Public Content With Military Performance In Helping Flood Victims: Thai Poll

[webfact]

Public content with military performance in helping flood victims: Poll

BANGKOK, Nov 25 – Thailand’s public is more satisfied with the military’s performance in assisting flood victims, and the least satisfaction was accorded local politicians, according to a new opinion poll released on Friday.

The Bangkok Poll Centre surveyed 1,087 people aged 18 and older across the country on Nov 22-24 on the flood and the performance of each sector.

About 98.3 per cent of the respondents said they were content with soldiers’ performance in helping flood victims, followed by help from compatriots at 98.2 per cent and volunteer groups at 96.6 per cent.

Least satisfaction was given to local politicians at 51.8 per cent, the government’s Flood Relief Operations Centre at 64.3 per cent and the Prime Minister at 67.7 per cent.

Regarding their support of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, about 47 per cent of the respondents still support her to continue as prime minister while 24.5 per cent think otherwise.

Three-fourths -- 72.6 per cent -- of the respondents believed that the major cause of the flood crisis is unusual and heavy volume of sustained rainfall, while 58 per cent viewed mismanagement and poor performance of flood-related agencies are to blame, and 55.6 per cent thought that the limited capability of the existing irrigation system cannot respond to a megadisaster.

Half the population believe the disaster will happen again, but only 2 per cent discount that possibility.

As Bangkok spreads over an extensive low-lying area very closed to sea level, there have been recent suggestions to relocate the Thai capital. The survey found that about nearly two-thirds -- 60.4 per cent -- disagree with relocation, while only one in four -- 27.8 per cent – agreed to the proposed move.

The northeastern province of Nakhon Ratchasima (Korat) is the site welcomed by a majority of those polled. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2011-11-25

[webfact]

Poll: Public Satisfied with Military Flood Relief Effort

According to a recent opinion poll conducted by the Bangkok University, most people felt that the flood was caused by nature and were satisfied with the armed forces' flood relief effort.

According to a recent opinion poll conducted by Bangkok University, which surveyed people on how they felt about the flood management efforts performed by various sectors, many of them had mixed views.

1,087 people above the age of 18 were surveyed nationwide from November 22 to 24.

72.6 percent feel the flood was caused by nature, as this year had more rainfall than usual.

However, 58 percent of the respondents saw that the mismanagement of the floodwater as the reason behind the disaster.

Meanwhile, only 55.6 percent pointed to the limited capacity of the country's irrigation system, which is not designed to handle disasters of this magnitude.

Regarding the question on which sectors the public is most satisfied with regarding the flood-relief effort, the military tops the list at 98.3 percent, followed by the Thai people themselves at 98.2 percent, and the various volunteer organizations at 96.6 percent.

As for the group the public is least satisfied with, 67.7 percent pointed to the prime minister, 64.3 percent to the Flood Relief Operations Center, and 51.8 percent gave the local politicians thumbs down.

When asked should the capital be relocated, 60.5 percent of the people oppose the idea, while only 27.8 percent support it.

The latter proposed that the capital be moved to Nakhon Ratchasima Province.

-- Tan Network 2011-11-25

[travelmann]

Hooorah lets have a coup

[travelmann]

Papers did a good job of educating them then , still I know someone has to take the blame

72.6 percent feel the flood was caused by nature, as this year had more rainfall than usual

[yoshiwara]

Hooorah lets have a coup

Prior to the onset of the floods Jatuporn was trying to up the political temperature and energise the so-called red villages against a threatened coup.

A positive view of the military will not help that strategy. No wonder Thaksin wanted the amnesty issue back on the front page asap.

Bad timing as the crisis is far from over. You can hear the grinding of gritted teeth.

[animatic]

...About 98.3 per cent of the respondents said they were content with soldiers’ performance in helping flood victims, followed by help from compatriots at 98.2 per cent and volunteer groups at 96.6 per cent....

The politicians would give a lung to get numbers like this.

They had the opportunity, but obviously NOT the aptitude.

