Raising one finger during her campaigning to symbolise her party's ballot number ahead of the 2011 election, Yingluck Shinawatra rode a wave of popularity all the way to victory. And now the man who threw her caretaker government out of office in 2014 by force has demonstrated he is not shy of using a similar gimmick.
With his three-finger message of "love" during his trips to Buri Ram and Surin this week, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's ultimate goal is the same as Yingluck's -- building popularity.
And as he sought to woo the huge crowds during the visits, Gen Prayut also brought along a big bonus to the lower Isan region. A budget of around 20 billion baht is expected to be channelled into driving development there.
Surasak Glahan is Deputy Editorial Pages Editor, Bangkok Post.
But don't call the financial injection a populist policy or measure. First, it's politically incorrect because the regime has covered its many populist platforms with new (but old-fashioned) names like Thai Niyom or Pracharath. Second, it's technically illegal, under the new anti-populism law.
Gen Prayut's lawmakers have made sure that populist platforms will no longer be tolerated. Last month, the State Financial and Fiscal Discipline Act took effects. It carries a clear message: No more populist policies that "may cause long-term damage to the country's economy or the people".
Beneath that great mission of ensuring fiscal discipline, the law carries political connotations too: No more copycats of Yingluck's "loss-ridden" rice-pledging policy or other populist programmes of the Shinawatra dynasty.
Putting these connotations aside, as a man on the street who pays tax whenever he buys a bottle of fish sauce, I would be glad if we had a law that could really bring about "efficiency, transparency and accountability" in public expenditure which has been far from being efficient and transparent, let alone being accountable, even during recent years under the current regime.
Taking into account its highly political implications and our previous highly questionable law enforcement in political cases, the magic of this law depends very much on its enforcement. Without using it in a fair, accountable and effective way, this anti-populist policy law stands as a threat rather than a promise of a better future. It risks becoming just another tool to use against elected governments.
For one thing, this law is unnecessary. Thailand has many laws and regulations that keep the state's fiscal policies in check, such as the acts on state budgets and public debt management which stipulate limits on government borrowing.
If you still remember Yingluck's court statement, she defended her rice-pledging policy, which has been criticised for market intervention and its price tag of up to 500 billion baht, saying the borrowing to finance the scheme was still under the limit prescribed by law.
The law will likely have a chilling effect on the Pheu Thai camp which has rarely seen law enforcement on its side over the past decade. Its politicians from now on will have to think twice prior to proposing policies during election campaigns.
It will also create a grey area in public policy-making when it comes to interpretation of what constitutes populism and the "probability" of its economic damage, depending pretty much on who interprets and enforces the law. But it may not add pressure to any solider-turned-politicians who have always had law enforcement to back them up even if they seized power from an elected government.
So far, Yingluck still stands as the first prime minister to have been criminally punished for negligence in running a loss-ridden policy and letting corruption take place under her watch. In many countries, such offences are merely administrative.
She is also the only former prime minister who has been forced to pay a huge fine for the losses incurred by a policy.
I agree with the need for efficiency in public expenditure. But I don't think we need a law to prevent "populist policies" which involve high levels of financing. Efficient and transparent spending is required for all areas of state expenditure including regular budgets such as the increased annual defence budget or the controversial plan to procure three submarines.
Having this anti-populism law will do more harm than good to the stability and effectiveness of future governments. Pessimists also worry that it could affect the future social welfare policies.
At the end of the day, the law will become just another political tool to use against one particular political camp and will rarely, if ever, be used for the greater good.