Most businessmen, financial executives and economists have rated the Surayud government rather poorly for its performance over its four months in office.

Prime Minister General Surayud Chulnanont is scheduled to meet the press today at Government House to review his administration's performance.

He is facing a confidence gap over the handling of the economy, capital controls, the Foreign Business Act, Suvarnabhumi Airport, the southern unrest - and ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who has been living in exile but has managed to rock the boat in Thailand through his media interviews.

A group of royal descendants - led by MR Ramphi-arpha Kasemsri, Benjawan Krajangnet, Praphai Prasath-thongosoth and Sumalee Viravaidaya - yesterday gave the Surayud government a "C plus" over its indecisiveness in dealing with the alleged lese majeste committed by Thaksin.

However, CMO Organiser chief executive officer Sermkhun Kunawong gave the government a "B", commending it for not resorting to a dictatorial style to push through its agenda, although it has the power to do so.

In terms of economic policy, he said the government should be more cautious before introducing any policies that could have a broad impact.

Nonetheless, he said that the government was fairer when it comes to going after corruption cases involving the previous administration. While the military-installed National Peacekeeping Council in 1991 confiscated the assets of corrupt politicians before conducting any investigations, the Surayud government is conducting the investigation first and allowing the justice process to run its course.

He added that the government should have done more public-relations work and employed better political tactics to deal with pressing circumstances.

An executive of Siam City Cement gave the government a "C", because the interim administration has failed to produce any concrete results.

"I rooted for the government," he said. "In the first month, I gave the government an 'A' grade. But by the second month, I lowered the grade to 'B' because they failed to produce anything. In the third month, the government failed miserably and I gave them an 'F' because of the capital controls and the revised foreign business law, which created a lot of confusion and damage to the country.

"The government is decisive in the wrong way. Nothing has been outstanding," he added.

An executive from a banking institution, who asked not to be named, immediately came up with an "F" rating for the Surayud government.

"The score is zero," he said. "The government has failed to solve major problems. Violence in the South has worsened. Meanwhile, it has come up with some measures that have caused damage to the economy, like the 30-per-cent capital reserve requirement. This government has also showed no enthusiasm in boosting foreign investment. None of the ministries is professional, and they have come up with no concrete plans."

The source also said it was imperative for the government to ensure that a freely organised election is held as soon as possible, so that Thailand can have a permanent and professional government.

Banluasak Pussarungsri, manager for the macro-economy analysis centre of Bangkok Bank, said it was difficult to rate the government, although it does not seem to have accomplished any major results over the past five months.

"The government's main policy is to deal with long-term structural issues. Therefore, to assess the government in the short term is not appropriate. Moreover, the government was established after the coup and it is running as an interim government. We cannot properly assess its performance," Banluasak said.

A fund manager, who asked not to be named, gave the interim government a "C" for its performance. He said the replacement of the police chief showed that the government had the guts to do something.

However, no matter what the government has done, the only problem is how to get rid of Thaksin once and for all, he said. "As long as he remains out there, the problem won't end," he added.

He gave a thumbs-up to Energy Minster Piyasvasti Amranand for his performance and the remaining ministers an average of "C".

"I don't expect much from this government. However, the latest move about the mass-transit projects has given me something to cheer about," said the fund manager.

Pairoj Vongvipanond, an economist at Dhurakij Pundit University, said the government should be given more time to prove itself because there was thus far too short a time to evaluate its performance fairly.

He said the government was trying to resolve many serious issues left by the former government, such as a mess in the telecommunication business and public debts caused by populist policies.

He added that foreign investor confidence had suffered from the government's effort to amend the Foreign Business Act, a move which has resulted in more restrictions on business.

Pairoj suggested the government should liberalise Annex 3 of the Act.

Moreover, the public might not have taken into account the slow-down in the world economy, which affects Thailand, and therefore they have rated government performance rather poorly in recent polls.

Exporters who benefit from the capital control measures have not complained loudly, he added.

Sompop Manarungsan, an economist at Chulalongkorn University, said the government had yet not offered a clear-cut direction in macroeconomic policy - in particular, in monetary policy. This has created uncertainty for businesses, leading to slow investment by the private sector, he said.

However, he appreciates that five months is too short for a government to get things done, considering the former administration of Thaksin had created many issues over the previous five years.

A source from the bond market gave a "B" to the interim government for its "sincere intention" to solve the country's problems. However, whether it is actually able to do so is a different story, he added.

"Many ministers have shown that they understand where the problems are, but it's uncertain whether they can solve them," he said.

"I'm impressed that the government doesn't treat anyone with double standards. In the previous government, regulations could be changed to facilitate some group's personal interest. But this government has applied one rule for all."

Business Reporters

The Nation