Bangkok Poll, of the research centre of Bangkok University, reported over the weekend that the popularity rating of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has dropped to 36.8% from the 52.8% recorded in its opinion survey conducted in May last year.
Worse still, 70.6% of the 1,114 respondents surveyed said they would prefer their next prime minister to be an elected MP compared to just 29.4% who said they favoured an "outsider" prime minister if political parties are unable to decide among them which of their elected representatives should assume the premiership.
But the bad news is not over yet. When asked by the pollster what they think about the so-called prachatippatai Thai niyom, or Thai-style democracy, that was floated by Prime Minister Prayut in his Children's Day speech, 29.1% said they didn't think this kind of political system, which is yet to be clearly defined by the prime minister, will lead to political change, while 27.9% believed this opaque system would lead to a quasi-democratic military administration.
Veera Prateepchaikul is a former editor, Bangkok Post.
So, what does this opinion poll mean to Gen Prayut's aspiration of becoming the "outsider" prime minister after the next election and his dream of "Thai-style democracy?"
Well, loyal supporters of Gen Prayut, who is also the National Council for Peace and Order leader, are likely to dismiss the poll as rubbish and untrustworthy -- which they are welcome to do. But, at least, I think that this survey – although it may not be so accurate -- should serve as a wake-up call for the prime minister look in the mirror to find out what's wrong with him or those close to him that is hurting his popularity rating.
In case he cannot see his own weak points because the reflection before him is distorted or because those around him do not have the guts to tell him the truth, then he should lend an ear to the well-intended criticism of his indifference to the pricey wristwatch scandal surrounding his Phi Yai or Big Brother -- Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon.
Last week, the deputy prime minister appeared relieved after having spoken with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) about his purported collection of highly expensive wristwatches. He told reporters that he had explained to the graft-busting panel that all the pricey timepieces that were seen on his wrist as shown in pictures scrutinised and exposed by social media were "borrowed" from friends and have already been returned to their owners.
The NACC may let Gen Prawit get away with an explanation that defies the limits of credibility, but, I believe, many of us who have a modicum of intelligence and who cannot afford any of the watches seen on the general's wrist will find his answer laughable or childish. His explanation sounds much like that of a child who was caught stealing and could not come up with a sensible answer to explain the misdeed.
Forget about an NACC whose credibility has been in doubt since its chairmanship was taken over by Pol Gen Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit, a man who used to be a deputy secretary-general of Gen Prawit in 2014. The circus is not over yet with the NACC bill recently being distorted by a scrutiny committee of the National Legislative Assembly. The committee added a provisional clause to the bill, drafted by the Constitution Drafting Committee, to bypass the present charter's mandatory qualifications requirement for the commissioners.
The addition of the clause to the bill is to allow seven of the nine incumbent NACC members, including Gen Prawit's ex-deputy secretary-general, to stay on until the end of their nine-year term in office even though they are under-qualified according to the charter.
We may be collectively treated as a dumb, but certainly we are not. Wait until the NACC produces the findings we are all expecting concerning the wristwatch saga, then the prime minister may see his popularity rating go into free fall.
I scratch my head when I try to figure out what prachatippatai Thai niyom means. After the Children's Day speech in which he mentioned this political system, the prime minister explained that it was a democratic system that will instill collective awareness and a common ideology among Thais.
I still don't get it. But I assume that it is a unique Thai democracy for Thais only -- a system that embraces both elected and appointed representatives in the parliament, both an elected and outsider prime minister and bars the party which wins the most seats in the House from the government.
Right or wrong, the issue remains open to speculation, guessing or imagination until there is a clear definition of the terminology from the prime minister or his top legal hand.
There seems to be no shortage of surprises or shenanigans from the inner sanctum of the junta-appointed National Legislative Assembly. The latest reported trick is an amendment to the election bill which puts off the date of its enforcement by three months after its publication in the Royal Gazette instead of becoming immediately effective.
To put it in simple terms, this means an election may be put off by another three months from its original schedule tentatively set for November this year.
All these maneuverings appear to be designed to pave the way for the junta to stay in power longer, albeit in a madeover form.
Meanwhile, we can expect more populist schemes aimed at the grassroots from the government to keep them satisfied while free expression remains strictly forbidden.
Don't expect the mainstream media to come to the rescue either, as they are completely immersed in their struggle for survival against the ever rising tide of online competition in this "4.0" era.
Veera Prateepchaikul is former editor, Bangkok Post.