Asia Foundation's findings from survey on Thai voters
On 16 Sept, The Asia Foundation released findings from its first national survey of the Thai electorate. The survey, Constitutional Reform and Democracy in Thailand: A National Survey of the Thai Electorate, was conducted through face-to-face interviews with a random, representative sample of 1,500 voters from all regions of the country (except the three southern border provinces) between June 13 and July 5, 2009.
Key Findings
The National Mood
Thai citizens are rather pessimistic about the direction of the country, with less than a third saying the country is moving in the right direction. The most common reasons for thinking the country is headed in the wrong direction were bad economy, lack of development, poverty or unemployment (41%) and the recent political conflicts and demonstrations, were cited by 11%. Similarly, when asked about the biggest problem facing Thailand, 60% cited economic concerns, with another 24% mentioning political conflict.
Pessimism is not surprising, as two-thirds (67%) say their personal economic situation has gotten worse or much worse in the last two years. Regardless of economic concerns, a small majority (53%) say they are fairly or very satisfied with the job the government is doing.
Amending the Constitution
Thais are evenly split between those who believe constitutional amendment could reduce conflict (45%), and those who think it might exacerbate conflict (45%). In total, 53% of the population says they want constitutional reform or a new constitution, while 28% are happy with the current constitution.
When asked how the Constitution should be amended, 67% say amendment should be drafted through a participatory process that involves ordinary citizens; 10% say amendment should be done by Parliament alone, and 16% thought changes should be drafted by a committee of experts. Regardless of method of amendment, an overwhelming majority (84%) believes that a new or revised constitution should be ratified through a referendum. Regarding the timing of elections, 53% think elections should be called before the end of the current term—with respondents split as to whether the elections should occur as soon as possible (23%) or after reforms have been made (30%)—while 43% favor waiting until the term of the current government expires.
Election Reform Issues
Most Thais across the political spectrum reject impunity for powerful people, even if it means an increase in political conflict. Only one in five (21%) think politicians convicted of crimes should be pardoned, and 57% would support revoking the pardons granted by the military coup-makers in the 2007 constitution.
Thais feel their interests in government are better represented through elections than appointments, and express the desire to be more involved in the political process. Only a quarter of citizens (25%) support the shift from an elected senate to a partially appointed senate mandated in the 2007 constitution; 63% say they prefer the system described in the 1997 constitution, and 6% want to eliminate the Senate entirely.
Additionally three-quarters (74%) reject the proposal to reduce the number of directly elected MPs and replace them with MPs selected by functional groups or independent institutions. When asked about the most appropriate system for electing MPs to Parliament, half (50%) of the respondents opted for the current mixed system, with 45% preferring smaller single member districts; and 54% would drop the party-list system in favor of single member districts.
Decentralization
A substantial majority (69%) of respondents are in favor of shifting some power from the national to the local level, and directly electing provincial governors. When asked specifically, 75% say they prefer choosing their own governor through direct elections. In those places that already have elected governors, voters liked their governors twice as much as residents of provinces with appointed governors.
Democracy in Thailand
Thais have a deep and nuanced understanding of democracy. When asked about the characteristics of a democracy, almost half (48%) describe democracy in terms of rights or freedoms, and more than a third (36%) associates democracy with participation, elections, and majority rule. Just 9% could not provide any characteristic of a democracy, the lowest rate we have ever recorded on this question. A strong majority of Thai voters (68%) recognize that political conflict is a normal part of the democratic process, and that it can be difficult to come to consensus or make decisions, but still overwhelmingly support democracy (95%) as the best form of government.
Democratic Values
The Thai people are significantly more politically tolerant than the publics in other Asian countries; 79% would allow meetings of unpopular parties in their area, just 6% said that a friend joining an unpopular party would end the friendship. Additionally 80% of Thais say people are free to express their political opinions.
Political Interest and Efficacy
Almost three-quarters (71%) say they are somewhat or very interested in politics, which is high by regional standards. The political turmoil of the last three years has not turned off voters, with 83% saying their interest has grown or stayed the same, while just 17% said their interest had decreased. Thais are divided on their opinion as to whether or not the government cares what they think, with (55%) believing the government does not care, and (43%) believing it does. When asked specifically if their opinion could influence government decision-making, 80% said it would have very little or no influence on government decision-making; and just a third (33%) believed their MP addressed their major concerns in Parliament.
