Thai Government Passes Test After 1-year Performance

[webfact]

ABAC Poll:

Govt passes test after 1-year performance

BANGKOK, 27 December 2009 (NNT) - The Democrat ruling government has passed the test after one year in administration, according to the recent poll by the Assumption University Research Center (ABAC Poll).

Respondents were asked about the overall performance of the Democrat-led government during their 1-year in office. The poll showed that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gained an average grade of 7.19 out of 10 in terms of his dedication to working for the nation. He recieved 6.33 on his overall performance since taking office. The cabinet ministries acquired an average grade of 6.15 on its dedication while its works stood at 5.91.

The ruling government's overall performance has been given an average point of 6.18, followed by the provision of independence for government officials (5.95), the integrity (5.69), the unity (5.58). The Ministry of Education recieved an average of 6.74, the Ministry of the Social Development and Human Security gained 6.51 and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports obtained 6.42.

In addition, the survey indicated that the Democrat-led government's tasks were the most satisfactory, as their 15-year free education scheme recieved 30.99 while the most unsatisfactory one gained only 27.92 in reference to the solution to the southern unrest.

-- NNT 2009/12/27

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[lounger]

Good name for a university. I suppose the assumption was that the poll would favour the government and this was achieved by assumption screening....

[Bagwan]

What is this? 7+ points of approval for the Government. An outbreak of unity?

Well why not? Everything else has failed.

[pammy123]

So what exactly have they done????????????????????

[gunnyd]

"Assumption University Research Center" Hmm... 2 things come to mind: When you assume you make an ass of u and me. And when I was a trooper our sergeants always said that assumption was the mother of all <deleted>-ups.

Edited December 27, 2009 by gunnyd

[Thailand]

Ah - the mother of all assumptions

[Oberkommando]

Last week's poll showed they had failed with 4.5 out of 10 in a survey of business leaders.

Handy to know who the respondents are in any poll, and results are meaningless unless we know who they actually polled.

[h90]

So what exactly have they done????????????????????

nothing bad.

[animatic]

So what exactly have they done????????????????????

Fast answer is survived.

Considering the repeated 'dead by Easter' prognostications, they have held on

and made things move ahead against large odds.

Longer answer is worked a few decent programs into the food chain,

in spite of very limited funds to do it with, prevented the economy from utter colapse,

and in spite of all extensive efforts by the so called opposition to prevent ANYTHING happening

that could be to the governments credit.

[SM7WGP]

When I think of all they done ............................No cant think of anything they have done

[caf]

Thailand is the hub of assumptions ??

or, in other words, if one poll gives the "wrong" answer set up another one till you get the "right" answer.

and a definition of "right" is not one the average Thai is party to.

[Publicus]

As with any public opinion scientific research survey, this poll will be picked at, dissected, turned upside down and inside out, torn, shredded. The usual suspects already are at it, more can be expected to come.  

Whether this particular research survey is precisely accurate or simply has a general validity, it stands to reason that a number of factors over the past year could be expected to have moved a significant number of the 'waiting to see' among the population towards the position and predicament of the government.

A most recent one is Hun Sen and his shinny new economics advisor. Before that however there was the assault against Asean in Pattaya, then the riots of Black Songkran, the re-emergence of Chavalit to the side of the opposition, repeated street actions to include yet another mass disruption to solicit pardons and amnesties of undesirable has beens, and just more of the same-o same-o.

Conversely, Abhisit has manged to govern and to begin to deliver to the population. Abhisit has had his photo ops with Obama in the US and in Singapore, been chair of Asean, asserted Thai sovereignty against Cambodia, participated in Apec, tried to make a peace in Chiang Mai but had to yield to national security in the face of death threats by certain demonstrably nasty people, travelled to the South with the new PM of Malaysia and more.

This survey can be criticized in any number of ways for various purposes and intents, but it is fundamentally consistent with others we have seen during recent months.   

 

[Thai at Heart]

So what exactly have they done????????????????????

1. Survived more than a year with a lame duck coalition. A truly astonishing achievement in recent Thai politics.

2. Survived more than a year without a coup. At least that old plan has been kept under wraps. I hope the army stays on the golf course for ever.

