webfact Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Comparative rating on Abhisit-Yingluck govt The Nation BANGKOK: -- Suan Dusit Poll, released on Friday, found the Yingluck Shinawatra government to have outpaced, trailed behind and been on par with the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration on a combination of factors. The Yingluck government was seen as outperforming the previous administration on three issues, namely, the Bt15,000 starting salary for civil servants with a Bachelor's degree, the Bt300 daily minimum wage and the drug suppression campaign. The Abhisit government, in turn, was seen as superior to the present administration on two issues - the Cabinet line-up and the paddy price intervention scheme. The two governments were on par for one issue - education policies. The survey found the two to have equally failed to end the political conflict and to quell the southern violence. -- The Nation 2012-02-03 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yingluck fares better than Abhisit on wage rises: Survey BANGKOK, Feb 3 - The Pheu Thai-led Yingluck administration scored higher on its wage rise policy, but took second place when compared to the previous government on cabinet appointments, according to an opinion poll released on Friday. However neither government achieved a 50 per cent level of approval in any category. The survey was conducted by Suan Dusit Rajabhat University among 2,163 people across the country from Jan 28-Feb 2, assessing the two governments' performances after the current administration has held office for six months. The rise to a Bt15,000 monthly salary for university graduates and a minimum wage of Bt300/day for workers won approval of 43 per cent of respondents, counted as a better performance by the current government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, followed by drug suppression at 34 per cent and international trade and investment at 21 per cent. The Yingluck administration took second place to the previous government of Democrat Party prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on cabinet appointments, rising oil prices and the rice price guarantee scheme. Those surveyed rated the issues at 39, 34 and 26 per cent respectively. Equal performances were registered by both governments in supporting education policy at 42 per cent, attentiveness to the public at 31 per cent, and the policy of free public utilities -- water, electricity and transportation-- at 25 per cent. Meanwhile, those surveyed viewed efforts to solve political conflicts (37 per cent), southern violence (33 per cent), and fight against corruption (29 per cent) as both administrations' evenly poor performances. (MCOT online news) -- TNA 2012-02-03 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorecard Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yingluck fares better than Abhisit on wage rises: Survey BANGKOK, Feb 3 - The Pheu Thai-led Yingluck administration scored higher on its wage rise policy, but took second place when compared to the previous government on cabinet appointments, according to an opinion poll released on Friday. However neither government achieved a 50 per cent level of approval in any category. The survey was conducted by Suan Dusit Rajabhat University among 2,163 people across the country from Jan 28-Feb 2, assessing the two governments' performances after the current administration has held office for six months. The rise to a Bt15,000 monthly salary for university graduates and a minimum wage of Bt300/day for workers won approval of 43 per cent of respondents, counted as a better performance by the current government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, followed by drug suppression at 34 per cent and international trade and investment at 21 per cent. The Yingluck administration took second place to the previous government of Democrat Party prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva on cabinet appointments, rising oil prices and the rice price guarantee scheme. Those surveyed rated the issues at 39, 34 and 26 per cent respectively. Equal performances were registered by both governments in supporting education policy at 42 per cent, attentiveness to the public at 31 per cent, and the policy of free public utilities -- water, electricity and transportation-- at 25 per cent. Meanwhile, those surveyed viewed efforts to solve political conflicts (37 per cent), southern violence (33 per cent), and fight against corruption (29 per cent) as both administrations' evenly poor performances. (MCOT online news) -- TNA 2012-02-03 The 300Baht min. wgae has just ben posptponed for the first several provinces and now some will see it in 2015. Would they like to do the poll again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 So Yinglucks bunch has implemented 1.5 policies and Abhisits bunch implemented 1. Strewth, the fast pace of change in Thai politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givenall Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 same for me, both equally happy to line up their friend pockets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) Wow! A performance rating for things that haven't even happened yet. I'm still waiting for the "I'll fix Bangkok's traffic problem in 6 months" promise to be realized. Waiting, waiting... Edited February 3, 2012 by Reasonableman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 All parties should be compelled to print an official manifesto so at least we can know what they intend to do. It is hard enough to hold them to account in most parts of the world, but here it is even harder because they only ever commit to do nothing anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Bakseedaa Posted February 3, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted February 3, 2012 same for me, both equally happy to line up their friend pockets Buts lets look at the one main and huge difference.... Yinluck has an overall majority to carry through her policies... Abhisit was the leader of a very fragile coalition ... keeping that coalition together was a feat of terrific politics... by a very clever and unshaken leader... Abhisit was NEVER scared to face his rivals in Parliment... where is Yinluck..? all she can face , it seems, is a mirror or a camera..! Lets see her go head to head , live on TV... with Mr Abhisit.. She would not dare... come on all media and lets push for a live debate .... why are you all scared to push for something so obviously needed by the people to see which of these two opponents handles each other... I know where my money lies...!!! 