The Project on the Dissemination on and the Campaign for Public Policy in Chiang Mai City is an action research project conducted by the Urban Development Institute Foundation (UDIF) supported by the Health System Research Institute (HSRI). Its objectives are: to disseminate information about public policy to the residents of Chiang Mai; to stimulate Chiang Mai residents to call for public policy that can solve their problems; and to propose their public policy to the candidates who run for the first elected mayor of Chiang Mai to be elected in February.  The study period of this project was from May 2003 to February 2004. This project was divided into 4 phrases.  The First phrase (May-September 2003) was to prepare for the campaigning process, to coordinate with the lecturers from other organizations joined as the campaign network.  They were from the Department of Architectural Technology, The Rajmongkol Technical Institute, Chiang Mai Campus; The Department of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University; and the Faculty of Nursing, Payup University. The first questionnaire was conducted to get baseline information to be used as one of the indications for the success of the project, to be evaluated at the end of the project.  We wanted to know whether the residents of Chiang Mai have clear understanding about public policy – what it is and who can form public policy of the city.  About 56 % of those who answered had correct understanding about public policy.  Moreover, people proposed several problems should be addressed as the city’s public policies to solve them.	During this phrase, a workshop was organized by volunteers who were students at high school and college levels.  The name of the workshop was “Yiea Ja Dai Jiang Mai tueng ja dee” meaning “How to make Chiang Mai (Jiang Mai) better?” The German “Objective Oriented Planning Process” (ZOPP) was used as brainstorming process.  Participants from various occupations, including academics, housewives, community leaders, non-government organization workers, private sector, media, people’s organization, elderly, etc., were invited.  Many socio-economic and physical problems were addressed at this workshop.  Our campaign process included the poster and essay contests on public policy and the direct election of mayor.  We hoped that information would be passed on from students to parents to raise their awareness. The Second Phrase (November – December 2003) we organized “The 3rd Oo-fuu Ruang Muang Chiang Mai: Oo Gun Bolaew Bohai Gup Nayobai Satarana” meaning public forum to repeatedly discuss about public policy.  This forum was to  collect information about the quality of directly elected mayor in Chiang Mai residents’ mind and the problems that people thought should be solved immediately.  Small group meetings and the campaigning with organized groups and individuals were done on the citywide basis. The Third Phrase (January-Early February 2004) was the time to launch  intense campaign for the first direct election of mayor of Chiang Mai.  Posters, leaflets, radio spots, banners, and handout were produced and disseminated to the public to announce the election day.  Voters were encouraged to exercise their votes and to consider the candidates’ healthy public policies as factors to vote for.  Radio time was bought to turn on the spot. The project hired some radio programs to turn on our radio announcements produced to invite people to vote on 1st February for the first direct election of mayor.  We also pointed out that the voters should consider public policies that each candidate offered whether they are healthy policies or not.  The second questionnaire was conducted during this period.  After the campaign on public policy and direct election of mayor was lunched several months ago, people have had better understanding about both issues and how they were related.  About 75% of the answer sets returned knew the date of the Direct Election of Mayor and had correct understanding about public policy.  About 49% of the answers said they would go to vote and the same percentage had no intention to vote.	Before the election, a public forum on “Direct Election of Mayor – Which Direction is Chiang Mai going?” was organized.  The aims of organizing this forum were to analyze urban problems and their impacts and the strengths and weaknesses of the existing mayor system.   	Formally before the election the “Ruam Duay Chuay Gun” (Let’s Help) radio program planned to invite all candidates to broadcast their public policies so that more general public knew their thoughts.  However, the Election Watch Committee banned this special program.  They were afraid that if the candidates presented their ideas which sounded like they promised to do something, it might be illegal. 	The 4th period (February – March, 2004) post election period.  This study was evaluated, analyzed and lessons were drawn for other cities.  Public policies that would solve critical problems were continuously presented to policy makers so as to implement them.  Final report was finished and submitted to funding agency.  	Extra activities were the co-organization of public forum on “Chiang Mai Muang Ngam and the High Rise Building” (Beautiful Chiang Mai and the Impact of High Rise Building).  