I. Popularity figures of CE CY Leung and principal officials
The popularity figures of CE CY Leung are as follows:
Date of survey |
17-23/4/12 |
3-10/5/12 |
18-24/5/12 |
30/5-6/6/12 |
19-25/6/12 |
9-11/7/12 |
Latest change |
Sample base |
1,034 |
1,044 |
1,001 |
1,041 |
1,048 |
1,000 |
-- |
Overall response rate |
65.0% |
64.6% |
66.8% |
63.7% |
69.6% |
69.1% |
-- |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding and error[1] |
-- |
Rating of CE CY Leung |
54.0[2] |
56.5[2] |
54.3[2] |
54.1 |
51.3[2] |
53.8+/-1.6 |
+2.5[2] |
Vote of confidence in CE CY Leung |
48% |
56%[2] |
46%[2] |
49% |
47% |
45+/-3% |
-2% |
Vote of no confidence in CE CY Leung |
39%[2] |
34%[2] |
41%[2] |
39% |
42% |
41+/-3% |
-1% |
Net approval rate |
9% |
22% |
5% |
10% |
5% |
4+/-6% |
-1% |
[1] 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 +/-1.6, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-3%, sampling error of net approval rates not more than +/-6% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[2] 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 or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
The popularity figures of the three Secretaries of Departments under the accountability system are summarized below:
Date of survey |
2-7/3/12 |
2-10/4/12 |
3-10/5/12 |
30/5-6/6/12 |
9-11/7/12 |
Latest change [3] |
Sample base[3] |
574-583 |
523-696 |
515-538 |
521-566 |
529-572 |
-- |
Overall response rate |
66.6% |
60.0% |
64.6% |
63.7% |
69.1% |
-- |
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error [4] |
-- |
Ratings of CS Carrie Lam |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
64.0+/-1.9 |
-- |
Vote of confidence in CS Carrie Lam |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
60+/-4% |
-- |
Vote of no confidence in CS Carrie Lam |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
8+/-2% |
-- |
Net approval rate |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
52+/-6% |
-- |
Ratings of FS John Tsang |
50.9 |
49.8 |
52.7[5] |
52.9 |
56.4+/-1.6 |
+3.5[5] |
Vote of confidence in FS John Tsang |
41%[5] |
36%[5] |
43%[5] |
44% |
49+/-4% |
+5%[5] |
Vote of no confidence in FS John Tsang |
24% |
26% |
19%[5] |
16% |
16+/-3% |
-- |
Net approval rate |
17% |
10% |
24% |
28% |
33+/-6% |
+5% |
Ratings of SJ Rimsky Yuen |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
49.0+/-2.1 |
-- |
Vote of confidence in SJ Rimsky Yuen |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
24+/-4% |
-- |
Vote of no confidence in SJ Rimsky Yuen |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
12+/-3% |
-- |
Net approval rate |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
12+/-5% |
-- |
[3] The frequency of this series of questions is different for different questions, and also 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.
[4] 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 +/-2.1, sampling error of percentages not more than +/-4%, sampling error of net approval rates not more than +/-6% at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site.
