Govt ‘mistakes to blame for declining popularity’

[webfact]

Govt ‘mistakes to blame for declining popularity’

By Wasamon Audjarint, 
Pratch Rujivanarom 
The Nation 

 

 

Policy blunders, failure to consider others’ opinions responsible for low ratings: critics

THE MILITARY government’s poor performance, mishandling of social movements and provocative comments made by senior officials have caused a major decline in its popularity, analysts have said, suggesting that the generals were acting in a political manner.

 

The main weaknesses of the government were its lack of understanding on many issues, the failure to holistically analyse situations, its own agenda pushing policy without considering better options, and the lack of public participation at many levels of policy planning, said Pracha Koonnathamdee, a lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at Thammasat University.

 

“The recent conflict over the Thepa coal-fired power plant signifies many mistakes committed by the government in governing the country, as they already have one answer in mind to build the coal-fired power plant to meet increasing electricity demand,” he said, giving one example.

 

By making that poor choice, the government had triggered a dispute with local people, who wanted to preserve natural resources and the environment, although there were plenty of wiser choices, such as investing more in renewable energy, Pracha said.

 

The government had also performed poorly in other policy dimensions and projects that benefited the majority in society, but cause difficulties for a minority, as the government did not have proper measures to assist people affected by projects, he said.

 

“Technically, we can collect extra taxes from people who benefit from a project to compensate those who are disadvantaged, but the government chose to let the minority sacrifice for the greater good, which is unfair to them,” he said.

 

From the perspective of local social movements, Direk Hemnakhon, leader of the Thepa coal-fired power plant opposition group, said the government should deal with people with more respect and listen to their problems. 

 

Southerners are among the major supporters of the military government, but the handling of the protest last week backfired on the government in the eyes of the public.

 

“Even though we disagree with the government position on the plan to construct the new coal-fired power plant and we did not elect them to rule the country in the first place, right now they are the legitimate government, so we respect their authority as well as the country’s law and order,” Direk said.

 

Thepa power plant protesters clashed with police last week when they tried to meet with Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha to lodge a petition against the project. Sixteen were arrested and charged, although they were later freed on bail.

 

Police said they were looking for more suspects who had “created difficulties” for the premier as he attended a Cabinet meeting in Songkhla.

 

“However, we urge them [the generals] to properly perform their duty as the country’s rulers, listening to their citizens and working with them to move the country forward, not seeing them as enemies just because we have different views on government policies,” Direk said.

 

The government could easily solve its problems regarding its low approval rating and conflicts with various social movements in the country by listening to people and hearing their concerns and their side of the story, he said.

 

While the junta government might have made several attempts to ensure its long-term grip on power, even after elections via specially designed parliamentary mechanisms, it was eroding its own legitimacy, critics said.

 

National security has been the junta’s number-one reason for staying in power, involving the enactment of several measures to limit public assembly and freeze political parties’ activities for the sake of “social order”.

 

Attasit Pankaew, a Thammasat University political science lecturer, said the junta government should have learned to “act politically” as they had stayed in power for more than three years already.

 

“While the authorities have made special measures and rules to ensure its control of power, dealing with the public is a state-of-the-art skill that should be treated politically rather than legally,” Attasit said.

 

While the government, looking through the military’s lens, might not regard its performance as a total failure, its actions had affected its popularity, Attasit said.

 

“But popularity may not be the biggest concern for the junta, after all,” the academic added. “It is still not certain whether any of them [the generals] will compete in the next election, directly or otherwise.”

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30333104

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-12-04

 

[tracker1]

Hmmmm

[Samui Bodoh]

3 minutes ago, webfact said:

While the junta government might have made several attempts to ensure its long-term grip on power, even after elections via specially designed parliamentary mechanisms, it was eroding its own legitimacy, critics said.

It is fascinating to see how blatantly the power-grab by the military in the new constitution is being talked about (...specially designed parliamentary mechanisms...) these days, both in the Nation and the Other Newspaper. I assume that Thai language media is equally forthcoming.

 

This is the problem with having military people in charge of governments; there are examples of generals going on to lead governments effectively (Eisenhower in the US for example), but it is the exception rather than the rule.

 

The current government's competence and legitimacy are being widely questioned, and history shows that once that process begins, it is rare for it to be reversed by any government, even the most deftly managed ones.

 

12 minutes ago, webfact said:

Police said they were looking for more suspects who had “created difficulties” for the premier as he attended a Cabinet meeting in Songkhla.

