Interpersonal trust

PACE has been measuring the level of interpersonal trust within Myanmar society since 2015. In this survey, one fourth of the respondents (25%) indicated that “most people can be trusted,” while majority of the respondents (66%) said they needed to be very careful when dealing with people. The level of interpersonal trust slightly increased in this year (25%) compared to 2017 and 2018. However, trust is still below the level found in 2016, following the 2015 general elections. There was no statistical difference between respondents in urban (22%) and rural (26%) areas. Men (27%) are more likely to indicate that “most people can be trusted” than women (22%), but there was no statistically significant different in the responses from those aged between 18 and 35 (23%) and older respondents (26%). There was no difference between respondents from states (27%) and from regions (24%), but respondents from Yangon (18%) were less likely to respond that people can be trusted .
Trust in institutions

PACE also measured the level of citizens’ trust in different State leaders and institutions, including the president and state counsellor, Hluttaws, courts, Union Election Commission, military (Tatmadaw) and police. PACE also captured citizens’ trust in non-State actors, including ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), political parties, civil society organizations (CSOs) and community-based organizations CBOs), religious Leaders and the media.
The persons or positions in which citizens had most confidence were the State Counsellor (70% “confidence”, 10% “ no confidence”) and the President (69% “confidence”, 10% “no confidence”), followed by ward/village administrators (59% “confidence”, 20% “no confidence”), township administrator (49% “confidence”, 19% “no confidence”), religious leaders (48% “confidence”, 14% “no confidence”), Union-level Hluttaws (47% “confidence”, 12% “no confidence”), state/region Hluttaws (46% “confidence”, 13% “no confidence”), military (Tatamadaw) (44% “confidence”, 22% “no confidence”) and CSOs/CBOs (43% “confidence”, 17% “no confidence”)..
Facebook was the institution with the lowest level of citizen confidence ( 18% “confidence” 37% “no confidence”), followed by EAOs (21% “confidence” 35% “no confidence”) and courts (30% “confidence” 35% “no confidence”). The most recorded “don’t know” responses were the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (50%), the United Nations (48%), the Union Election Commission (47%) and the Anti-Corruption Commission (46%).
Compared with PACE’s 2016 survey, overall the level of confidence in different institutions dropped. For example, confidence in religious leaders dropped from 80% to 48%, in CSOs/CBOs from 68% to 43%, in the United Nations from 59% to 35%, in the Union Election Commission (58% to 38%), in political parties from 54% to 36%, in Union-level Hluttaws from 63% to 47%, in the police from 43% to 38% and in the President from 79% to 69%.

Right or wrong direction (Township)

When PACE’s enumerators asked the respondents if things in their townships were heading in the right or wrong direction, nearly half (44%) said things were heading in the right direction, a small percentage (9%) responded “wrong direction” and around half (44%) responded “don’t know.” While there was no difference between “right direction” responses in urban (40%) and rural (46%) areas, urban respondents (13%) were slightly higher to say “wrong direction” than rural ones (7%). In Yangon city, while 39% responded “right direction”, 11% answered “wrong direction” and 47% answered “don’t know.” There was no much difference between states (41% “right direction”, 12% “wrong direction”) and regions (45% “right direction”, 8% “wrong direction”).

Right or wrong direction (states/regions)

When PACE’s enumerators asked the respondents if things in their states or regions were heading in the right or in the wrong direction, about one-third (38%) responded “right direction” and 8% said “wrong direction.” However, about half (51%) answered “don’t know.” Those in states (32% “right direction” and 11% “wrong direction”) were slightly more pessimistic than those in regions (40% “right direction” and 7% “wrong direction”). When it comes to Yangon city, 37% of the respondents indicated “right direction” and 10% indicated “wrong direction”.

Right or wrong direction (country)

When respondents were asked whether they thought things in the country were heading in the right direction or in the wrong direction, about one third (37%) indicated “right direction,” 8% said “wrong direction” and half (50%) answered “don’t know.” Compared with surveys conducted by IRI in 2014 and 2017, there was a significant drop in the percentage of citizens’ who perceive that Myanmar is going in the right direction (88% indicated “right direction” in 2014, 75% indicated “right direction” in 2017). Respondents in urban areas (37%) were as likely as those in rural areas (37%) to say that things were going in the right direction. However, citizens in urban areas (12%) were more likely to state that things were going in the wrong direction than those in rural areas (7%). Respondents from states (28%) were less likely to indicate “right direction” than from the regions (40%), and slightly more likely to indicate that things are going in the “wrong direction” (12% in states and 7% in regions).