[5]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 or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
The popularity figures of Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system are summarized below, in descending order of net approval rates:
Date of survey |
3-10/5/12 |
30/5-6/6/12 |
9-11/7/12 |
Latest change |
Sample base [6] |
502-551 |
514-573 |
528-606 |
-- |
Overall response rate |
64.6% |
63.7% |
69.1% |
-- |
Sample base for each question/ Percentage of answer |
Base |
% |
Base |
% |
Base |
% & error [7] |
-- |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Ko Wing-man |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
528 |
69+/-4% |
-- |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Food and Health Ko Wing-man |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
528 |
5+/-2% |
-- |
Net approval rate |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
64+/-5% |
-- |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung |
520 |
52% |
532 |
52% |
532 |
64+/-4% |
+12%[8] |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung |
520 |
13% |
532 |
12% |
532 |
10+/-3% |
-2% |
Net approval rate |
-- |
39% |
-- |
40% |
-- |
54+/-6% |
+14%[8] |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
542 |
55+/-4% |
-- |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
542 |
11+/-3% |
-- |
Net approval rate |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
44+/-6% |
-- |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan |
522 |
37% |
537 |
31%[8] |
584 |
48+/-4% |
+17%[8] |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan |
522 |
12% |
537 |
12% |
584 |
8+/-2% |
-4%[8] |
Net approval rate |
-- |
25% |
-- |
19% |
-- |
40+/-5% |
+21%[8] |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
540 |
46+/-4% |
-- |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
540 |
11+/-3% |
-- |
Net approval rate |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
35+/-6% |
-- |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
562 |
37+/-4% |
-- |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
562 |
9+/-2% |
-- |
Net approval rate |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
28+/-5% |
-- |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam |
550 |
34% |
545 |
29%[8] |
557 |
37+/-4% |
+8%[8] |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam |
550 |
12% |
545 |
13% |
557 |
15+/-3% |
+2% |
Net approval rate |
-- |
22% |
-- |
16% |
-- |
22+/-6% |
+6% |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So |
523 |
25% |
573 |
18%[8] |
549 |
34+/-4% |
+16%[8] |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So |
523 |
15% |
573 |
17% |
549 |
12+/-3% |
-5%[8] |
Net approval rate |
-- |
10% |
-- |
1% |
-- |
22+/-5% |
+21%[8] |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Paul Tang |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
541 |
24+/-4% |
-- |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for the Civil Service Paul Tang |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
541 |
7+/-2% |
-- |
Net approval rate |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
17+/-5% |
-- |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Education Eddie Ng |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
606 |
33+/-4% |
-- |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Education Eddie Ng |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
606 |
20+/-3% |
-- |
Net approval rate |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
13+/-6% |
-- |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing |
502 |
29% |
530 |
26% |
558 |
37+/-4% |
+11%[8] |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing |
502 |
36% |
530 |
33% |
558 |
31+/-4% |
-2% |
Net approval rate |
-- |
-7% |
-- |
-7% |
-- |
6+/-7% |
+13%[8] |
Vote of confidence in Secretary for Development Mak Chai-kwong |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
585 |
22+/-3% |
-- |
Vote of no confidence in Secretary for Development Mak Chai-kwong |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
585 |
25+/-4% |
-- |
Net approval rate |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-3+/-6% |
-- |
[6] Starting from 2006, these questions only uses sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, the sample size for each question also varies.
[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 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.
[8] 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 or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
The latest survey showed that, CE CY Leung scored 53.8 marks, and 45% supported him as CE, his net approval rate is positive 4 percentage points. Meanwhile, the corresponding ratings of CS Carrie Lam, FS John Tsang and SJ Rimsky Yuen were 64.0, 56.4 and 49.0 marks, and 60%, 49% and 24% would vote for their reappointment correspondingly. Their net approval rates are positive 52, 33 and 12 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 64 percentage points. The 2nd to 4th places belonged to Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung, Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok, and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan with net approval rates positive 54, 44 and 40 percentage points respectively. Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung, Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So, Secretary for the Civil Service Paul Tang, Secretary for Education Eddie Ng, Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing, and Secretary for Development Mak Chai-kwong ranked 5th to 12th, their corresponding net approval rates are positive 35, positive 28, positive 22, positive 22, positive 17, positive 13, positive 6 percentage points and negative 3 percentage points. In other words, Ko Wing-man and Matthew Cheung scored net approval rates of over 50% among all Directors of Bureaux.
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 (69%) |
|
"Successful": those with approval rates of over 50%; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets |
Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (64%); CS Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor (60%); Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok (55%) |
|
"Mediocre": those not belonging to other 5 types; ranked by their approval rates shown inside brackets |
FS John Tsang Chun-wah (49%); Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan Ka-keung (48%); Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung (46%); CE Leung Chun-ying (45%); Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam Chi-yuen (37%)[9]; Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing (37%)[9]; Secretary for Education Eddie Ng Hak-kim (33%) |
|
"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 the Environment Wong Kam-sing (37%, 46%); Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So Kam-leung (34%, 45%); SJ Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung (24%, 36%)[10]; Secretary for the Civil Service Paul Tang Kwok-wai (24%, 30%)[10]; Secretary for Development Mak Chai-kwong (22%, 47%) |
|
"Depressing": those with disapproval rates of over 50%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets |
-- |
|
"Disastrous": those with disapproval rates of over 66%; ranked by their disapproval rates shown inside brackets |
-- |
[9] In one decimal place, the approval rate of Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam Chi-yuen was 37.4%, while that of Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing was 36.6%.