Influences on Voting Choice
The most important factor influencing voters’ choice of candidate is the candidate’s availability and accessibility (50%), followed by candidates’ education (17%), and personal achievements (10%). In choosing a party, 57% say the past history or accomplishments of the party were most important, 22% preferred the current plans of the party, and 19% would choose based on the character and accomplishments of the party’s leaders.
Although it is commonly asserted that local leaders have strong influence over voters, just 16% said following the voting recommendations of local leaders makes sense. Similarly, just 10% felt family members choice should be influenced by the opinion of the head of household. Religion has little influence on voter choice: 90% say religious leaders should avoid politics, and 91% say the political recommendations of religious leaders would have little or no influence on their candidate or party choice.
Election Processes
Although a majority of Thais (58%) believe voters in their area could be influenced by vote-buying activity, an overwhelming majority (84%) feel there is no moral obligation to vote for a party or candidate, even if they had accepted money or a gift.
Democratic Institutions
The courts have by far the highest integrity rating among institutions rated, with two-thirds (64%) assessing them positively, while the police are seen as the least trusted institution, with 39% ranking their integrity as low or very low. The army has the second highest positive rating at 44%. Only 35% gave the election commission high marks, and just 21% felt the media has high integrity.
Most voters also doubt the independence and neutrality of Thailand’s democratic institutions. Although
the courts are again the most respected institution, only 62% said they are generally neutral and unbiased; while just 37% believe the army is neutral and unbiased, and just a fifth (19%) felt NGOs were neutral and unbiased. Two-thirds (67%) see the election commission as sometimes or often biased, 81% view the media as biased, and 84% see political bias in the police.
The lack of trust in institutions is reflected in other ways. Half (48%) of all voters believe future elections will not be free and fair, and an astonishing 94% say corruption in government is at least fairly common, with 65% thinking it very common. Regarding corruption among local administrative officials, perceptions are split, with 48% saying it is often necessary to pay bribes for routine services and 26% saying they had personally known someone that had to pay a bribe.
The full survey is available on The Asia Foundation’s website (www.asiafoundation.org).
Comments
...57% would support revoking
...57% would support revoking the pardons granted by the military coup-makers in the 2007 constitution... Only a quarter of citizens (25%) support the shift from an elected senate to a partially appointed senate mandated in the 2007 constitution; 63% say they prefer the system described in the 1997 constitution... three-quarters (74%) reject the proposal to reduce the number of directly elected MPs and replace them with MPs selected by functional groups or independent institutions... 54% would drop the party-list system in favor of single member districts.
A substantial majority (69%) of respondents are in favor of shifting some power from the national to the local level, and directly electing provincial governors. When asked specifically, 75% say they prefer choosing their own governor through direct elections.
In those places that already have elected governors, voters liked their governors twice as much as residents of provinces with appointed governors.
Thais are divided on their opinion as to whether or not the government cares what they think, with (55%) believing the government does not care, and (43%) believing it does. When asked specifically if their opinion could influence government decision-making, 80% said it would have very little or no influence on government decision-making; and just a third (33%) believed their MP addressed their major concerns in Parliament.
Clearly the platform for a new political party... perhaps orange? Otherwise pink.
Besides Bangkok, which provinces elect their governors? and what is the presumably straight-faced rationale for disenfranchisement of the others?
Other, heartening data from
Other, heartening data from he survey :
6.5 Support for Authoritarianism
6.6 Perception of Government
10.2 Moral Understanding of
10.2 Moral Understanding of Vote-buying
10.4 Usefulness of Election Observers
11.2 Trust in
11.2 Trust in Society
11.3 Trust in Neighbors
12.4 Perception of Corruption in Government
The report draws attention to
The report draws attention to the very low level of trust outside of local groups in Thailand and points out the way forward for organizing Thais :
Membership in voluntary associations, which are the foundation of civil society, is remarkably low in Thailand. In total, just 22% (12% in urban areas) belong to any association. To put this in a regional perspective, when the question was asked in Bangladesh (TAF 2006) — a country viewed as having a relatively weak civil society — 29% reported belonging to some form of association. The comparison is even starker when made with Indonesia, which is generally acknowledged to have the strongest civil society in Asia, as in a survey in 1999, 72% reported belonging to an association.
Thais are most likely to belong to some sort of saving association, particularly in rural areas, where 13% report belonging a saving group or coop agricultural bank. Other important groups in rural areas are farmer groups (7%) and women’s associations (4%). In urban areas association membership nowhere exceeds the 2% who, ironically, belong to farmer groups.