They clear don't when

...58 per cent viewed mismanagement and poor performance of flood-related agencies are to blame...

What was a larger rainy season and expected flooding, turned into a world class national crisis. And international incident affecting millons across the globe. Mismanagement indeed!

[exeter]

Yes the military did a good job in the floods, performed far better than the politicians, especially the ones who mis managed the release of flood water, but one has to look after ones self doesnt one.

[DennyEagle]

The previous PM could have done worse, let democracy work , she was elected, he was not, Thai people need to run this country not the Brits, have another election she will win again, life is life, don't like it go home!

Edited November 25, 2011 by DennyEagle

[Buchholz]

The previous PM could have done worse, let democracy work , she was elected, he was not, Thai people need to run this country not the Brits, have another election she will win again, life is life, don't like it go home!

here we go again...

Abhisit shouldn't slam anyone. The floods were going on when he was PM and he didn't do anything either except ride around in a boat and have his picture taken. He's a slime ball. He's still crying because he was thrown out of the PM position and can't stand it that the people do not want him. Except the Bangkok elite of course.

I am not a Red shirt, but I salute your statement. He would'nt have done better for sure...

May I have a link to your crystal ball please.

The best response yet to this often-repeated moot point.

[JAG]

The Army (the troops) did indeed do well with their work to assist flooded communities. Full marks. I'm sure that the public are proud of them. They are after all their sons!

I suspect that the public's admiration and affection for their soldiers does not extend too any great extent to the gilded Generals who command them!

Edited November 25, 2011 by JAG

[nong38]

The previous PM could have done worse, let democracy work , she was elected, he was not, Thai people need to run this country not the Brits, have another election she will win again, life is life, don't like it go home!

I agree with Yinglook won the election now its up to her to see what she can, not been a great start though, she will be judged in 4 years time. Last year my diary tells me the water levels were at their highest on 4th Nov, we did not have a flood, this year the water which did flood was at its highest 18th Oct, last year I remember people saying the worst for 50 years, so maybe the floods were handled better by the previous administration and the coment about the Brits was uncalled for after all the Brits did run 1/3rd of the world successfully for over 100 years, you could put a lot worse people in charge. You imply Abhisit was not a good man to be running the country. I thought he looked and sounded the part and was not linked to corruption but thai politics moves in strange ways and even when they might have found a good man or woman they may not realize it.

[Tomissan]

Poll: Public Satisfied with Military Flood Relief Effort

According to a recent opinion poll conducted by the Bangkok University, most people felt that the flood was caused by nature and were satisfied with the armed forces' flood relief effort.

According to a recent opinion poll conducted by Bangkok University, which surveyed people on how they felt about the flood management efforts performed by various sectors, many of them had mixed views.

1,087 people above the age of 18 were surveyed nationwide from November 22 to 24.

72.6 percent feel the flood was caused by nature, as this year had more rainfall than usual.

However, 58 percent of the respondents saw that the mismanagement of the floodwater as the reason behind the disaster.

Meanwhile, only 55.6 percent pointed to the limited capacity of the country's irrigation system, which is not designed to handle disasters of this magnitude.

Regarding the question on which sectors the public is most satisfied with regarding the flood-relief effort, the military tops the list at 98.3 percent, followed by the Thai people themselves at 98.2 percent, and the various volunteer organizations at 96.6 percent.

As for the group the public is least satisfied with, 67.7 percent pointed to the prime minister, 64.3 percent to the Flood Relief Operations Center, and 51.8 percent gave the local politicians thumbs down.

When asked should the capital be relocated, 60.5 percent of the people oppose the idea, while only 27.8 percent support it.

The latter proposed that the capital be moved to Nakhon Ratchasima Province.

-- Tan Network 2011-11-25

I'm just a little curious about this poll....Did they actually include the unfortunate people who are still under water or from only those on the outskirts and not affected by the floods?

[GoonDizzy]

Having been rescued by the military and given free transport to dry land in BKK (Boat, military transport and then songtail)...oh and they gave free food and drinks (coke, water etc)...very good helping the kids and the elderly...

