CUHK
News Centre

The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK)’s Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies conducted a telephone survey from 26 February to 11 March 2025 to study the popularity of the Hong Kong government. The major findings include:

Satisfaction with the Hong Kong government. In the February 2025 survey, 13.5% of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the Hong Kong government, 43.7% said they were dissatisfied and 41.0% answered “in-between”. The corresponding figures for the previous survey (October 2024) were 24.0%, 27.7% and 46.4% respectively. The statistical analysis (chi-square test) shows statistically significant differences between the results for February 2025 and those for October 2024. The differences in percentage distribution between the latest findings (satisfied: 13.5%; dissatisfied: 43.7%) and those from March 2024 (satisfied: 16.9%; dissatisfied: 43.5%) were statistically insignificant.

Rating of Chief Executive John Lee. In the February 2025 survey, Chief Executive John Lee’s performance rating (on a point scale from 0 to 100, with 50 as the pass mark) stood at 44.2 on average, lower than that in October 2024 (50.7); the mean difference was statistically significant. However, there was no statistically significant difference between February 2025 (44.2) and March 2024 (44.6).

Ratings of three secretaries. The average performance ratings of the Chief Secretary for Administration (Chan Kwok-ki), Financial Secretary (Paul Chan) and Secretary for Justice (Paul Lam) in February 2025 were 41.7, 38.4 and 40.6 respectively. When comparing the February 2025 figures with those from October 2024 (Chief Secretary for Administration: 47.7; Financial Secretary: 50.2; Secretary for Justice: 46.4), there were statistically significant differences for all three secretaries. The rating of the Financial Secretary in February 2025 (38.4) was statistically significantly lower than the respective figure in March 2024 (44.5), while the differences in the average ratings of the Chief Secretary for Administration and Secretary for Justice between February 2025 (41.7 and 40.6 respectively) and March 2024 (41.4 and 41.1 respectively) were statistically insignificant.

Trust in the Hong Kong government. In February 2025, 21.8% of the respondents said they trusted the Hong Kong government and 34.1% expressed distrust; 42.1% answered “in-between”. The corresponding figures for October 2024 were 28.9%, 26.9% and 41.5% respectively. There were statistically significant differences between February 2025 and October 2024. However, the percentage differences between February 2025 (trust: 21.8%; distrust: 34.1%) and March 2024 (trust: 22.5%; distrust: 34.4%) were not statistically significant.

Trust in the Central Government. Regarding the level of trust in the Central Government in February 2025, 34.2% said they trusted it, 27.4% answered the opposite and 34.9% said “in-between”. The respective figures in October 2024 were 31.6%, 26.2% and 38.9%. There were no statistically significant differences between February 2025 and October 2024. The differences between the percentage distribution in February 2025 (trust: 34.2%; distrust: 27.4%) and March 2024 (trust: 30.1%; distrust: 30.7%) were also statistically insignificant.

In conclusion, the survey results in February 2025 indicate that the public’s satisfaction level with the Hong Kong government’s performance, its performance ratings of the Chief Executive and the three secretaries, and the level of trust in the Hong Kong government were significantly different from those in October 2024 (the significance test shows the differences were statistically significant), while the level of trust in the Central Government in February 2025 was not significantly different from that in October 2024 (the significance test shows the difference was not statistically significant). In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the public’s performance rating of the Financial Secretary between February 2025 and March 2024 (the significance test shows the difference was statistically significant).

The survey employed a dual-frame sampling design that included both landline and mobile phone numbers. A total of 711 respondents aged 18 or above (landline: 175; mobile: 536) were successfully interviewed, with a response rate of 61.0% (landline: 57.8%; mobile: 62.0%). The sampling error for the sample size of 711 is estimated at plus or minus 3.68 percentage points at 95% confidence level. Furthermore, the data in this survey was weighted based on the probability of the respondents being selected via dual-frame sampling design and relevant age-sex distribution of the population published by the Census and Statistics Department before analysis.