[10] In one decimal place, the approval rate of SJ Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung was 24.3%, while that of Secretary for the Civil Service Paul Tang Kwok-wai was 23.6%.
II. PSI analysis
Monthly PSI, GA & SA figures are tabulated as follow:
Date of survey（per month） |
4/12 |
5/12 |
6/12 |
7/12 |
Latest change |
Latest finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding[11] |
-- |
Public Sentiment Index (PSI) |
80.4 |
78.4 |
74.7 |
92.3[12] |
+17.6 |
Government Appraisal (GA) |
82.4 |
80.6 |
76.5 |
94.8[12] |
+18.3 |
Society Appraisal (SA) |
90.0 |
88.9 |
87.5 |
95.2[12] |
+7.7 |
[11]Public Sentiment Index originates from the “now Survey on Public Sentiment Index" in 2011. It was then sponsored by “now news channel”.
[12] Preliminary figures for this month, the final figures will be announced when all the related surveys within this month are completed.
Figures show that the latest Public Sentiment Index (PSI) is 92.3, up 17.6 when compared to that of last month. As for the Government Appraisal (GA) and Society Appraisal (SA), the scores are 94.8 and 95.2, up 18.3 and 7.7 respectively.
III. Ratings of the Top 10 Legislative Councillors
The ratings of top 10 Legislative Councillors are summarized below:
Date of survey |
11-20/7/11 |
8-11/10/11 |
26-31/1/12 |
24/4-2/5/12 |
12-19/7/12 |
Latest Change |
Sample base[13] |
504-643 |
513-589 |
502-644 |
514-684 |
543-579 |
-- |
Overall response rate |
66.4% |
64.9% |
64.0% |
64.8% |
66.2% |
-- |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding |
Finding & error [13] |
-- |
Audrey Eu |
61.8 {1}[15] |
54.2{4}[15] |
56.0{3} |
58.7{2}[15] |
57.4{1}+/-2.0 |
-1.3 |
Jasper Tsang |
55.5 {4}[15] |
55.4[16]{3} |
56.1{2} |
59.0{1}[15] |
55.5{2}+/-1.8 |
-3.5[15] |
Regina Ip |
58.7 {3}[15] |
59.3{1} |
60.6{1} |
58.5{3}[15] |
51.9{3}+/-1.8 |
-6.6[15] |
Alan Leong |
59.2 {2}[15] |
53.5{6}[15] |
52.3[17]{6} |
52.2{7} |
51.5{4}+/-2.0 |
-0.7 |
Emily Lau |
55.4 {5}[15] |
53.7{5} |
53.0{5} |
53.3{5} |
51.0{5}+/-2.0 |
-2.3[15] |
Lee Cheuk-yan |
52.7 {7}[15] |
51.5{7} |
53.6{4} |
53.0{6} |
50.0{6}+/-2.1 |
-3.0[15] |
Albert Ho |
55.2 {6}[15] |
50.4{8}[15] |
50.6{8} |
53.8{4}[15] |
48.8{7}+/-1.9 |
-5.0[15] |
Albert Chan# |
37.9[14] |
38.2[14] |
34.0[14] [15] |
36.2[14] |
36.3{8}+/-2.4 |
+0.1 |
Wong Yuk-man |
36.2 {9} |
34.6{9} |
26.4{10}[15] |
31.1{10}[15] |
35.3{9}+/-2.5 |
+4.2[15] |
Leung Kwok-hung |
35.0 {10} |
33.4{10} |
27.3{9}[15] |
35.2{9}[15] |
34.3{10}+/-2.5 |
-0.9 |
Tam Yiu-chung# |
52.2 {8}[15] |
50.8[14] |
52.3[17]{7} |
51.8{8} |
47.1 [14]+/-1.9 |
-4.7[15] |
Tanya Chan |
-- |
-- |
52.7[14] |
53.6[14] |
49.9[14]+/-2.2 |
-3.7[15] |
James To |
-- |
55.4[16]{2} |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Lee Wing-tat |
54.7[14] |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
[13] 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 +/-2.5 at 95% confidence level" when quoting the above figures. Numbers in square brackets { } indicates rankings. The error margin of previous survey can be found at the POP Site. Starting from 2011, these questions only use sub-samples of the tracking surveys concerned, with variable sub-sample size for each question. In latest survey, the sub-sample size of the questions varies between 543 and 579, and its effect has already been reflected in the sampling errors.
