The first took place almost a decade ago when the now-obsolete 2007 Constitution was written after the coup of the preceding year.

It is noteworthy the two share some crucial common factors: Both are votes on a ballot seeking endorsement for a new constitution written by military-appointed panels.

Despite these similarities, the referendum to be held this year will differ from its predecessor, at least when it comes to laws and regulations to modulate political activities ahead of the event. While the 2007 charter referendum contained only 13 articles, the current referendum bill promulgated late last month has as many as 66 articles.

The recently enacted law is apparently far more specific than its precursor, grouping necessary actions into three main chapters – including voting regulations and penalties, as well as laying down more precisely who will do what.

The points specified in the act are not only limited to the EC – as in 2007 – but cover bodies like the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), to be part of charter content dissemination, and the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), which proposed an extra question concerning the role of the Senate to jointly choose a prime minister.

What is of the most concern to observers is the public role in the run-up to the plebiscite period. It is more strictly regulated under this new act and includes an additional announcement of EC guidelines.

Article 61 of the new act addresses six key actions deemed likely to unsettle the poll, ranging from causing disturbances to coercion of voters. Although these are similar to proposals in the 2007 version, the new act has added new clauses concerning public dissemination of charter-related content deemed to be politically provocative. This is equated to causing disturbances, and carries a penalty of up to 10 years in jail or a fine of up to Bt200,000.

With such vague provisions, the EC then has come up with a “Dos” and “Don’ts” announcement for the public to follow.

Seree Suwanpanont, a member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) in 2007, and a current member of the National Reform Steering Assembly, told The Nation the discrepancies had arisen because the people involved with the two processes were different.

“The referendum law in 2007 was prepared by the CDA itself – while the present one is the work of the NLA,” he said. “We were more relaxed back then partly because the CDA worked in Parliament with every step being transparent, broadcast live on television.” He went on to say, however, that the climate then was as dreadful as now and the political divide was already apparent.

“The supporters and the opponents of the draft advertised their stances on the newspapers 10 years ago. But eventually the majority passed the charter in the referendum,” he said. “But everything has changed now, I guess. That’s why the authorities are toughening the regulations for the campaign. They don’t want any more serious conflict.”

Gothom Arya, formerly an election commissioner in 1997 and currently a rights advocate, said the strong laws prohibiting some campaigns were understandable given the circumstances, but he was unsure whether they should be maintained and if they are really necessary.

“Well, they are constantly saying that we are under extraordinary circumstances. So, rules have to be stricter. Some might agree with the notion. But I don’t know,” Gothom said. “They [the regime] have ruled for two years now. And why does the extraordinary circumstance still persist?”

Gothom said he did not entirely agree with all the rules that have been adopted, adding that Article 61 in particular was problematic.

“I think the clauses are somewhat ambiguous and they say it would be provoking or leading. I think expressing one’s opinions is not necessarily always seditious. So, I think the clauses should be removed,” he said. He added that the EC’s guidelines on “Dos” and “Don’ts” are also excessive.

Pornson Liengboonlertchai, a constitutional law expert from Chulalongkorn University, reiterated some of those points on Facebook. He was concerned that the embattled Article 61 might contradict Article 7 of the same referendum law and Article 4 of the 2014 interim charter, which guarantees rights and liberty, including freedom of expression.

He pointed out that it would be unconstitutional to have an inferior law contradicting a superior one – the way that Article 61 contradicts the interim charter’s Article 4. He added that such limitations on freedom of expression also breach international agreements that Thailand has ratified, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Agreements on Human Rights.

Looking at the issue from another point of view, Thammasat University political scientist Attasit Pankaew analysed the current regime’s motivation for promulgating these strict regulations. Attasit believed the current leaders might think the country was experiencing a different climate now than in 2007.

“Any political moves today can have impacts on stability. And that is the last thing this regime wants to see,” he said. “That’s why they are trying to centralise the campaigns, wanting the public to rely on information from the state.”

But this, Attasit said, could be viewed optimistically. “Maybe they are worried that non-state sector campaigning about the draft might not be truthful or sincere and would distort the charter.” “What we can possibly get from all these stringent measures is that perhaps voters would ‘vote correctly’ – meaning they can really make a decision on their own without being influenced by anyone,” he said.