 

The quote above is a textbook example of what not to do. The premier has left the South and the dispute is over. However, the desire to punish has overridden common sense and the story of the bad visit continues.

 

The next year will be very interesting...

[halloween]

Should governments take into account uninformed/misinformed opinion because it is widely held?

[candide]

19 minutes ago, halloween said:

Should governments take into account uninformed/misinformed opinion because it is widely held?

Interesting philosophical question, but it is not about governments "in general" (if I dare say), but about the failure of this particular autocratic and self-appointed government.

[Samui Bodoh]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

Should governments take into account uninformed/misinformed opinion because it is widely held?

That is both a highly complex question and a very good question.

 

Governments are there to govern, and there are certainly times when they can and should make decisions for the benefit of/on behalf of the populace, even when on the surface the reasons aren't clear or popular.

 

However, the ability to make decisions in defiance of 'conventional wisdom' requires the government to be highly legitimate, highly credible and highly trusted. Further, there must be some kind of accountability for the decisions, something that isn't really prevalent at the moment. According to the news article, the current government does not meet the requirements outlined above.

 

My own view is that the government needs to establish its legitimacy, credibility and trust before undertaking decisions as above. However, I don't believe that there is an easy answer to the question.

 

[Chris Lawrence]

24 minutes ago, halloween said:

Should governments take into account uninformed/misinformed opinion because it is widely held?

What or who shaped opinion?

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

What or who shaped opinion?

Those with a green agenda that oppose the coal-fired power station, and are prepared to incite health and environmental fears far in excess of reality..

[greenchair]

34 minutes ago, halloween said:

Should governments take into account uninformed/misinformed opinion because it is widely held?

Absolutely. 

The government is there to represent all people, therefore they have a duty to take into account every view and different opinion. 

If the opinion is based on ignorance, fear, lack of education, misinformation, then the government has a duty to respect, calm the fear, educate and inform the correct information. 

They all pay taxes. They all pay the government salaries. They have their rights just like the informed and well educated. 

[halloween]

14 minutes ago, candide said:

Interesting philosophical question, but it is not about governments "in general" (if I dare say), but about the failure of this particular autocratic and self-appointed government.

This particular government apparently rejects the uninformed/ill-informed opinion of villagers fed BS by those with their own agenda, preferring the input of those with expertise in the field of supplying reliable 24/7 energy to the people of southern Thailand. should they be more like Yingluk and continue with a disastrous policy because it is popular (at least with those whose perception was that they were benefiting)?

[Dave67]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

It is fascinating to see how blatantly the power-grab by the military in the new constitution is being talked about (...specially designed parliamentary mechanisms...) these days, both in the Nation and the Other Newspaper. I assume that Thai language media is equally forthcoming.

 

This is the problem with having military people in charge of governments; there are examples of generals going on to lead governments effectively (Eisenhower in the US for example), but it is the exception rather than the rule.

 

The current government's competence and legitimacy are being widely questioned, and history shows that once that process begins, it is rare for it to be reversed by any government, even the most deftly managed ones.

 

 

The quote above is a textbook example of what not to do. The premier has left the South and the dispute is over. However, the desire to punish has overridden common sense and the story of the bad visit continues.

 

The next year will be very interesting...

Agreed very interesting indeed

[JAG]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

This is the problem with having military people in charge of governments; there are examples of generals going on to lead governments effectively (Eisenhower in the US for example), but it is the exception rather than the rule.

Eisenhower was elected to lead the government as a former General. He didn't appoint himself whilst serving as a General, and in the process cancelling an election.

[stephen tracy]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

It is fascinating to see how blatantly the power-grab by the military in the new constitution is being talked about (...specially designed parliamentary mechanisms...) these days, both in the Nation and the Other Newspaper. I assume that Thai language media is equally forthcoming.

 

This is the problem with having military people in charge of governments; there are examples of generals going on to lead governments effectively (Eisenhower in the US for example), but it is the exception rather than the rule.

 

The current government's competence and legitimacy are being widely questioned, and history shows that once that process begins, it is rare for it to be reversed by any government, even the most deftly managed ones.

 

 

The quote above is a textbook example of what not to do. The premier has left the South and the dispute is over. However, the desire to punish has overridden common sense and the story of the bad visit continues.

 

The next year will be very interesting...

I don't think we can really compare Prayuth with Eisenhower. At the very least, the latter was a real general. 

[stephen tracy]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Those with a green agenda that oppose the coal-fired power station, and are prepared to incite health and environmental fears far in excess of reality..

Easy to say when the plant isn't being built next to you. 