The very low level of association membership in Thailand can probably be attributed to the high levels of societal distrust described below. Over the long term, democratization in Thailand could be strengthened through programs that promote the formation and strengthening of voluntary associations.
A grass roots political party is, after all, a voluntary association.
I'm a great believer in
I'm a great believer in direct democracy and the will of the people. If I were a Thai I'd probably be a pamphleteer :
We the people of Thailand unite to form our Pak Gan Mueang Sammakhi Si Som ( พรรคการเมืองสามัคคีสีส้ม ) to preserve ourselves and our country in the face of the its exploitation and our oppression by special, "elite" interests.
We are united in our belief that we need
And so we pledge to work together in each and every one of our provinces, to attain a majority in our parliament, and to realize our sovereign desires.
Supreme Court acquits all
Supreme Court acquits all defendants in rubber sapling case
The "elite" walk, as always.
I wonder if there are any light bulbs lighting up in the heads of the Thai people among whom the Asia Foundations's Survey reports that,
"The courts have by far the highest integrity rating among institutions
rated, with two-thirds (64%) assessing them positively."
The courts are corrupted, to such an extent that they don't even care who knows it.
The court cannot find gulity
The court cannot find gulity of big potiticians under by the evidences obtained by the police and prosecuters, unless the case is nost as clear as Rachad Pisek land deal. This Newin's case needed "star witness" to find him guitly. The police and prosecutors cannot obtain such confessions by the way they are working now. When ex-PM Kakuei TANAKA was arrested for his bribe charge, Tokyo Special Prosecutors's office detained and grilled him for 40 days. Tanaka did not confess anything, but the psychological impact on other suspects must have been huge. Who would bocome a turncoat, if they feel well-protected?
I have never seen solid
I have never seen solid evidence of corruption in this case. The bidding terms were rigged, but there was no evidence of money exchanging hands and so it's about technicalities of rules and regulations. Did they follow them or not?
We, the outsiders, can't form an educated opinion on that.
Ratchada case was totally different - Thaksin knew his wife was buying land, that was enough to break the law.
Pojamarn's tax case was also easy - a genuine wedding gift three years into the marriage or a tax evasion scheme? No-brainer, really.
Ratchada case was totally
Ratchada case was totally different...
Yeah it was, wasn't it. Pojaman was cleared eventually, wasn't she? So Thaksin was found guilty of assisting her in her non-crime?
The problem is "the law" only exists as a stick with which to beat one's enemies.
They're all guilty as hell and they know it. That's why they let their enemies walk when it comes down to it. Gotta "make nice" for when it's your turn in the tumbler.
I'm a little surprised to see
I'm a little surprised to see you make a funny argument that only very simple people can believe is a good point. Go to NCCC site and find the law, read it and then you will understand why Pochaman is aquited.
The Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court didn't have jurisdiction over Pojamarn, as she wasn't an office holder.
"So Thaksin was found guilty of assisting her in her non-crime?" - yes, it's illegal for Thai PM to assist his wife in any contracts with the state. There's no stipulation that wife's contract must be illegal, it's irrelevant.
Trep, I'm not picking you up
Trep, I'm not picking you up but I think it's Supreme court. I know it's just a typo in your case, but correct it for the people who don't have basic knowledge of the case.
I think that last week the court issued the order to confiscate the land. And some people start saying that the decision is "policital" (or a relevant Governmant authority issued the order? I am not 100 % sure) I don't know why the court made the decision now. (if I correctly understood the news.)
They're all guilty as hell
They're all guilty as hell and they know it. That's why they let their enemies walk when it comes down to it. Gotta "make nice" for when it's your turn in the tumbler.
Newin's charge is about the
Newin's charge is about the irregulatiry of using a fund for a wrong purpose. In short he and a high-ranking MOA officer proposed to use the money saved for the export promotion of the rubber for the distirubution of the saplings. The court ackowledged it as an emergency budget measure, so they were acquited.
IMO, the prosecutors (in this case AEC) needed to prove that the bid rigging had took place and Ne Win did involve in it behind the scene, if they really wanted to find him guilty. But they even could not prove that the rigging actually took place let alone Ne Win's involvement. He was even not charged on this count.