..the only ones to come out of this mess with any credit.

May I give my thanks here on behalf of my family to the Royal Thai Army.

They can have a coup anytime for me.

[animatic]

The previous PM could have done worse, let democracy work , she was elected, he was not, Thai people need to run this country not the Brits, have another election she will win again, life is life, don't like it go home!

I agree with Yinglook won the election now its up to her to see what she can, not been a great start though, she will be judged in 4 years time. Last year my diary tells me the water levels were at their highest on 4th Nov, we did not have a flood, this year the water which did flood was at its highest 18th Oct, last year I remember people saying the worst for 50 years, so maybe the floods were handled better by the previous administration and the coment about the Brits was uncalled for after all the Brits did run 1/3rd of the world successfully for over 100 years, you could put a lot worse people in charge. You imply Abhisit was not a good man to be running the country. I thought he looked and sounded the part and was not linked to corruption but thai politics moves in strange ways and even when they might have found a good man or woman they may not realize it.

An utter incompetent is not qualified to remain in office, even if the election says they may take the job. If she CAN NOT do the job, the election becomes moot.

If we elected a 'brain dead' person to run a company, and waited till he spoke to do anything, the company would die very, very quickly. Same for a country.

Occasionally an actual dead person wins an election on sympathy vote, and immediately the by-election is called, because that person 'can not fulfill the requirements of the job'. Same for simple incompetence.

Politicians who drop the ball, leave their political positions every day world wide. She also has to perform in the position; that is a bottom line basis of having the job.

Edited November 27, 2011 by animatic

[JAG]

We all know you hate the Prime Minister and her party, but the bottom line (as you put it) is that she was elected, and therefore is qualified. Just because you, and some others loathe her and regard her as an incompetent, does not make the election "moot" as you put it.

It will (should) be decided by the Thai electorate.

I was going to say that's what happens in a democracy, but we have already established that our respective understandings of that concept are light years apart

Edited November 27, 2011 by JAG

[whybother]

We all know you hate the Prime Minister and her party, but the bottom line (as you put it) is that she was elected, and therefore is qualified. Just because you, and some others loathe her and regard her as an incompetent, does not make the election "moot" as you put it.

It will (should) be decided by the Thai electorate.

I was going to say that's what happens in a democracy, but we have already established that our respective understandings of that concept are light years apart

Being elected in NO way makes her qualified.

[Ricardo]

The previous PM could have done worse, let democracy work , she was elected, he was not, Thai people need to run this country not the Brits, have another election she will win again, life is life, don't like it go home!

I didn't realise that Thailand had become a British colony or protectorate, when did that happen, pray tell ?

And would the comment about needing Thais, not Brits, to run the country apply equally to citizens of Montenegro or Nicaragua ?

[ThaiOats]

We all know you hate the Prime Minister and her party, but the bottom line (as you put it) is that she was elected, and therefore is qualified. Just because you, and some others loathe her and regard her as an incompetent, does not make the election "moot" as you put it.

It will (should) be decided by the Thai electorate.

I was going to say that's what happens in a democracy, but we have already established that our respective understandings of that concept are light years apart

Let's say there's one position left for a job that you're highly qualified for and your competitor is someone popular who has no experience what-so-ever. While you've spent years studying and working in the field, your competitor spent years making friends gaining popularity with the board members. Come the day where there's a board meeting, they decided to choose the other person because they have an affinity for her. Would you really be content and say "well, they voted for her... she must be qualified then"? Going by your quote, your answer would be a "yes" and that's why the majority of the opposition (anti-government) here don't really understand your logic and reasoning. Please elaborate how being popular qualifies you to do a job.

[Oberkommando]

I didn't realise that Thailand had become a British colony or protectorate, when did that happen, pray tell ?

Mid to late 1800's and early 1900's, when Britain de facto controlled Thailand to rebuff French influence and expansion in the region.