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalgaryII Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative. Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it. Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way. Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalgaryII Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 same for me, both equally happy to line up their friend pockets But only one was elected...big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chainarong Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 same for me, both equally happy to line up their friend pockets Buts lets look at the one main and huge difference.... Yingluck has an overall majority to carry through her policies... Abhisit was the leader of a very fragile coalition ... keeping that coalition together was a feat of terrific politics... by a very clever and unshaken leader... Abhisit was NEVER scared to face his rivals in Parliament... where is Yingluck..? all she can face , it seems, is a mirror or a camera..! Lets see her go head to head , live on TV... with Mr Abhisit.. She would not dare... come on all media and lets push for a live debate .... why are you all scared to push for something so obviously needed by the people to see which of these two opponents handles each other... I know where my money lies...!!! Yeah , good idea, common Mark throw out a challenge, put the young Lady on notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAG Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Calgaryll may be a new member baseball boy, but his views are as valid as yours. Just because he doesn't parrot your views doesn't make him any less of a forum member. Stuff that in your database and smoke it! Why so much anger nothing was said about him not being less a member. No anger, just don't like the sneers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reasonableman Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) same for me, both equally happy to line up their friend pockets But only one was elected...big difference. Yes, being elected to line one's pockets is far more democratic than being appointed, gotta agree with that. BTW good to see the motorcycle taxi problem is being solved by our most recently elected "member". Edited February 3, 2012 by Reasonableman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianf Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative. Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it. Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way. Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place. I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true. Edited February 3, 2012 by ianf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unkomoncents Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Has anyone ever personally seen the polling for these kinds or reports? Who is doing the actual comparison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Off topic sniping posts have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalgaryII Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative. Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it. Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way. Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place. I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true. I know the majority electoral block in the country disagrees with this "myth" claim and can pursuasively argue that the coup makers were behind him being hoisted in one way or another. But to avoid the nitty-grities of that debate, lets' just get to the bottom line. He was not elected in a national election. The moment he exposed himself to the national electorate, I don't need to tell you what happened. He really should have taken a page out of the Australian Prime Ministers MO, who was also elevated to the PM'ship via parliamentary manueverings, but who took responsibility. She stated clearly that the Prime Minister should be elected by the people, and she promptly held an election to legitimize herself. Edited February 3, 2012 by CalgaryII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exeter Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 We asked 100 people in red shirts from the north east for their views on the current government, the result was a fantastic endoursement. The we asked the same people what they thought of the previous government, the result was damning. What a surprise! It all depends what question you ask, how its worded and who you select to ask and then, of course, how you interpret the result. Anyone know of a destitute politician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative. Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it. Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way. Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place. I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true. I know the majority electoral block in the country disagrees with this "myth" claim and can pursuasively argue that the coup makers were behind him being hoisted in one way or another. But to avoid the nitty-grities of that debate, lets' just get to the bottom line. He was not elected in a national election. The moment he exposed himself to the national electorate, I don't need to tell you what happened. He really should have taken a page out of the Australian Prime Ministers MO, who was also elevated to the PM'ship via parliamentary manueverings, but who took responsibility. She stated clearly that the Prime Minister should be elected by the people, and she promptly held an election to legitimize herself. He was elected as an MP and he was elected as PM. Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 So Yinglucks bunch has implemented 1.5 policies and Abhisits bunch implemented 1. Strewth, the fast pace of change in Thai politics. The sad part is Yingluck has complete control she does not have to placate other parties. Abhist on the other hand did have to placate other parties. Even with that hanging around his neck he managed to get a better cabinet. Seems to me with a inferior cabinet we can look forward to inferior work. Just wondering out loud what Yingluck would do if the Yellow shirts were to turn into a terrorists organization and unleash it on Bangkok like the red shirts did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Wow! A performance rating for things that haven't even happened yet. I'm still waiting for the "I'll fix Bangkok's traffic problem in 6 months" promise to be realized. Waiting, waiting... You forgot every one is going to be rich in six months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative. Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it. Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way. Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place. I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true. I know the majority electoral block in the country disagrees with this "myth" claim and can pursuasively argue that the coup makers were behind him being hoisted in one way or another. But to avoid the nitty-grities of that debate, lets' just get to the bottom line. He was not elected in a national election. The moment he exposed himself to the national electorate, I don't need to tell you what happened. He really should have taken a page out of the Australian Prime Ministers MO, who was also elevated to the PM'ship via parliamentary manueverings, but who took responsibility. She stated clearly that the Prime Minister should be elected by the people, and she promptly held an election to legitimize herself. He was elected as an MP and he was elected as PM. Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com More apologists appearing on the scene, so I suspect some thing is a foot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative. Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it. Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way. Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place. You are new here aren't you. To much res shirt nonsense. Check the facts who did the army turn the power over to when they stepped out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 same for me, both equally happy to line up their friend pockets But only one was elected...big difference. If the Democrats and its intimidate predecessor were not elected how did they get into power. And why do you not say some thing about there predecessor. Could be it is a good system as long as you get what you want and no good if you don't get what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative. Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it. Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way. Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place. I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true. I know the majority electoral block in the country disagrees with this "myth" claim and can pursuasively argue that the coup makers were behind him being hoisted in one way or another. But to avoid the nitty-grities of that debate, lets' just get to the bottom line. He was not elected in a national election. The moment he exposed himself to the national electorate, I don't need to tell you what happened. He really should have taken a page out of the Australian Prime Ministers MO, who was also elevated to the PM'ship via parliamentary manueverings, but who took responsibility. She stated clearly that the Prime Minister should be elected by the people, and she promptly held an election to legitimize herself. O goody another malcontent who wants Thailand to be like where he came from. I lived in Canada for many years and they had Prime Ministers who were not elected by the people. It worked fine for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAG Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 More apologists appearing on the scene, so I suspect some thing is a foot.... Could it be - someone who doesn't share your views - surely not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAG Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 O goody another malcontent who wants Thailand to be like where he came from. I lived in Canada for many years and they had Prime Ministers who were not elected by the people. It worked fine for them. Don't you spend quite a lot of time on this forum telling us how you think that that Thailand should be run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siam Simon Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 More apologists appearing on the scene, so I suspect some thing is a foot.... Could it be - someone who doesn't share your views - surely not? He's always prattling on about conspiracies to invade the board by organised Thaksin propagandists . Best to just enjoy the strange comedy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siam Simon Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative. Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it. Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way. Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place. I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true. No, Ian, you have made the error. The last coalition government was forced together by the army at General Anupong's house on an army barracks. The myth being propagated is that the coalition was just a routine negotiation between and coming together of politicians in parliament. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 O goody another malcontent who wants Thailand to be like where he came from. I lived in Canada for many years and they had Prime Ministers who were not elected by the people. It worked fine for them. Don't you spend quite a lot of time on this forum telling us how you think that that Thailand should be run? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now