3. Pretty much shut up Sondhi. I don't care who shot him, but at least he has wound his neck in.

4. Avoided a war with Cambodia. They haven't handled it perfectly, but at least no war yet.

Other than that, politically and economically, Thailand is still worse off than it was the day before the coup. Some is Dems fault some not, but it doesn't look like a particularly prosperous New Year for Thailand.

Does Thai TV do a satirical review of the "year in Politics". 2009 would be a vintage edition.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[givenall]

So what exactly have they done????????????????????

What he has done is survive Thaksin tricks and back stabbing. I thing he would be able to do a lot more if was putting all his afford to govern instead of continuous problem caused by the Thaksin and his RED goons

[Oberkommando]

This survey can be criticized in any number of ways for various purposes and intents, but it is fundamentally consistent with others we have seen during recent months.

Not consistent with the last poll showing the government had failed with a 4.5 out of 10 score in their first year in office.

Here it is, as you must have missed it.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Mixed-Views-...ic-t323697.html

As with any public opinion scientific research survey, this poll will be picked at, dissected, turned upside down and inside out, torn, shredded. The usual suspects already are at it, more can be expected to come.

Easy to dissect and find flaws when we don't know who the respondents were.

Leads me to believe that was deliberately left out of the article as surely any journalist with a shred of integrity or an ounce of self-respect and who is even mildly competent at his/her job wouldn't have made that mistake.

[bangkokgas]

So what exactly have they done????????????????????

The fact that they may have not done anything can be seen as a success in many (Thai) eyes. Certainly, the country is enjoying stability of sorts and Khun A deserves credit for that considering the situation when he took the seat.

[Publicus]

This survey can be criticized in any number of ways for various purposes and intents, but it is fundamentally consistent with others we have seen during recent months.

Not consistent with the last poll showing the government had failed with a 4.5 out of 10 score in their first year in office.

Here it is, as you must have missed it.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Mixed-Views-...ic-t323697.html

As with any public opinion scientific research survey, this poll will be picked at, dissected, turned upside down and inside out, torn, shredded. The usual suspects already are at it, more can be expected to come.

Easy to dissect and find flaws when we don't know who the respondents were.

Leads me to believe that was deliberately left out of the article as surely any journalist with a shred of integrity or an ounce of self-respect and who is even mildly competent at his/her job wouldn't have made that mistake.

It was a tuff act for the many Nation critics to have to pivot, even pirouette, to cite as credible and authoritative the Dec 21 Nation report of its survey findings that Abhisit got a 4.5, so one can understand why few among that particular bunch who accepted the survey and promoted it did so without demanding extensive information about the poll's methods, techniques, survey respondents or even its statistical margin of error, all common components of any such reports by, for example US/Canadian media (not always reported in European media either).

For those who still continue to ask what the Abhisit government has done during the past year, the Nation survey pointed out that the Asia Golden Rice group gave Abhisit a 7-8 for replacing and innovating the farm project pledging program, that the Federation of Industries gave Aghisit a 9 for his determination to deal with the country's political and economic challenges and an 8 for action, the Board of Trade gave a 9 for Abhisit's calm in dealing with problems and a 7 for the government's bidding processes and procedures. 

The survey in this thread found results more favorable to the government in other areas as well, so yes, we'd all like to see details and specifics of each survey to include its methods, techniques, questions and sequence of questioning, weightings, and of course margin of error. We'd like to see the whole of each survey online and would like to see more complete and thorough reporting of public opinion scientific research surveys by Thai media. However, TiT journalsim is like everything else TiT.

The fact remains that at the end of the day for a year now the Abhisit government is here and the country is becoming less tenuous. Taken on balance, the recent surveys testify to this increasing sense of an improving stability.  

[caf]

So what exactly have they done????????????????????

1. Survived more than a year with a lame duck coalition. A truly astonishing achievement in recent Thai politics.

2. Survived more than a year without a coup. At least that old plan has been kept under wraps. I hope the army stays on the golf course for ever.

3. Pretty much shut up Sondhi. I don't care who shot him, but at least he has wound his neck in.

4. Avoided a war with Cambodia. They haven't handled it perfectly, but at least no war yet.

Other than that, politically and economically, Thailand is still worse off than it was the day before the coup. Some is Dems fault some not, but it doesn't look like a particularly prosperous New Year for Thailand.