Reasons of right direction (country)

PACE’s enumerators asked those who indicated Myanmar is going in the right direction the reasons why. A large percentage (42%) indicated “infrastructure and government services,” 30% “administration and governance” and 16% “economy.” Smaller percentages said “peace and conflict” (4%), and rights and freedoms (3%). Less than one percent mentioned the constitution (0.6%) and security and safety (0.5%), and 32% said “don’t know” (Table.1).

Table 1. Reasons of right direction in country

Reasons of wrong direction (country)

PACE’s enumerators asked those who responded that things are going in the wrong direction the reasons why. A significant percentage (39%) of the respondents said “bad infrastructure”, 30% said “administration and governance”, 17% said “economy”, 10% said “peace and conflict”, 3% said “constitution”, 2% said “rights and freedoms” and “security and safety,” and 23% said “don’t know” (Table.2).

Table 2. Reasons of wrong direction in country

Performance of Hluttaws and Legislators

Performance of state/region Hluttaws

PACE’s enumerators presented the respondents different tasks of state/region level Hluttaws, such as overseeing the work of state/region governments, passing legislation that is good for the states and regions, seeking advice from citizens and experts on legislation, amending or abolishing laws that restrict civil and political rights, and changing laws to make it easier for business to operate. The enumerators asked respondents to rate the Hluttaws’ performance “1” to “5,” where “1” is “very poor” and “5” is “very good”. While about one third to one fourth of the respondents rated “good” and less than 10% rated “poor”, one third to about half of the respondents answered “don’t know”.

Performance of Pyithu Hluttaw MPs

PACE’s enumerators read the respondents different tasks of Pyithu Hluttaw MPs, such as “actively participate in parliament sessions”, “introduce legislation in parliament”, “cooperate with other MPs”, “ ask questions to the relevant ministers and other members of the executive”, “seek the advice of citizens and experts on legislation”, “visiting their constituency” and “mobilizing development activities in the constituency.” The enumerators asked respondents to rate the MP’s performance from “1” to “5”, were “1” is very poor” and “5” is “very good”).

Citizens’ expectations of Pyithu Hluttaw MPs

PACE’s enumerators also asked the respondents if they thought there were areas where their Pyithu Hluttaw MPs could improve to meet citizens’ expectations. Almost half (47%) of the respondents indicated their MP “ should do more to understand community issues”, 30% said “they should inspect the development projects”, 24% said “do more to understand national issues”, 18% said “visiting constituency” and 12% mentioned “ do more to understand lawmaking process”.

Performance of state/region Hluttaw MPs

PACE’s enumerators read the respondents different tasks of state/region Hluttaw MPs, such as “actively participate in the parliament session”, “introduce legislation in parliament”, “cooperate with other MPs”, “ ask questions to the relevant ministers and other members of the executive”, “seek the advice of citizens and experts on legislation”, “visit the constituency” and “mobilize development activities in the constituency.” The enumerators asked respondents to rate their state/region MP’s performance from “1” to “5”, where “1” is very poor” and “5” is “very good”).

Citizens’ expectations of state/region Hluttaws MPs

PACE’s enumerators asked the respondents if they thought there were areas where their state/region Hluttaws MPs could improve to meet citizens’ expectations. Almost half (46%) of the respondents indicated that they “should do more to understand community issues”, 34% said that “they should inspect the development projects”, 22% said they “do more to understand national issues”, 17% said they should “visit their constituency” and 11% mentioned that they should “do more to understand the lawmaking process”.