[stephen tracy]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

This particular government apparently rejects the uninformed/ill-informed opinion of villagers fed BS by those with their own agenda, preferring the input of those with expertise in the field of supplying reliable 24/7 energy to the people of southern Thailand. should they be more like Yingluk and continue with a disastrous policy because it is popular (at least with those whose perception was that they were benefiting)?

This "government" isn't even ill-informed... it's not informed at all. It makes knee-jerk decisions without any foresight and without any public participation. One blunder after another. You can't ride roughshod over stakeholders and expect them to bend over an take it. Even most big multinationals now have CSR programs in place to ensure stakeholder engagement, but asking the junta do as much is liking asking a bear to defecate on a toilet. 

[Thechook]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

That is both a highly complex question and a very good question.

 

Governments are there to govern, and there are certainly times when they can and should make decisions for the benefit of/on behalf of the populace, even when on the surface the reasons aren't clear or popular.

 

However, the ability to make decisions in defiance of 'conventional wisdom' requires the government to be highly legitimate, highly credible and highly trusted. Further, there must be some kind of accountability for the decisions, something that isn't really prevalent at the moment. According to the news article, the current government does not meet the requirements outlined above.

 

My own view is that the government needs to establish its legitimacy, credibility and trust before undertaking decisions as above. However, I don't believe that there is an easy answer to the question.

 

But governing isn't a military role, their role is to march up and down and polish boots.

[greenchair]

7 minutes ago, Thechook said:

But governing isn't a military role, their role is to march up and down and polish boots.

And when yingluck was in power and requested assistance , they said their role was to protect the borders of the country, not get involved in politics.

Note: from my vague recollections. 

[brucec64]

Should governments take into account uninformed/misinformed opinion because it is widely held?

The UK government is moving forward with Brexit, so I guess the answer is yes. The government should move forward with an uninformed/misinformed opinion if it is a majority uninformed/misinformed opinion.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ChrisY1]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

Should governments take into account uninformed/misinformed opinion because it is widely held?

Generally in peaceful countries...I would say most governments would reject or ignore misinformed opinions, regardless whether those opinions are widely believed.

Unfortunately, Thailand has this inane fetish of "face"..where revenge must be sought...ignoring false information can't happen...damage has been done and the perpetrators must be captured!

[Lupatria]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

Should governments take into account uninformed/misinformed opinion because it is widely held?

...and who is doing the outmost to keep the majority uninformed/misinformed by constant brainwashing and suppressing the media?

[aonangkrabi]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

This particular government apparently rejects the uninformed/ill-informed opinion of villagers fed BS by those with their own agenda, preferring the input of those with expertise in the field of supplying reliable 24/7 energy to the people of southern Thailand. should they be more like Yingluk and continue with a disastrous policy because it is popular (at least with those whose perception was that they were benefiting)?

Who is here the badly informed person Mr. Halloween? If the earth is to survive, coal is the first fossil fuel to be discarded.

[fullcave]

33 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

The UK government is moving forward with Brexit, so I guess the answer is yes. The government should move forward with an uninformed/misinformed opinion if it is a majority uninformed/misinformed opinion.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

An excellent example of an uninformed/ misinformed widely held opinion. Gulp. 

 

[NextStationBangkok]

Hide everything, and just simply blame the blame...

[Emster23]

Hey, how about promises made and not kept?

[wvavin]

Declining Popularity? It is a clear Ostrich Syndrome! 

[craigt3365]

Seems like the same mistakes made by the previous government.

[Becker]

4 hours ago, halloween said:

Should governments take into account uninformed/misinformed opinion because it is widely held?

Well, hello there halloween. Been a while since you defended your junta now. Maybe even you can see them for what they are?

But I digress. The real question is this:

Should the junta take into account public opinion at all, i.e. should there be elections in Thailand? What do you say, halloween? I guess the answer is no since you seem to consider all opinions that disagree with yours as un/misinformed.

[YetAnother]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

The government could easily solve its problems regarding its low approval rating and conflicts with various social movements in the country by listening to people and hearing their concerns and their side of the story, he said.

not possible; military generals self train themselves to Not do any of those; indeed lose those abilities

[nausea]

You really misunderstand where this administration is coming from, they have the wolf by the ears and daren't let go.

[stephen tracy]

59 minutes ago, Lupatria said:

...and who is doing the outmost to keep the majority uninformed/misinformed by constant brainwashing and suppressing the media?

That's too difficult a question for halloween, it will make the brain go tilt. Instead of answering he'll respond (if at all) with some gibberish deflection involving the former PM... the elected one.