MOST people surveyed recently agree that the next election should be held when the country is in a “suitable state”, which may not be in line with the junta’s road map, Bangkok Poll found.
Almost 70 per cent said the election should be held when the country is ready while the other 30 per cent said it should be held as planned in the road map, according to results of the survey released yesterday.
Most respondents also said they believed that Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, by posing his four political questions to voters, seemed to signal to the public that the country was stable in the run-up to the upcoming election.
The poll, entitled “The PM’s four questions to a road map to election”, surveyed 1,227 people in all regions of the country.
Of the respondents, 30 per cent said they thought Prayut wanted to highlight national security issues prior to the election. Another 29 per cent said he appeared to imply that the election might not be held according to the road map if the country were not ready for it.
More than 26 per cent thought the PM wanted to say there would be no poll if there was no morality in politics while almost 14 per cent said he wanted to ask politicians if they had reformed their parties and themselves.
Around 61 per cent “very slightly” trust that the new constitution, the so-called “anti-graft charter”, would make the next election free from fraud and pave the way for a government that would provide good governance. Almost 39 per cent, on the other hand, saw high potential in the current charter.
Asked what they were worried about regarding the election, 40 per cent said they were concerned about security issues. Almost 39 per cent said that they worried election canvassers might use unfair means to gain votes for their parties and more than 20 per cent were concerned that the election would not encourage fresh faces to enter politics.
Meanwhile, a Suan Dusit Poll found people felt while politicians should criticise the junta government for some undemocratic practices, they should also propose logical and practical tips for creative outcomes.
The poll, entitled “Criticisms by politicians in the eyes of public”, surveyed 1,152 people nationwide from May 29 to June 2 after politicians lashed out at the prime minister for posing questions to the public that they saw as “degrading” the election and politicians.
The results of the opinion survey were released yesterday.
Asked whether they thought criticism was an important part of democratic practice, more than 82 per cent agreed, reasoning that it was based on the idea of freedom of expression. More than 17 per cent, however, disagreed, arguing that criticisms tended to be partisan and heated up political conflicts.
Asked what people thought of politicians’ criticisms of the Prayut government, almost 76 per cent said they should be perceived discreetly, more than 67 per cent thought that it was acceptable to express political opinions and almost 62 per cent said the criticism could widen public perception of politics.
Asked what form creative criticism should take, 78 per cent said it should be reasonable and practical, more than 74 per cent said criticism should be in public interest and 63 per cent said it should be polite and made in a bipartisan way.
Asked what criticism was not acceptable, 83 per cent said they disapproved of criticism that bred conflict, 71 per cent noted delusional comments and more than 65 per cent disliked rude criticism.