Political parties closer to citizens
Currently, there are more than 90 political registered with the Union Election Commission. In this survey, to understand the perception of citizens toward those political parties, PACE’s enumerators asked the respondents to identify a political party which they thought best represents their interests, and to rate how likely they would vote for different candidates nominated by the parties closer to them.
When respondents were asked if there was a political party that best represents their interests, about half (50% where 16.3% responded “no party” and 34.5% “don’t know”) could not name any political party representing their interests. One-third (32.9%) mentioned the National League for Democracy, followed by the Union Solidarity and Development Party-USDP (5.5%), the Arakan National Party (1.8%) and Shan Nationalities League for Democracy (0.5%). An additional 15 parties were mentioned by less than 1.8% of respondents.
When it comes to urban (34% NLD, 4% USDP, 2% ANP), and rural (32% NLD, 6% USDP, 2% ANP and 1% SNLD) areas, the same political parties were mentioned except for SNLD, which got almost mentions in urban areas.
There were differences in responses from states and regions. In states, besides the political parties mentioned in the national sample (NLD 18%, USDP 3.6%, SNLD 2.3%, ANP 6%), respondents mentioned more non-Bamar ethnic parties, such as PNO (1%), MNP (0.8%) and KPP (0.5%). In regions, only NLD (40%) and USDP (6.3%) received significant mentions. This reflects a significant difference in citizens who feel represented by the NLD in regions (39%) and states (18%). The same percentage of people in states (16%) and regions (16%) responded that no party represents their interests, but those in states (43%) were more likely to respond “don’t know” than those in regions (32%).
In Shan state, the proportion of people who feel best represented by the NLD (16%) and USDP (4%) was similar as for states in general. However, the proportion of people in Shan who felt best represented by SNLD (8%) was higher. More than half (61%) did not mention any political party representing their interests (where 9% “no political party and 53% “don’t know”). In Yangon city, only NLD (44%) and USDP (4%) were mentioned as political parties representing citizens’ interests. Nearly half (47%) did not indicate any political party representing their interests (where 21% responded “no political party” and 26% “don’t know”).
Attitude toward political parties
To understand citizens’ perception of political parties, independently of which they feel best represents their interests, PACE asked citizens how they would rate their attitude towards six political parties from “1” to “5,” where “1” is “very negative” and “5” is “very positive.” PACE selected these among the 97 registered by focusing on those that won more than five seats in Union-level Hluttaws and the two biggest political parties in state/region Hluttaws. This list includes the NLD, USDP, SNLD, ANP and Mon National Party (MNP). PACE also included the People’s Party’s (PP) given its unique political history and background.
Choice of candidates and political parties

To those respondents who could identify a party that represented their interests, PACE asked a series of follow up questions to gauge whether they would be more or less likely to vote for that party depending on who they nominated as candidates. PACE included questions on potential candidates that were women, under 40 years of age, subscribing to a different religion, belonging to a different ethnicity, and residing in a different township. The respondents were asked to assess their likelihood to vote for those candidates between “1” and “5”, where “1” is “definitely would not vote” and “5” is “definitely would vote”.
A woman candidate
A vast majority of respondents (71%, where 37% “definitely would vote” and 34% “likely to vote”) said they would vote for a woman candidate nominated by the party they supported. Only 10% of respondents (where 6% “definitely would not vote” and 4% “likely would not vote”) said they would not vote, and 12% responded “undecided”. There were no differences between urban (76% “would vote”, 9% “would not vote”) and rural (69% “would vote”, 11% “would not vote”), or between men (72% “would vote”, 12% “would not vote”) and women (71% “would vote”, 8% “would not vote”). Respondents with high school or higher (81%) were more likely to say “would vote” than respondents with no high school (69%).
A younger candidate
When the respondents were asked how likely they would be to vote if the party they felt represented by nominated a candidate under 40 years of age, two-thirds (69%) indicated “would vote” and 10% indicated “would not vote”. There were no differences in responses between urban (72% “would vote”, 10% “would not vote”) and rural (67% “would vote”, 10% “would not vote”), men (71% “would vote”, 12% “would not vote”) and women (67% “would vote”, 7% “would not vote”). Respondents with high school or more were more likely to respond “would vote” (77%), but equally likely to respond “would not vote” (9%) as those with no high school (67% “would vote”, 10% “would not vote”).
A candidate with a different religion
When respondents were asked to rate how likely they would vote for the party they supported if it nominated a candidate with a different religion, about one fourth of the respondents (29%) indicated that they would vote (where 12% “definitely would vote” and 16% “likely would vote”) and about half (52%) responded that they would not vote (where 43% “definitely would not vote” and 9% “likely would not vote). Respondents from urban areas were less likely to say “would not vote” (38%) and more likely to say “would vote” (43%) than rural respondents (59% “would not vote”, 22% “would vote”). There was no difference between men (49% “would not vote”, 32% “would vote”) and women (55% “would not vote”, 25% “would vote”). There was a significant gap between respondents with less than high school and with more than high school. While more than half (58%) of the respondents with less than high school said they would not vote for a candidate with a different religion and 22% said they would vote, about one third (32%) of respondents with more than high school said they would not vote for and half (52%) indicated that they “would vote”.
A candidate from a different ethnicity
When respondents were asked to rate how likely they would be to vote for the party that represents them if it nominated a candidate from a different ethnicity, nearly half (46%) indicated ‘would vote” (where 20% “definitely would vote”, 27% “likely would vote”) and about one third (33%) indicated “would not vote” (where 25% “definitely would not vote”, 8% “likely would not vote”). Respondents from urban areas were less likely to say “would not vote” (23%) and more likely to say “would vote” (58%) than respondents from rural areas (37% “would not vote” and 40% “would vote”). There were no differences between states (37% “would not vote”, 44% “would vote”) and regions (32% “would not vote”, 46% “would vote”). In Yangon city, 18% of the respondents from Yangon city indicated “would not vote” and almost two-thirds (62%) responded “would vote.” There were no differences between Bamar respondents (32% “would not vote”, 48% ‘would vote”) and non-Bamar respondents (34% “would not vote”, 44% “would vote”). Respondents with no high school were more likely to say “would not vote” (38%) and less likely to say “would vote” (40%) than respondents with high school education (17% “would not vote”, 66% “would vote”).
A candidate not living in the same township
When PACE’s enumerators asked respondents how likely they would vote for the party they feel represented by if it nominated a candidate who was not living in the same township, nearly half (45%) said that they would vote (where 19% “definitely would vote”, 26% “likely would vote”) and 29% indicated “would not vote” (where 22% “definitely would not vote”, 7% “likely would not vote”). There was no difference between respondents from urban areas (51% “would vote”, 25% “would not vote” and from rural areas (42% “would vote”, 30% “would not vote”), or between those who responded “would vote” in states (42%) and regions (45%) but respondents from states (34%) are more likely to say “would not vote” than regions (29%). When it comes to respondents from Yangon city, almost two-thirds (61%) indicated “would vote” and 16% said “would not vote,” indicating a higher willingness in Yangon to vote for those from other locations compared to regions in general.