[14] Ratings with recognition rates not reaching top 10 in either stage of survey are not available.
[15]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 or not is not the same as whether they are practically useful or meaningful.
[16] In two decimal places, the rating of James To is 55.39 and that of Jasper Tsang is 55.36.
[17] In two decimal places, the rating of Alan Leong is 52.32 and that of Tam Yiu-chung is 52.26.
# Due to a slight change in the recognition rates, Tam Yiu-chung who occupied the eighth position in the original release should have been dropped out of the list, and replaced by Albert Chan.
The latest survey showed that Audrey Eu was the most popularly supported councillor attaining 57.4 marks. Jasper Tsang, Regina Ip, Alan Leong and Emily Lau ranked the 2nd to 5th with 55.5, 51.9, 51.5 and 51.0 marks correspondingly. The 6th to 8th ranks went to Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho and Albert Chan who attained 50.0, 48.8 and 36.3 marks respectively. Wong Yuk-man and Leung Kwok-hung ranked the 9th to 10th, attaining 35.3 and 34.3 marks respectively. The mean score obtained by the top 5 councillors was 53.5 marks, while that for the top 10 was 47.2 marks. For this latest survey, Tam Yiu-chung and Tanya Chan obtained support ratings of 47.1 and 49.9 marks respectively, but they were dropped due to their relatively low recognition rates. The overall ratings ranked according to results obtained over the past 12 calendar months are tabulated as follows:
Date of survey |
8-11/10/11 |
26-31/1/12 |
24/4-2/5/12 |
12-19/7/12 |
No. of times on top 10 |
Average rating [18] |
Overall ranking [19] |
Regina Ip |
59.3 |
60.6 |
58.5 |
51.9 |
4 |
57.6 |
1 |
Audrey Eu |
54.2 |
56.0 |
58.7 |
57.4 |
4 |
56.6 |
2 |
Jasper Tsang |
55.4 |
56.1 |
59.0 |
55.5 |
4 |
56.5 |
3 |
Emily Lau |
53.7 |
53.0 |
53.3 |
51.0 |
4 |
52.7 |
4 |
Alan Leong |
53.5 |
52.3 |
52.2 |
51.5 |
4 |
52.4 |
5 |
Lee Cheuk-yan |
51.5 |
53.6 |
53.0 |
50.0 |
4 |
52.0 |
6 |
Albert Ho |
50.4 |
50.6 |
53.8 |
48.8 |
4 |
50.9 |
7 |
Leung Kwok-hung |
33.4 |
27.3 |
35.2 |
34.3 |
4 |
32.6 |
8 |
Wong Yuk-man |
34.6 |
26.4 |
31.1 |
35.3 |
4 |
31.9 |
9 |
Tam Yiu-chung |
- |
52.3 |
51.8 |
- |
2 |
52.0 |
10 |
James To |
55.4 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
55.4 |
11 |
Albert Chan |
- |
- |
- |
36.3 |
1 |
36.3 |
12 |
[18] “Average rating” is the average of all ratings obtained by Legislative Councillors over the past 12 months.
[19] “Overall ranking” is first determined by their number of times on top 10, and then their average ratings.
The overall rankings in the past 12 months showed that 9 Legislative Councillors have been on the list for four times. They are Regina Ip in the top rank achieving an average rating of 57.6 marks, Audrey Eu, Jasper Tsang, Emily Lau, Alan Leong, Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho who ranked the 2nd to 7th and attained 56.6, 56.5, 52.7, 52.4, 52.0 and 50.9 marks correspondingly. Leung Kwok-hung and Wong Yuk-man ranked the 8th and 9th, with a respective of 32.6 and 31.9 marks. Tam Yiu-chung has been on the list for two times, attaining 52.0 marks on average, and ranked the 10th. James To and Albert Chan has been on the list for one time and ranked the 11th and 12th attaining 55.4 and 36.3 marks respectively.
