THE QUESTION whether the public referendum will be held on August 7 is still up in the air with key figures in government offering conflicting comments.

[Referendum explained]

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha said yesterday if the Constitutional Court rules Article 61 of the referendum law is a breach of the interim charter, the public referendum would be postponed.

“It is not that I postpone it. Secondly, when will the court issue the ruling? If it rules before August 7 and the ruling says it is unconstitutional, we must stop. Otherwise we can continue with the referendum as scheduled,” he said.

National Legislative Assembly (NLA) president Pornpetch Wichitcholchai said if the court rules Article 61 unconstitutional, the government, the NLA and the Election Commission (EC) must cooperate to amend the law. “The NLA is prepared to prevent a repeat of the February 2 general election scenario, which was nullified,” he said.

Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) chairman Meechai Ruchupan said he believed the legal status of Article 61 would not cause the referendum to be cancelled because the 2014 interim charter could be amended. The second amendment of the interim charter stipulates that the referendum must be held not later than 120 days after the CDC submits the charter draft to the EC.

Meechai said the referendum would be unconstitutional if it was held after August 7 as it would exceed the 120-day limit set by the interim charter.

“The Constitutional Court knows how much time it has to make the decision. If the ruling is issued after the referendum date, then we have sort out how to deal with the problem,” he said.

‘Aggressive, violent and vulgar’

Meechai added that unless the court rules otherwise, Article 61 would remain in force.

The Ombudsman Office’s move to seek a ruling by the court came after a group filed a petition arguing Article 61 of the referendum law may be unconstitutional because Article 4 of the interim charter guarantees people’s rights and liberties.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said he believed the court’s ruling on the legality of the article would not affect the referendum.

He said if the court ruled the words “aggressive, violent, and vulgar” in Article 61 were unconstitutional, those words could be removed without the NLA having to amend the whole referendum law. “If the court rules that the three words are okay then the problem is solved. The other words ‘false, inciting and intimidating statements’ would be retained so the whole act would not be affected,” he said.

Regarding Prayut‘s statement about the referendum being postponed, Wissanu said the prime minister was looking too far ahead because he feared that if the three words were declared unconstitutional, the public referendum would be adversely affected.

He said Prayut had made his statement out of concern that the public could be misled and able to use aggressive, arrogant and vulgar language.

“These three words may spark disturbances and negative consequences. This is scary but I pray that is not the case. But orders of the National Council for Peace and Order can keep the situation under control,” he said.

Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan allayed fears that repealing Article 61 would spark a new conflict, saying the government is in control.

Wissanu also rejected speculation that the group that challenged the legality of the article were intent on scuttling the referendum.

EC member Supachai Somcharoen said he was confident the EC would not have to draw up a contingency plan if Article 61 was ruled unconstitutional because it was just one small element of the law.

Raksakecha Chaechai, Spokesman for the Ombudsman’s Office, said the Office had already drafted the petition, which was pending endorsement by the three Ombudsmen.