Bangkok: An IFD poll indicates that 62.39% of civil servant appointments and transfers lack integrity, and nearly 55% fear government paralysis. Dr. Dan suggests a positive patronage approach to select good and capable individuals for the job.
According to Thai News Agency, the IFD Poll and Survey, led by Prof. Dr. Kriengsak Chareonwongsak (Dr. Dan), President of the Institute for National Development and President of the Institute for Future Studies for Development, and Ms. Jittima Boonwitaya, Director of IFD Poll and Survey, announced the results of a public opinion survey on 'Public Disillusionment: Unethical System, Corrupt Power, Paralyzed State - Proposal: Positive Patronage, Good and Talented People.' The survey sampled 1,332 individuals and was conducted between August 12-15, 2026, covering six regions. The confidence level is 95% with a margin of error of ±3%.
An IFD poll reflects concerns about the system for appointing and transferring high-ranking civil servants. 62.39% believe that political influence, connections, and money affect appointments, while knowledge, ability, and performance account for only 22.82%, a difference of almost three times. Simultaneously, 54.52% reported concerns about a "three-pronged paralyzedile state," including delays in government work, demoralization of talented and capable individuals, and a lack of policy continuity. Another 45.48% expressed concerns about corruption, cronyism, illicit businesses, and unfair law enforcement. Finally, 34.46% acknowledged that even competent and capable civil servants with some achievements may face challenges despite political or powerful backing.
According to an IFD poll asking the public what criteria are primarily used to appoint and transfer high-ranking civil servants, knowledge, ability, and performance were the most frequently cited factors (22.82%). This was followed by the influence of powerful families, business groups, or influential figures (20.65%), political support or from ministers (18.17%), nepotism, class, or institutions (13.06%), bribery (10.51%), seniority and years of service (8.93%), and other factors/uncertain/no answer (5.86%).
Regarding the question, "If appointments and transfers are not transparent, what impact are the public most concerned about?", the findings showed that 28.07% worried about corruption becoming deeply entrenched and favoring cronies; followed by 23.41% worrying about delays, inefficiency, and inability to solve problems in government work; 21.67% worrying about good and capable people losing morale or leaving the system; 9.53% worrying about the expansion of bribery, illicit businesses, and influential figures; 9.44% worrying about the lack of continuity in important policies; and 7.88% worrying about unfair or targeted law enforcement.
Furthermore, a survey on the question, "If it's impossible to find a perfect high-ranking civil servant, what type of person would the public accept most?" found that 34.46% preferred someone competent and with a proven track record, even with political or powerful backing. This was followed by 17.64% who were competent and had demonstrable achievements but were suspected of corruption, 15.69% who were unsure or did not express an opinion, 12.91% who had networks to secure development funding regardless of ability or character, 12.54% who were honest but slow and indecisive, and 6.76% who didn't cheat themselves but turned a blind eye to their cronies to keep things going. These findings are from a 2026 civil servant transfer poll.
Professor Dr. Kriengsak pointed out four significant implications and offered two recommendations from the IFD poll results: Implication 1) The unethical system (62.39%) wins (three times) over the merit system (22.82%). The public perceives that criteria outside the merit system have a 62.39% influence on appointments and transfers, including family patronage (20.65%), political connections (18.17%), nepotism (13.06%), and buying positions (10.51%). Meanwhile, knowledge, ability, and performance accounted for only 22.82%. This reflects the fact that 'power, capital, connections, and money' weigh almost three times more than the merit system.
2) Three-pronged state paralysis (55%): Non-transparent transfers can affect the state simultaneously in three areas, totaling 54.52% or approximately 55%, including: personnel failure (good and talented people losing morale or resigning) 21.67%; system failure (government work is delayed and inefficient) 23.41%; and policy failure (lack of continuity) 9.44%. This means that appointing the wrong person may not just affect one position, but impacts people, work, and policy.
The third implication is the dominance of corrupt power structures (45.48%). This includes deeply entrenched corruption and cronyism (28.07%), bribery, illicit businesses, and the expansion of influential figures (9.53%), and unfair or targeted law enforcement (7.88%). This reflects concerns that if civil service positions become political rewards, state power may be used to protect networks and interests rather than the public interest. The fourth implication is public disillusionment (37%). The poll reflects a state of "disillusionment" with the reality of the appointment system. 34.46% choose competent and good candidates with some track record, even with political or powerful backing. The "good but not competent" group accounts for 12.54%. A total of 37.31% analyzed as "competent but not good" includes those competent and with track records but suspected of corruption (17.64%), those with networks to secure funding (12.91%), and those who don't cheat themselves but turn a blind eye to their cronies (6.76% ). This reflects a state of resignation. Some people may accept competence even if it comes at the cost of moral doubts.
Dr. Dan suggested a positive sponsorship approach, which means...
1) Winning Hearts in Politics: Choosing the Right and Talented Personnel. The 2026 civil service reshuffle is an opportunity for political factions to prove that their power of appointment can be used to benefit the civil service system through "positive patronage"-opening the way for good, talented, and accomplished individuals to enter positions, instead of choosing based on cronyism, connections, or personal gain. If successful, politics will not only "get the right people" but will also have the opportunity to "win the hearts of the people."
And 2) Replace if proven ineffective: If the appointed person is not good, not skilled, inefficient, or unable to perform the job, there must be a willingness to replace them. At the same time, good and skilled people must be retained and allowed to grow within the system so that transfers are a tool to increase the efficiency of the state, not a tool to divide power and benefits.