Citizens’ expectations of political parties

During the survey, PACE’s enumerators showed several activities to the respondents and asked if, in their opinion, political parties in Myanmar were engaged in or conducting those activities, and whether they should do those.

Tolerance toward the supporters of different political parties
Since 2017, PACE has included questions aimed to measuring the level of tolerance among Myanmar’s citizens towards different groups of people In its 2017 survey, PACE asked respondents how comfortable they would be if their boss, or neighbor or the spouse of one of their siblings were Buddhist, Christian, Hindu or Muslim. In its 2018 survey, PACE asked respondents if there were groups of peoples they would not want to have as neighbors, from drug addicts, alcoholics, and persons with criminal records to homosexuals or people with different religion or ethnicity.
This year’s survey measures the level of political tolerance by asking how comfortable they would be if their neighbors were strong supporters of different political parties. Given the large number of registered political parties, PACE focused on the same six parties described in section 5.2 above: the NLD, the USDP, the SNLD, the ANP, the MNP and the PP.

Voting in the 2015 general elections
When PACE’s enumerators asked the respondents if they had voted in the 2015 general elections, 77% said they did. More than half (59%) of those who said they’d voted also indicated they cast their vote for the same party in all races, and nearly one fourth (23%) said they did not vote the same party in other race as they did for Pyithu Hluttaw.
Intention to vote

In the last two by-elections, the voter turnouts were much less than in the 2015 general elections (37% in 2017 and 42% in 2018). To understand citizens’ intention to vote in 2020, PACE’s enumerators asked citizens how likely they would be to vote if there were general elections the following weekend. Respondents were asked to rate their vote intention from “1” to “5”, where “1” is “would definitely not vote” and “5” is “definitely would vote”. Prior research in other countries indicates that taking into consideration those who respond they would definitely vote are a better predictor of actual turnout than including those who are not certain.
Around half (48%) of survey respondents indicated that they “would definitely vote.” While there was no difference between the “would definitely vote” responses from urban (50%) and rural (47%) areas, respondents from states (32%) were less likely to say “definitely would vote” than those from regions (53%). There was no difference in “definitely would vote” responses from Men (52%) were more likely to indicated that they definitely would vote than women (45%). Responses from Yangon city (51% would definitely vote) were consistent with those of regions in general; similarly, responses from Shan state (30% definitely would vote) were consistent with states in general.
Factors taken into consideration when selecting a candidate

PACE’s enumerators asked the respondents what were the main factors taken into consideration when deciding which candidates to vote for in 2015 and the factors they would take consideration if they were to vote in the future.
Factors preventing citizens from voting
When the PACE’s enumerators asked those respondents who did not have intention to vote in the future what factors would cause them not to vote, the following were the top 10 factors preventing them from voting.

Possession of IT Devices

When PACE’s enumerators asked the respondents if they possessed devices to connect to the internet. More than half (59%) answered that they possessed smartphone, 17% indicated feature-phone, 3% said they had internet access at their home, 2% said they can access internet in their community, and 15% of the respondents indicated that they did not possessed any of these devices.
Information sources of government and political information

When PACE’s enumerators asked respondents they usually receive information on government and politics, around half (47%) indicated “Television,” followed by “Radio” (23%), “Facebook” (20%) and “Newspapers/Journals” (15%)