The resolution of the meeting was to protest the construction project of the new Municipal Office.  Based on the health impact assessment, conducted last year, revealed that negative impacts high rise buildings caused on social, mental and spiritual impacts to Chiang Mai society.  In addition, we published the special issue of Chiang Mai Journal on the Cable Car Project to Doi Luang Chiang Dao to call for the ban of the project.     	After the election, our project joined the research projects of the Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University namely the Study of People’s Participation in the Solving of Air Pollution Problem in Chiang Mai Urban Area and the Sustainable Cities Project in meeting with the governor of Chiang Mai.  The purpose of the meeting was to present information of the critical air pollution in Chiang Mai urban area and its health impact and call for strong action from the management.  	This project also organized a meeting on “Public Policy Which way is Chiang Mai heading to” to brainstorm about new public policy in Chiang Mai and the reaction of people’s organizations to these policies.	It is important to notice that statistics showed the decline of number of population and the number of voters due to more out-migration of the middle income families to the suburban area.  In general, Chiang Mai people are submissive and have no courage to argue with others or present their ideas to policy makers. Popular phrase has been “Let the other decide”.   	Those who have good quality but do not have much money dare not run for the election.  Every sector of the society agreed that those who run for any position MUST be using a lot of money.  This is due to the patron-client or superior-subordinate relationship.  Politicians are expected to support the poor voters all the time.  Because the voters were not satisfied with the quality of the new candidates, they did not vote for anyone regardless of the strong campaign calling for voters to exercise their rights to vote.  		The interview and the questionnaires showed that more people had correct understanding about public policy.  They knew that public policy was the policy that could give great impact to the whole society and was widely accepted by the public.  The Central government, local government units and people could all propose public policy.  More people had correct understanding after the campaign of the project than before the campaign was launched.      	Because we could not have exactly the same group of the citizens who answered both sets of questionnaire, the results would not be the only indicators to measure the success of this project.  Particularly when asked about the first directly elected mayor because of the different methods used in each questionnaire.  No matter what method was used, Boonlert Booranupakorn always came first on the list.  Other names on the list changed completely from the first to the second questionnaire.  It is interesting to notice that politician at national and provincial levels appeared on the list when we used open-end method, for example, Dr. Taksin Shinnawatr, Dr. Purachai Piamsomboon, Pakorn Boonranupakorn.  A majority of the answers did not put any name but stated the qualification of the mayor people desired to have.  These answers reflected that most people could not think of a person that they have always thought of or wished to have run for the local election or manage the city.	Five major problems, from both questionnaires and in-depth-interview, that people think should be solved are problems about youth, garbage, drugs and air quality.  It is noticeable that none of the policies announced by all candidates touch upon the youth and drugs problems which were both social aspects.  Most of them were concerned about physical aspects especially the traffic congestion.  Moreover, not very much economic aspect was pointed out.	The following are several reasons why the number of votes reduced from the last election.  First, none of the candidates had an outstanding qualification that touched the heart of the middle class or could attract the voters to vote for.  Even though there was a box that people could check if they did not desire to vote for anyone, most voters still thought it was a waste their Sunday pleasure for local politics.   They thought none of the candidates could improve the city or made a drastic change.  Second, many middle class migrated to the suburban area.  This trend reflected on the reduced number of registered population in the city.  Many of them might have social mind and were interested in politics, but they had no right to vote or run for the mayor of Chiang Mai.	Third, most people thought city management which were in their terms had already paid their ways to the position next term.  This included the regular study tours to other provinces for the community leaders, the all-year free gifts, the free drinking water for the funeral ceremony, etc.  People had tendency to think that their votes could not make a difference, therefore, why would they have to waste their time for the election.  Fourth, besides the Mayor Boonlert Booranupkorn, other candidates were unknown to the public.  This was because other candidates did not perform very much of the public activities.  Some only ran for the election and after they lost, they disappeared and then came back to the lime light again before the next election.  