Following the enactment of the new Referendum Act – which stipulates severe penalties against referendum campaigns deemed provocative or instigating unrest – and a series of detentions of high profile political figures, scholars, politicians, civil advocates and others have for the first time come together.

They have done this in the form of a group called Platform of Concerned Citizens, with them publicly voicing their concerns over what they view as a “closed political atmosphere” blanketing much-needed freedom of expression towards the new charter draft ahead of the referendum on August 7.

The big names in the group include former election commissioner and peace advocate Gothom Arya, former Human Rights Commission chairman Niran Pitakwatchara and Law Reform Commission of Thailand member Pairoj Polpetch.

The other members include high profile politicians such as Democrat Kasit Piromya, Pheu Thai’sChaturon Chaisang and Chat Thai’s Pattana’s Somsak Prissananantakul.

On April 25, two days after the law was promulgated, the group issued its first statement calling for a joint principle assuring an accountable and participatory referendum process.

It is further testing the water with a forum series, the first due tomorrow to also commemorate ‘Black May’, the 1992 popular uprising that resulted in a bloody military crackdown and the toppling of General Suchinda Kraprayoon’s government.

Buntoon Srethasirote, a former member of the Constitution Drafting Committee and one of the key coordinators of the group, talked to The Nation’s Piyaporn Wongruang about the idea behind the group and the ultimate goal of creating an accountable and transparent atmosphere for the referendum.

Platform of Concerned Citizens regards the referendum as a most critical moment for the country.

Looking back to the day you issued your first statement, what made you come together for such as move?

You may have learned that the civil sector has actually long been working in a certain way with the political sector, either behind closed or open doors. We had observed the same concern – that the current political atmosphere is quite closed to public discussions, especially about the latest charter draft.

Our concern arose after we had read the content of the draft. This was accompanied by the facts that a series of detentions was also on the rise, in contrast to what was supposed to be, which is freedom of expression ahead of the referendum – one of our most critical decision-making moments for our country.

So we started to get in touch with one another again, and discussed how we could have the space for discussions about the charter draft before we made such a critical decision. It’s what we call “a safe dialogue platform”.

What triggered your concerns? The series of detentions, the new referendum, something else?

They’re all mixed together. In addition, what we saw was the stance of those in power over the issue. This has become increasing clear to people – that those in power, or the National Council for Peace and Order themselves, have not shown the public that they are open to different voices and views enough to assure us they would listen.

The point is: People’s emotions have already changed from the beginning of the coup … Now there has been an increasing call for democracy to be returned and they want to get back on track, something that we are not sure they [the junta] have realised.

Actually, it’s a kind of a test for us all too – whether we are too divided to get together and talk about something that will be important to our lives, like the new charter draft and the referendum. By calling for an accountable and inclusive referendum process, we wish to see a joint principle, a joint procedure, that we can work together first. Then, we will have forums held to discuss the draft’s content further in detail. Whether we wish to pick only topics of our interest to discuss with the public will be the next matter.

Don’t you think the current atmosphere is open enough for discussions?

Like I said, considering the NCPO’s stance, the legal interpretation and implementation of the new referendum law, I must say that it’s not quite.

The law itself is supposed to be the new rule guaranteeing public expression because it’s a law, right? But when interpreted or implemented, you can see now that it goes against what’s supposed to be. It restricts freedom of expression rather than promoting it – something that we thought, well, maybe it’s not the right way to go. This is despite the fact that the law even has one article mentioning a guarantee of freedom of expression – Article 7.

The legal interpretation by those in power including the deputy prime ministers, who have gone opposite to one another, has also caused confusion among the public on how to proceed with the referendum.

This has also confused us despite the fact that we have some lawyers giving us recommendations. Because of the law, we ourselves are not sure whether we should post our next activities onFacebook – for fear that it would be interpreted that we are calling people to vote against the draft.

It’s a kind of challenge ahead, but we will go ahead with the forums to let people know the draft content as much as possible.

Compared with the referendum on the 2007 Charter, what are the similarities and the differences [with this process]?

The 2007 referendum was far more open, but actually this had a lot to do with the charter drafting process from the start. The 2007 period was more open and inclusive, allowing other sectors to propose their inputs, and that helped facilitate the processes that came later including the referendum. The political context was also different – it was not as divisive as the present time.

The most important thing is that at present we have lost a lot of trust in one another, so it’s very hard to believe in what someone says or promises.

Who initiated the idea to push for an inclusive and accountable referendum process?

I must say the idea to try to create a joint process first started with civil society. We then approached politicians. They actually wanted to see an open space the most.

As I told you, the two sectors have actually had connections and have been working together to a certain degree.

So what would be the next step for the group?

According to our statement, you can see that we call clearly for an inclusive and accountable referendum process, which means we want to see the space for freedom of expression for issues of importance like the charter draft.

So, we would make it happen. We ourselves will also push for public forums to discuss the charter draft content. We will adhere to the law and see for real, what we can or cannot do.

A referendum is actually a public-learning process, for people to learn to live together amid differences, both in terms of process, and in terms of content.

So, this referendum is very important to us all, and that’s why we are trying this time.