Key government figures have spoken out against foreign agencies observing the referendum, on the grounds that they do not want foreign “interference” in what they say is a domestic matter.

With such a mindset from the top, the EC has not invited anybody to observe the voting, although is not banning any foreign agencies from doing so.

EC member Somchai Srisuthiyakorn defended the agency’s position, saying that it had not invited anyone for fear of being of accused of discrimination.

“If we do not invite all agencies, we can be seen as discriminating,” he said.

However, the Election Commissioner stressed that the organisation was ready to assist any foreign agencies that wish to monitor the referendum by providing them with accommodation, interpreters, plus food and drink.

Somchai said that anybody was to free monitor the referendum, from the opening of the ballot boxes to vote counting and other aspects of the nationwide poll.

The EC expects 20 teams of not more than 100 people to observe the referendum, he said, adding that any foreign agencies that do so are required to abide by the law.

Pongsak Chan-on, Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel) project coordinator for Thailand, said the organisation was still awaiting approval from the EC to observe the August 7 referendum. But Anfrel had initially received positive feedback from the commission after approaching it for permission, he said.

The international watchdog, however, asked the EC again late last month after reports that the government may ban expressions of opinion in regard to voting in the referendum.

Pongsak, who is also an adviser to We Watch, a domestic watchdog network, said that We Watch had also already discussed its referendum observation plan with the EC. At that time, the EC told the network that the referendum bill did not mention electoral observation by third parties.

Pongsak, however, believed that observation can be carried out, as the referendum law does not actually ban such activity.

“I think the EC should approve observation, since it shows the agency allows people’s participation in the referendum process,” he said.

Somchai, however, gave conflicting statements that Anfrel had not contacted the EC, while EC deputy secretary-general Thanit Sriprathet said Anfrel, plus the Asian Foundation and Bhutan had requested permission to observe the event.

Sakul Suesongtham, director of the Open Forum for Democracy Foundation (P-NET), said the EC had not invited anyone to observe voting in Thailand for many years, but any agencies wanting to do so must inform the commission of their intentions.

He said P-NET would take part in the observation of the referendum by looking into 50 issues, ranging from wrongdoing before and after the voting to the training of voting officials.

P-NET had learnt from the 2007 charter referendum not to jump to conclusions by merely taking into account speculation, hearsay or reports, he stressed.

“Reports were rife that year that soldiers would mobilise voters to vote and pass the 2007 charter draft, but observation showed that the military did not do any such thing,” he said.

Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) member Prapan Naikowit said when he was an EC member, the European Union wanted to monitor the 2007 referendum on the constitution draft. But the Surayud Chulanont government and the EC did not approve the EU request because the agency required referendum information to be submitted to it.

CDC spokesman Amorn Wanitwiwat said he agreed with Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha that the referendum was entirely an internal affair for the Kingdom, and one in which foreign countries should not be allowed to interfere. But domestic agencies could be allowed to observe the referendum to ensure transparency, he said.

Komsan Phokong, lecturer at Rangsit University’s Faculty of Law, said observation would create public confidence in the referendum results.

The National Council for Peace and Order, however, fears that bodies such as the EU would disseminate adverse publicity against the government, so it did not want the Europeans to observe the referendum, he suggested.

“Adverse publicity could arise from the charter draft’s content and the voting procedures, which may lead to problems for the government later. But if the government has nothing to hide, it need not fear that agencies [such as the EU] will find fault,” he said.

Attasit Pankaew, a lecturer at Thammasat University’s Faculty of Political Science, said the government should allow neutral agencies to observe proceedings on August 7. He noted that under current circumstances, the government has political rivals and some members of the public who do not believe the referendum will be carried out fairly. Doing so would create legitimacy for the charter draft and ensure the transparency of referendum procedures in the eyes the public, the academic said.

“Observers can help the government create this legitimacy and transparency in the process,” he added.