2018 while this survey was conducted from 17 to 20 June, 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.

20/6/19	Anti-extradition bill protesters announce escalation of actions.
18/6/19	Carrie Lam apologizes to the people regarding the extradition bill controversies.
17/6/19	Commissioner of Police Stephen Lo says he did not mean the entire conflict on June 12 was a riot.
16/6/19	The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around two million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill.
15/6/19	Carrie Lam announces the suspension of the extradition bill.
12/6/19	The police uses tear gas rounds, beanbag shots and rubber bullets as anti-extradition bill sit-ins turn into a conflict between protesters and the police.
9/6/19	The Civil Human Rights Front announces that around 1.03 million people participated in the protest against the extradition bill.
4/6/19	The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China organizes a candlelight vigil for the 30th anniversary of June 4.
2/6/19	China publishes a white paper on its position on the China-US trade talks.
31/5/19	China will set up an “Unreliable Entity List”.
22/5/19	Members of Hong Kong Indigenous Ray Wong and Alan Li were granted refugee status in Germany last year.
20/5/19	Multiple companies stop providing goods or services to Huawei.
13/5/19	China announces an additional 25% tariff on US goods.
10/5/19	US announces an additional 25% tariff on Chinese goods.

HKSAR Anniversary Survey

Latest Figures

The results of the HKSAR anniversary survey are tabulated as follows:

Date of survey	22-25/6/15	20-23/6/16	19-22/6/17	14-21/6/18	*17-20/6/19*	*Latest change*
Sample size	1,038	1,006	1,007	1,000	*1,015*	--
Response rate	67.4%	69.5%	71.2%	59.6%	*58.7%*	--
Latest findings	Finding	Finding	Finding	Finding	*Finding* & *error*	--
Proud of becoming a national citizen of China	38%^[9]	31%^[9]	34%	38%^[9]	*27+/-3%*	*-11%^[9]*
Not proud of becoming a national citizen of China	56%^[9]	65%^[9]	62%	57%^[9]	*71+/-3%*	*+14%^[9]*
Central Government’s policies on Hong Kong: positive appraisal^[8]	33%	27%^[9]	35%^[9]	36%	*23+/-3%*	*-13%^[9]*
Central Government’s policies on Hong Kong: negative appraisal^[8]	32%	38%^[9]	36%	38%	*53+/-3%*	*+14%^[9]*
Central Government’s policies on Hong Kong: net appraisal^[8]	2%	-11%^[9]	-2%^[9]	-2%	*-30+/-5%*	*-27%^[9]*
Mean value^[8]	3.0	2.7^[9]	2.9^[9]	2.9	*2.5+/-0.1*	*-0.4^[9]*

[8] Collapsed from a 5-point scale. The mean value is calculated by quantifying 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] 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.

Results of the latest anniversary survey revealed that 27% of the respondents were proud of becoming a national citizen of China after the handover, while 71% said they did not have such feeling. As for the policies of the Central Government on Hong Kong after the handover, 23% of the respondents gave positive feedback, whereas 53% gave negative appraisal, giving a net appraisal of negative 30 percentage points. The mean score is 2.5 marks, meaning between “half-half” and “not quite good” in general.

Indepth Analysis

In the survey, we also asked respondents for their age. If they were reluctant to give their exact age, they could give us a range. Herewith further analysis of whether respondents were proud of becoming a national citizen of China and their appraisal of Central Government’s policies on Hong Kong by respondents’ age, with sub-sample size placed in brackets:

Date of survey: 17-20/6/2019		18-29	30-49	50 or above	Overall sample
Proud of becoming a national citizen of China ^[10]	Yes	9+/-4% (14)	20+/-4% (66)	38+/-4% (186)	27+/-3% (266)
	No	90+/-5% (150)	78+/-5% (257)	60+/-4% (297)	71+/-3% (703)
	Don’t know / hard to say	2+/-2% (3)	3+/-2% (9)	3+/-1% (13)	2+/-1% (24)
	Total	100% (167)	100% (332)	100% (496)	100% (994)

[10] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 99% confidence level.

Date of survey: 17-20/6/2019		18-29	30-49	50 or above	Overall sample
Appraisal of the Central Government’s policies on Hong Kong^[11]	Positive	8+/-4% (14)	17+/-4% (57)	32+/-4% (160)	23+/-3% (231)
	Half-half	15+/-6% (25)	23+/-5% (77)	19+/-3% (92)	19+/-3% (194)
	Negative	71+/-7% (118)	57+/-5% (189)	44+/-4% (218)	53+/-3% (525)
	Don’t know / hard to say	5+/-3% (8)	3+/-2% (10)	5+/-2% (27)	5+/-1% (46)
	Total	100% (165)	100% (332)	100% (497)	100% (994)

[11] Differences among sub-groups are tested to be statistically significant at 99% confidence level.

Commentary

Note: The following commentary was written by Senior Data Analyst of HKUPOP, Edward Tai.

Results of the survey conducted after the two rallies against the extradition bill clearly reflects the impact of this incident to Hong Kong citizens’ ethnic identity recognition and feelings towards the handover of sovereignty. Regarding people’s ethnic identity, whether in terms of strength rating, importance rating or identity index, the identity of “Hongkongers” continues to rank first, followed by “Asians”, “global citizens”, “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese” and “citizens of the PRC”. Among them, the strength rating of the “Hongkongers” identity reaches all-time record high since 1997, while the importance rating and identity index also reach all-time record high since 2008. Meanwhile, the strength rating of the “Chinese” identity registers all-time record low since 1997, while other figures concerning “members of the Chinese race”, “Chinese” and “citizens of the PRC” register all-time record low since 2007 or 2008.