Revamped statistics Bill a step forward
Revisions balance the need to improve quality of polls, while staving off government interference
The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) will soon discuss the statistics Bill - sponsored by the Surayud government - that seeks to raise the standards and ensure the proper and productive use of statistics, methodology and analysis by both public- and private-sector pollsters. The Surayud government should be commended for achieving a delicate balance in subjecting the conductors of opinion polls to peer review while preventing the government from imposing censorship.
The new version of the statistics Bill is a vast improvement over the one proposed by the Thaksin administration in 2005. That proposal raised suspicions that the bill would allow the government to control pollsters or manipulate the results of opinion polls to influence public opinion and thereby gain an unfair political advantage over rival parties. Such widespread distrust was attributed to Thaksin's hostile attitude towards critics and his heavy-handed suppression of academic freedom and freedom of expression.
The bill, if passed by the NLA, would replace the Statistics Act of 1965, which established the National Statistical Office (NSO) as the lead agency in conducting censuses and opinion polls. The Statistics Act is considered outdated and in need of a comprehensive update, given the tremendous changes in the country's political, economic and social development and the improved capabilities of private-sector pollsters. The version of the bill introduced by the Thaksin government proved controversial because it sought to empower the NSO, directly controlled by the government, to scrutinise opinion polls conducted by polling agencies belonging to universities and other government agencies. This was to ensure that their activities conformed to scientifically sound methodology and unbiased analysis, thereby producing only accurate statistical data. The justification provided by the Thaksin government for giving the NSO such sweeping powers was that it suspected some pollsters were motivated by malicious intent when they released poll results that put the government in a negative light.
Due to widespread opposition, the proposed bill was stranded in the previous Parliament and lapsed last year after the Thaksin government was deposed and Parliament dissolved in the September 19 coup.
The Surayud government has been keenly aware of the political sensitivity of the issue. As such, it came up with a new version of the bill that requires pollsters to notify the NSO about its planned opinion polls in advance regarding the topics involved and particulars like sampling size, demographic distribution, methodology and questionnaires. The new bill would not make planned polls subject to approval.
This is to preclude the possibility that neither this government nor future ones can use this proposed law to prevent pollsters from sounding out public opinion on politically sensitive topics or blotting out dissenting views. Critics of the previous version of the bill were also correct in pointing out that the role of the NSO should be to promote the proper use and development of statistical activities, not to act as the sole arbiter of what constitutes the "correct" way to conduct a poll, since different competing methodological standards exist.
Under the Surayud government's bill, the submission of information about opinion polls to the NSO, which serves as a clearing-house for pollsters, would benefit polling agencies, because it would make their work available to other pollsters for peer review and public scrutiny.
Not all of the opinion polls that are conducted at the moment by the numerous polling agencies and widely circulated are up to par when judged by internationally accepted standards. This is partly because the available materials, such as community maps and demographic distribution prepared by the NSO that all pollsters use as a base from which to conduct their opinion polls, still have much room for improvement. Some pollsters, including those whose work is quoted regularly in the media, are simply unprofessional, incompetent and sloppy.
In a modern society like ours, opinion polls have become an important tool for gauging the state of the country's politics, economy and society, as well as the prevailing public sentiment on issues of national importance, which informs public discourse and government policy-making. That's why it is important for pollsters to enjoy the unfettered freedom to pick their own topics, design their own methodologies - subject to internationally accepted standards - and regulate their own profession. The NSO would best be left to serve as a facilitator.