Does Thai TV do a satirical review of the "year in Politics". 2009 would be a vintage edition.

1. You aren't really astonished are you? Look at the backing he had. He is being allowed to "govern". His predecessors were not.

4. There was no war when his predecessors were in power either.

[caf]

This survey can be criticized in any number of ways for various purposes and intents, but it is fundamentally consistent with others we have seen during recent months.

Not consistent with the last poll showing the government had failed with a 4.5 out of 10 score in their first year in office.

Here it is, as you must have missed it.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Mixed-Views-...ic-t323697.html

As with any public opinion scientific research survey, this poll will be picked at, dissected, turned upside down and inside out, torn, shredded. The usual suspects already are at it, more can be expected to come.

Easy to dissect and find flaws when we don't know who the respondents were.

Leads me to believe that was deliberately left out of the article as surely any journalist with a shred of integrity or an ounce of self-respect and who is even mildly competent at his/her job wouldn't have made that mistake.

It was a tuff act for the many Nation critics to have to pivot, even pirouette, to cite as credible and authoritative the Dec 21 Nation report of its survey findings that Abhisit got a 4.5, so one can understand why few among that particular bunch who accepted the survey and promoted it did so without demanding extensive information about the poll's methods, techniques, survey respondents or even its statistical margin of error, all common components of any such reports by, for example US/Canadian media (not always reported in European media either).

For those who still continue to ask what the Abhisit government has done during the past year, the Nation survey pointed out that the Asia Golden Rice group gave Abhisit a 7-8 for replacing and innovating the farm project pledging program, that the Federation of Industries gave Aghisit a 9 for his determination to deal with the country's political and economic challenges and an 8 for action, the Board of Trade gave a 9 for Abhisit's calm in dealing with problems and a 7 for the government's bidding processes and procedures.

The survey in this thread found results more favorable to the government in other areas as well, so yes, we'd all like to see details and specifics of each survey to include its methods, techniques, questions and sequence of questioning, weightings, and of course margin of error. We'd like to see the whole of each survey online and would like to see more complete and thorough reporting of public opinion scientific research surveys by Thai media. However, TiT journalsim is like everything else TiT.

The fact remains that at the end of the day for a year now the Abhisit government is here and the country is becoming less tenuous. Taken on balance, the recent surveys testify to this increasing sense of an improving stability.

You rightly criticise the surveys - concluding TIT - then, contradicting yourself, say. "the country is becoming less tenuous. Taken on balance, the recent surveys testify to this increasing sense of an improving stability. "

If you had said - more simply and without the verbal diarrea - "I accept that the surveys are fatally flawed but I personally think stability is improving" you would have sounded less contradictory.

I still would not have agreed your point about stability

Anyway glad to see you are backing down a little when your contradictions and bias are exposed.

[webfact]

UPDATE

SURVEY

Abhisit popular, but Suthep not

By The Nation

Published on December 28, 2009

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has topped a list of most favourite government politicians but his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban scored only 7 per cent, according to Abac poll released yesterday.

Pheu Thai Party party list MP Chalerm Yoobamrung from the Opposition got 48 per cent and Pheu Thai Party MP Jatuporn Prompan 21 per cent.

The ministries most favoured by respondents were Education, Health and Finance, respectively.

Meanwhile, Parliamentary reporters condemned the Lower House as a "bad-barbaric-boot out" because both government and Opposition MPs resorted to violence and bad behaviour over the past year. The Senate was hailed "a leaking net" because of alleged nepotsim by Senators who could not screen laws effectively as they are supposed to.

House Speaker Chai Chidchob was called a "funny and cunning old man" for his use of humours to draw laughs from MPs to relieve stress after heated arguments or debate during House meetings. Chai's humour had saved the House from further conflict and turmoil several times.

Senate Speaker Prasopsuk Boondet was described as a "moving pillar" because of his lack of leadership and failure to be a firm. He had disappointed the public by giving in to pressure and interest groups.

Chalerm was named a "dying star" due to lacklustre performances of late. He had previously been seen as a rising star but had not been find more hard-hitting revelations against his rivals.