I think Thai courts should be more rigid in accepting bail request from poltiicains and other suspects during the corruption case investigation(to grill them to confess), or they should introduce the western type plea-bargain system with heavy penalty for perjury. Otherewise, there will be no way to find a big fish gulity in this type of corruption case.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/br
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/155311/oag-sues-potjaman-for-land-return
BPost put the news about the land. OAG sued Pochaman to get back the land for BOT. The court will judge whether or not she should give back the land and make a legal precednet for the similar cases. But anway, she can get the money back even if the court judges the contract is invalid, I guess.
On Wikipedia it's called
On Wikipedia it's called "Supreme Court of Thailand's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions"
Regardless of the correct name - Thaksin's wife was not a govt official covered by that law so she walked.
The recent case about confiscating the land is a separate matter, but it would be interesting to see how it develops in the next three to five years...
It's much more interesting to see "red" views on current Constitutional amendments and PTP determination to keep people from having any say in the matter whatsoever.
The survey said 87% wanted a referendum. Should I assume that the other 13% are actually red supporters who don't care and whant their MPs to handle this little task.
Incidentally, 33% do not think their MPs represent them, while 24% support appointing MPs as per New Politics proposal. The second largest support for appointments is actually Isan.
Go figure.
The battle of Map Ta Phut By
The battle of Map Ta Phut
The government is the tool, the plaything of the Bangkok "elite" who would cheerfully poison all of Thaialnd and destroy the lives and health of all Thais if it meant a few more baht in their accounts.
Nothing will change until the people gain control of their government.
Simple as that.
"Nothing will change until
"Nothing will change until the people gain control of their government."
Yeah, go, New Politics, GO!!!
The elites have subverted electoral democracy so that no one serving the people would even dare to approach politics, all "representatives" are bought and paid for and forced to work for their sponsors to clear their debts.
It's a vicious circle - without money, you can't get in, and once you there, the money will force you to work for its interests, not for the people. Even billionaires like Thaksin fell victim to money politics.
Complete overhaul of representative system is needed on both local and national levels.
Go, New Politics, GO!!!
How's that, JFL? Feel better?
Good News! Court rules to
Good News!
Court rules to halt industrial projects
Thwarted (by the military's charter no less! the charter drawn up by the "new politicians" will certainly have no such provisions as this!), the "elite" and their putsch will be back, doing their best to overturn any challenge to their absolute power, no matter their plans for the least profit for the smallest number poison the Thai land and the Thai people.
So, the military constitution
So, the military constitution gave people more rights, and the courts, the menial servants of the evil elites, enforced those rights.
Is there something wrong with this picture?
Yeah, Trep has turned out to
Yeah, Trep has turned out to be right. Even though this is the big headacke for the government who's trying to induce in foreign investment, the court must have given the verdict according to what the constitution (2550) said.
The applications for these
The applications for these factories were approved before the 2007 constitution, and they passed Environment Impact studies as required by 1997 constitution, but 2007 version imposed several additional hurdles. They are very unlikely to get local approval, for example, so the only hope for them is if new rules are not applied retroactively. That's the govt position on the issue, but the court has really threw in the spanner.
Looks like the court
Looks like the court suspended the operating permits not on the basis of environmental impact statements being unmet but on the basis of actually measured harm due to toxic waste emanating from the plants over the course of their operating lifetime.
The putsch had arbitrarily overruled the court and allowed their cronies to continue in pursuit of big profits by exporting chemicals made on the cheap, the real cost coming in Thai lives and the destruction of the Thai environment.
The court has said that the people and Thailand are suffering, are damaged, so there is no reason to allow the putsch to make an exception to the law for the benefit of their cronies.
The putsch, of course, is quickly rising up in service to its cronies, Govt to appeal court industry shut down.
Putsch overruled the court
Putsch overruled the court decision made less than a week ago? When did that happen?
And of course the govt will appeal, there is 400 billion going to be invested, with work started on the construction of some factories already.
I thought courts were cronies and the govt was their puppet. What happened?
No. The putsch overrruled the
No. The putsch overrruled the court decision made in March. see Chang Noi's The Battle of Map Ta Phut link with which I began the discussion.
I realize that the government's appeal makes "perfect sense" from your Neoliberal point of view.
The courts are cronies of the government, but I think the puppet status is generally the other way round. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, Thep. It may be that some members of the courts, unlike yourself, place the lives of Thais and the sanctity of the Thai environment ahead of 400 billion baht.