As a result, people never knew their management ability or the willingness to work for the public.	From interviewing the residents and many groups in the city, most people had no interest in the city problems - they only cared for their earn of living.  In addition, Chiang Mai local residents have had the mind set that Seksan Prasertkul called “Contractor mind”, meaning people would not fight for anything for themselves but waited for others to do for them.  In general people would be active only when the problems gave negative impacts directly to them.  Moreover, many people thought politics was a serious matter and had nothing to do to their lives that they did not want to pay attention to or get involved with.  No many people understand the connection of politics, management and public policy.  Some were interested in politics but dared not to criticize it.  They were afraid that their criticism might cause them some trouble.  Those small entrepreneurs along the streets were not very cooperative, partly because they were busy with their business, partly because they would be cheated by strangers.              	From the questionnaires, the most powerful media was the leaflets produced by the project, radio spot, information form others, newspaper, volunteers and the meetings. 	Even though the number of votes decreased from the previous election, it was because of the afore-mentioned reasons.  The number of votes should not be used as the only indicators of the success of this project.  There were more people who had correct understanding about the direct election of mayor, public policy and the importance of it.  The evidence showed by the increase of stakeholders joined in our meetings and activities.  Additionally, more media, academics and citizens have mentioned about public policy repeatedly.  Citizens have had more courage to push for the positive change of the city.     	“Nayobai Satarana” or public policy is a new, unfamiliar word that needs translation.  It is difficult for ordinary people to have clear understanding about the word.  Therefore, it is advisable to find a more simple word to substitute this word.  Simple Thai that is not rooted from Pali or Sansakrit is recommended because every group in the society should be able to understand the word without translation so that people will know that it is related to their well being and they should be concerned and call for healthy public policy. 	One of the problems we faced when conducting this project was the quality of those who applied to be our staffs and volunteers.  Most of them had no knowledge about local government, the old and new election system.  New generation has never paid attention to public policy or urban problems, therefore, they have had limited knowledge on the topic they would have to campaign for.  Therefore, it took time to train the staffs and volunteers.  Apart from the knowledge, the young generation has had no determination to work hard.  They want to get high pay but offer low performance.  Moreover, many of the volunteers were students and when the university opened, they had limited time to work on the projects regardless of the training they got.  Some students never join any student activities and had no experience to work with the community many people lack.  This could be the result of family upbringing, educational system, including the trend of the Thai society.  The young generation now has no patient because they always get something instant and quick.  Many of those who worked for the project had no patient, not torelent or common sense which were one of the major problems of the campaigning process. 	The residents had no sense of strong citizenship, particularly many of those who newly migrated to the city.  The new comers have no sense of belonging to the city.  Very few have good understanding about the city.  Traffic congestion and environmental degradation are something people expected.  They think every city must face all these problems.  They never heard that there are some well managed cities where healthy public policies have been proposed by all sectors of the society.   	There are three comments related to the role and performance of the Health System Research Institute that affects the performance of the project.  First, there were too many changes of responsible persons.  It was confusing who we should contact or seek advice from.  Second, the delay of transferring funding made it difficult to work in each phrase.  UDIF had to allocate some budget to keep the project continued.  Third, in practice there was no other two supporting teams as formerly planned.  Until the end of the projects the other two teams have not signed the contract.  As a result, there was no other team that would comment and give suggestion for the improvement of the campaigning process. 	Lessons for campaigning in other cities are: First, the project leader must spend full time for the project to be able to work continuously and efficiently. Second, the project must have a strong team work.  Third, the success of the campaign depends on the qualification of the candidates who run for the mayor.  Unless there is a charismatic and committed candidate, the silent majority will not go to vote or push healthy public policy through him.