[JAG]

We all know you hate the Prime Minister and her party, but the bottom line (as you put it) is that she was elected, and therefore is qualified. Just because you, and some others loathe her and regard her as an incompetent, does not make the election "moot" as you put it.

It will (should) be decided by the Thai electorate.

I was going to say that's what happens in a democracy, but we have already established that our respective understandings of that concept are light years apart

Let's say there's one position left for a job that you're highly qualified for and your competitor is someone popular who has no experience what-so-ever. While you've spent years studying and working in the field, your competitor spent years making friends gaining popularity with the board members. Come the day where there's a board meeting, they decided to choose the other person because they have an affinity for her. Would you really be content and say "well, they voted for her... she must be qualified then"? Going by your quote, your answer would be a "yes" and that's why the majority of the opposition (anti-government) here don't really understand your logic and reasoning. Please elaborate how being popular qualifies you to do a job.

The qualification required to be the prime minister in a parliamentary democracy, is to be the leader of the party which commands a majority in parliament. Yingluk Shinawatra emerged from the election as just that. Therefore she is qualified. That is why The king asked her to form a government. Now you may hate her, you may think that she is incompetent, you may even (as I have seen on this forum) think she is better suited as a bar girl asking for funds for her buffalo, but she is the leader of the party which won the election, therefore she is qualified.

[whybother]

The qualification required to be the prime minister in a parliamentary democracy, is to be the leader of the party which commands a majority in parliament. Yingluk Shinawatra emerged from the election as just that. Therefore she is qualified. That is why The king asked her to form a government. Now you may hate her, you may think that she is incompetent, you may even (as I have seen on this forum) think she is better suited as a bar girl asking for funds for her buffalo, but she is the leader of the party which won the election, therefore she is qualified.

So what you're saying is that if Thaksin had put his daughter in Yingluck's position, and she had been elected, that she would be qualified to be PM? What about a 5 year old?

Just because someone is put (elected, appointed, whatever) in a position does not make them qualified for it.

[Buchholz]

The qualification required to be the prime minister in a parliamentary democracy, is to be the leader of the party which commands a majority in parliament. Yingluk Shinawatra emerged from the election as just that. Therefore she is qualified. That is why The king asked her to form a government. Now you may hate her, you may think that she is incompetent, you may even (as I have seen on this forum) think she is better suited as a bar girl asking for funds for her buffalo, but she is the leader of the party which won the election, therefore she is qualified.

Actually, the elite guy on the left that looks like he's going to vomit from eating commoner food is the leader of the party... although he has tried to resign from the position five times...

.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Buchholz

[pastitche]

The qualification required to be the prime minister in a parliamentary democracy, is to be the leader of the party which commands a majority in parliament. Yingluk Shinawatra emerged from the election as just that. Therefore she is qualified. That is why The king asked her to form a government. Now you may hate her, you may think that she is incompetent, you may even (as I have seen on this forum) think she is better suited as a bar girl asking for funds for her buffalo, but she is the leader of the party which won the election, therefore she is qualified.

So what you're saying is that if Thaksin had put his daughter in Yingluck's position, and she had been elected, that she would be qualified to be PM? What about a 5 year old?

Just because someone is put (elected, appointed, whatever) in a position does not make them qualified for it.

Obviously a 5 year old would be disqualified on age grounds. On what grounds do you consider that the PM is unqualified within the parliamentary rules? Your opinion of her performance and experience are irrelevant within those constraints

[animatic]

We all know you hate the Prime Minister and her party, but the bottom line (as you put it) is that she was elected, and therefore is qualified. Just because you, and some others loathe her and regard her as an incompetent, does not make the election "moot" as you put it.

It will (should) be decided by the Thai electorate.

I was going to say that's what happens in a democracy, but we have already established that our respective understandings of that concept are light years apart

I don't hate her or the party.

I do hate Thaksin for what damage he has and is doing to Thailand..

But my point on PTP has ALWAYS, and primarily been

a ) incompetence, b ) graft on a cosmic scale.

A + B = Disaster

is clearly the point I was talking about

Edited November 28, 2011 by animatic