The Pheu Thai Party also gave nicknames to prominent politicians, starting with Abhisit who they called the "caretaker PM" because of supposed indecisiveness and failure to name a national police chief. Suthep was named "Thaug who takes every way possible" for his efforts to do anything to help the government survive as long as possible. Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij was named "a stubborn child who insists on seeking a loan" but fails to explain how the money can be wisely used or repaid.

Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya was dubbed "a hooligan minister" for his statements attacking Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Transport Minister Sophon Saram was named "Sophon na Tollway" for allowing the Don Muang Tollway to increase its fee even though its contract had legal snags.

Deputy PM Korbsak Sabhavasu was named "Lord of the mess" after corruption allegations in the Office of Sufficiency Economy for Community Development, which he oversaw.

Pheu Thai Party Nan MP Dr Cholnan Srikaew was named "a rising star" for his competence and remarkable reasoning skills during House sessions.

-- The Nation 2009/12/28

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[animatic]

Attacking the points made by a poster is not the same as attacking the poster.

Doing the two together does not even matters out.

Attacking the poster is still bad regardless if the argument is successfully rebutted or not.

References to 'verbal diarrea' or grand-eloquent style, do not further any counter arguments,

but it does put needlessly argumentative types on mods lists, as 'troublesome' 'family feuding' types.

There is a difference between "opinion polls" and "scientific opinion surveys"

And if some can't tell the difference in technique and scientific/statistical basis,

then that might explain several things about recent postings.

It seems to be deemed a good poll if it backs an anecdotal opinion set,

but is scientifically irrelevant if it doesn't back a scientifically null opinion.

[caf]

Attacking the points made by a poster is not the same as attacking the poster.

Doing the two together does not even matters out.

Attacking the poster is still bad regardless if the argument is successfully rebutted or not.

References to 'verbal diarrea' or grand-eloquent style, do not further any counter arguments,

but it does put needlessly argumentative types on mods lists, as 'troublesome' 'family feuding' types.

There is a difference between "opinion polls" and "scientific opinion surveys"

And if some can't tell the difference in technique and scientific/statistical basis,

then that might explain several things about recent postings.

It seems to be deemed a good poll if it backs an anecdotal opinion set,

but is scientifically irrelevant if it doesn't back a scientifically null opinion.

1. If you read my two posts I am "attacking", as you quaintly put it. what he says and the way he says it - not him personally. Referring to his obvious bias and the differences in language when he refers to Thaksin and Abhisit is not attacking, it is putting across my point of view. You will note many contradictions in his post about surveys. I pointed these out.

Obviously in a debate one sometimes puts up only one point of view but one can do that with respect. He never does that in his posts when he keeps bringing in Thaksin's name. And in this particular thread the points are about surveys and Abhisit not Thaksin anyway.

2. I am not commenting on mod's lists. That is a matter for them not you or me. You probably saw though the public warnings that have been given in previous posts when he and others were breaking forum rules regarding Thaksin's names.

3. "It seems to be deemed a good poll if it backs an anecdotal opinion set" I don't see any reference to that in the thread. Posters are commenting as I have on the invalidity of the poll, irrespective of whether they agree with the polls findings or not.

I am not a Thaksin supporter and if posters made more balanced posts and stopped the name-calling you might find that some of the points you and Publicus make will come across very persuasively. You may get converts. "Attacking" and you certainly won't.

[animatic]

sssnnnnzzzz.

Commenting negatively and repeatedly on a posters style is tantamount

of a personal attack; using their way of communicating as the point of the thrust.

There are scientific polls of sufficent size and cultural breadth to have general validity

as barometers of public sentiment or future voting patterns. All designed with clear results,

and empirically viable results as the main end product. This is scientific polling.

But there are more often putative polls used with purposely bias causing techniques

and purposely low numerical values, and subjectively chosen locations AND questions,

that successfully back up a point of view and LOGICLY only that point of view,

as backing it up was the intent of the faux polling event.

These same techniques are taught in tandem in scientific polling courses as things to AVOID.

And acknowledged as techniques that can sway an argument if used in a intentionally biased manner.

There are yet others, who's methods were so un-clearly drawn that multiple views

can be drawn just by massaging the numbers to suit multiple divergent clients aims.

