Earlier the Ombudsman’s Office had called on the agency to provide an explanation after a group of scholars filed a petition saying that parts of the referendum law violated the constitution, which protects freedom of expression.

The disputed clauses in Article 61 in the Act prohibits the spread of rude, provocative, or intimidating messages about the charter draft and the upcoming referendum. The crime is punishable by up to 10 years in jail and a fine of up to Bt200, 000.

However, Somchai stressed that if the referendum law was to be amended it would be a responsibility of law-making bodies like the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) rather than the EC.

His agency was an enforcer, not a legislator, he said.

Asked if more announcements or regulations on the referendum would follow, Somchai said existing measures should suffice in current circumstances.

Apart from that, Somchai clarified that the main task of his agency concerned providing an explanation regarding the process of the referendum only, not the charter draft content or the additional question.

He said that next month, the EC might hold a press briefing for the media to ask about any referendum matters, but no further stages would be held other than those already scheduled.

The Nation Human Rights Commission (NHRC) called on the government to allow public talks on the constitution draft. People reserved the right to freedom of expression and to information, civil rights panel president Angkana Neelapaijit said yesterday.

The request echoed in the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review to whom Thailand had agreed to consider opening public forums for discussions about the charter draft before the August referendum.

Angkana said public debates, if held in the form of academic conferences or seminars, without defamation, could benefit not only the public but also the authorities.

“The authorities could see diverse perspectives and see how the people think,” she said. “If the current draft fails, the government could have some ideas on how to proceed further, based on public sentiment. If it passes, the comments could still be beneficial when writing organic laws.”

The rights advocate also touched upon the EC, which recently promulgated regulations on the referendum, saying that some clauses rely largely on the authorities’ judgement to determine whether some actions breach the law or not.

For instance, wearing clothes or accessories showing signs about the charter and the referendum could risk violating the law, she said. Angkana expressed concern that such practices would limit rights, freedom, and people’s privacy. She said the EC should be open-minded and not let trivial issues deepen the conflict. Meanwhile, charter content dissemination training sessions have kicked off at district level and will continue across the country until June 7.

Some major concerns raised at some sessions include rights and liberty of people. Some trainees were concerned that this matter was not sufficiently addressed in the draft, thus depriving people access to basic social welfare, such as free education and free healthcare.

Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) spokesman Chartchai na Chiangmai reassured that people could still enjoy all rights except those that the charter or relevant laws said otherwise.

“Everything else besides what is prohibited in the constitution or the relevant laws are all accessible for everyone,” he said.

The training sessions are a part of the public relations scheme, aiming to promote the constitution draft written by the junta-appointed panel. Teacher A, recruited from a provincial level, would train Teacher B from the districts, who would then train Teacher C in communities nationwide, who would help explain the charter content door-to-door.

Norachit Sinhaseni, another spokesman who too sits on a sub-panel to assess if people distort the charter, said the panel was looking at cases violating the referendum law and relevant regulations and would forward details of offenders to the EC.

Regarding issues that have been criticised by opponents, he said the CDC would try to explain them on organised stages, and would not submit the cases to the EC for further litigation.