Especially ahead of a foreign "investment" of 400 billion baht. The foreign "investors" are no doubt livid because the "elite" represented themselves as being in total control of Thailand, where the villagers just did not count. They guaranteed that the foreign "investors" need not worry at all about the pollution control measures they would have to take elsewhere in the world, and now the courts have betrayed them! Heads will roll no doubt.
In short, this world is not
In short, this world is not so simple that somebody think.
JFL what do you mean? Chian
JFL what do you mean? Chian Noi wrote as follows.
But the villagers did not give up. Instead they petitioned the provincial court to mandate a proper pollution control zone. The court ruled in their favour in March 2009. What followed was not pretty. Individual firms predicted that foreign confidence in Thailand would collapse and firms would migrate to Vietnam. The Joint Foreign Chambers, who often like to present themselves as responsible upholders of international standards, muttered that they were “not very happy” at the judgement. The Federation of Thai Industries came up with the wonderfully dishonest argument that the designation would ruin local tourism because “travelers may not want to go to the province,” and would ruin local agriculture because “consumers may start wondering if fruit from the province is contaminated.” In short, please let us go on poisoning people.
To his great credit, Abhisit resisted pressure on the government to appeal against the provincial court ruling. The zone goes ahead, though not without difficulty
What putsch is JFL talking
What putsch is JFL talking about?
Is he talking about "individual firms", "Joint Foreign Chambers" and "Federation of Thai Industries"?
Is Abhisit supporting or resisting this "putsch"?
It's all so confusing, I still don't get who is supposed to be whose puppet. All I get that he is ranting about something but not sure himself who the targets are.
Read a little further. Read
Read a little further. Read the line I emboldened both above and below so that you could see through your rose-colored spectacles.
You and your cohort Thep are touting your ability to jump through irrelevant political hoops while the reality on the ground is sick and dead people in a poisoned environment. Your position sems to be "don't look at the reality on the ground, look at that projected by the bureaucracy" because in that fantasyland you can equivocate and delay and nothing will change. Foreign "investors" and their local compradors will continue to make money, money taken out of the bodies of Thai people and out of the Thai land.
The bottom line is that in spite of the courts ruling based upon real damage suffered by real people on a scale so obscene that the court could do nothing but throw up its hands and agree, despite that ruling the foreign "investors" and the Bangkok "elite" are still pushing ahead for business as usual: Killing Thais and poisoning the envirnoment to make a baht. The least profit for the smallest number.
The putsch is the
The putsch is the Democrat/military/PAD complex that seized control of Thailand in December of last year, is still in control of government, and is refusing to hold elections.
The court ruling last may was
The court ruling last may was about the desiganation of Rayoug to contamination controled area, and the court decision was not overruled. The new order of the adminsitruation court is about the article 67. Trep already explained the content of the ruling. The court took the side of the residents based on the 2550's stricter conditions about the "independent organization" and Health Impact Assesment.
March, not May, a correction.
March, not May, a correction. "putsch" means the hilter's Munich uprising! I did not know that. :)
Oh, that putsch. I thought
Oh, that putsch. I thought that alliance doesn't exist anymore, the participants certainly have a lot of disagreements these days and can't function together.
At the moment Abhisit rules as he has all the legal powers.
Merriam Webster says Main
Merriam Webster says
Hitler's was a failed attempt at revolution that occurred between the evening of 8 November and the early afternoon of 9 November 1923. The Democrat/military/Pad putsch of December 2008, some seventy-six years later, was successful. There have been many putschen in between and perhaps will be many more putschen in the future.
The court ruled in March that new projects at Map Ta Phut were frozen. The putsch unfroze them. What part of These have now been allowed to go ahead. do you not understand?
I'm ready to lead New
I'm ready to lead New Politics Party : Sondhi
Drop him a line vowing your support, Khun trep. You're a New Politics man, aren't you?
The Nation "wryly" goes on to observe that "He [Sondhi] was speaking after being sentenced to six months in jail on a libel suit against ex-foreign minister Noppadon Pattama." The Nation is a putsch mouthpiece so that's the party line.
It is pretty clear that the putsch, and they remain cobbled together for the time being, have soured on Sondhi. Abhisit talks as though he has all the legal powers, but Ne Win seems to be the bookmakers' choice for the next PM, especially after the powers that be let him walk scot-free on the sapling scam. Nihil obstat at least, nothing obstructing, his assumption of the mantle of power, if perhaps the actual permission for printing the news of his assent is not yet forthcoming.
The idea is to avoid an election at all costs. That would be returning power to the people.