This is a profit making art in itself, and seems the more typical polling device in Thailand's political spheres.

Also leaving out some datum while accentuating others can also warp the general picture to suit a pre-existing perspective,

and thus generate profit from a client looking to sway an argument, or fool the people into their point of view,

by making the few think they actual are 'with the many' and thus 'group more together psychologically'

rather than think for themselves as individuals.

Edited December 28, 2009 by animatic

[Steve2UK]

<snip>

There are scientific polls of sufficent size and cultural breadth to have general validity

as barometers of public sentiment or future voting patterns. All designed with clear results,

and empirically viable results as the main end product. This is scientific polling.

But there are more often putative polls used with purposely bias causing techniques

and purposely low numerical values, and subjectively chosen locations AND questions,

that successfully back up a point of view and LOGICLY only that point of view,

as backing it up was the intent of the faux polling event.

These same techniques are taught in tandem in scientific polling courses as things to AVOID.

And acknowledged as techniques that can sway an argument if used in a intentionally biased manner.

There are yet others, who's methods were so un-clearly drawn that multiple views

can be drawn just by massaging the numbers to suit multiple divergent clients aims.

This is a profit making art in itself, and seems the more typical polling device in Thailand's political spheres.

Also leaving out some datum while accentuating others can also warp the general picture to suit a pre-existing perspective,

and thus generate profit from a client looking to sway an argument, or fool the people into their point of view,

by making the few think they actual are 'with the many' and thus 'group more together psychologically'

rather than think for themselves as individuals.

Admirably put - IMO all should take note when looking at these polls, let alone selected/abbreviated reporting of them. Consistent with an earlier post about a different ABAC poll that purported to show Abhisit trailing Thaksin in popularity:

Demographics based polls are totally location and numbers driven.

They can be easily manipulated, especially this 'typical' ABAC polls of 2,500 persons or less.

Any sampling below 1% of the populace,

evenly divided numerically between all population segments,

relative to their individual size at a location,

across the whole area represented is given from 3-5-10% margin of error

for lack of sample weight. 3-5% of totally group (65mil.) is best for any valid sampling of sentiment.

Even at 3% error Abhisit is well within the margin of error caused by a far too small sampling area.

The fact they don't state where, how large a sample, and the EXACT questions in order asked,

indicates it has rather small validity in the bigger picture.

What ISN'T anywhere near in dispute is the 53+% who didn't want to commit to either.

A glaring indictment of the Thai political class.

"numbers and formulas such as least regression squares and laws of probability and all of that" actually for?]

When I first saw the NNT OP, I went to the ABAC website to find the information missing from the selective reporting - details of sample size, breakdown by age, education, income, location etc...... and, of course, wording and order of questions (which include subjects not mentioned in the NNT report). It's all in Thai, so I enlisted the help of a Thai friend. Sad to say, we couldn't find any mention of the crucial details about sampling - so who knows what the methodology was? Perhaps a diligent Thai-reading member could look and see if they can find what we couldn't: http://www.abacpoll.au.edu/flash/2552/hotpoll121952_g.swf

I've commented before: lies, damned lies, statistics - and opinion polls (even ones termed a "public opinion scientific research survey").....

[mca]

I've commented before: lies, damned lies, statistics - and opinion polls (even ones termed a "public opinion scientific research survey").....

Ain't that the truth.

Ask the question "How important is it to be reasonably fluent in the English language?"

Put it to a group of 100 Thai-English translators.

Put it to a group of 100 samlor riding recyclers.

See what the results say.

Or if you got the statistics simply from my household "What percentage of Thai people speak English either excellently or fluently?" you get a result of 100%.

[Maestro]

A flame and the reply to it have been deleted.

--

Maestro

[animatic]

I've commented before: lies, damned lies, statistics - and opinion polls (even ones termed a "public opinion scientific research survey").....

Ain't that the truth.

Ask the question "How important is it to be reasonably fluent in the English language?"

Put it to a group of 100 Thai-English translators.

Put it to a group of 100 samlor riding recyclers.

See what the results say.

Or if you got the statistics simply from my household "What percentage of Thai people speak English either excellently or fluently?" you get a result of 100%.

LOL, thanks gotta love it!

Still LOL.