Speaking to reporters after returning from his trip to India, General Prayut also warned that people engaging in such activities would be arrested as it was against the law.

“No. They can’t do it. Authorities do not allow that,” he said, when asked if he had prohibited such a move by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD).

The UDD plans to open the centre and branches in the provinces at a ceremony to be held today at the group’s office at the Imperial World shopping centre in Bangkok’s Lat Phrao area.

Meanwhile, red-shirt leader Nattawut Saikua yesterday said he did not think the event violated the junta ban on political activities or gatherings. He argued that it was not a political move or gathering.

Nattawut also said the organisers welcomed military and police officers to observe their event, which will be held from 10am to noon today.

In a related development, a survey has found that most people doubt the August 7 referendum on the constitution draft will be free of fraud although they did not support the red shirts forming monitoring centres for the national vote.

More than 52 per cent of respondents said they were not certain that the vote would be free of fraud. Of the 1,233 people surveyed, 35 per cent said they believed there would be fraud in the referendum.

Only 12.6 per cent of the respondents said they were convinced there would be no fraud, citing in the junta’s rigour and control over the situation.

More than three-quarters, or 76.6 per cent of the 1,233 respondents, said monitoring for possible fraud should be done by relevant state authorities, according to results of the opinion poll released yesterday.

The majority of those surveyed said they felt it was illegal and unfeasible for the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) to set up its own monitoring centre.

The survey was conducted by Rajabhat Suan Dusit University from June 13 to 17. It followed controversy stirred up by the UDD’s formation of a centre to look out for fraud in the referendum, with branches in the provinces.

‘Just a political game’

Some authorities including Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan, a key man in the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), said the UDD centres were against the law. On the other hand, the UDD claimed it only aimed to encourage voters to turn up to vote in the referendum.

Almost 75 per cent of respondents said the centres could be against the law, so setting them up may not be |feasible.

More than 71 per cent of respondents viewed it was just another political game to cook up a debate and pressure the government.

A total of 63.5 per cent said it was controversial and could cause further chaos. And lastly, about 53 per cent said if centres were to be set up, they should take public interest as a priority.

In regard to transparency provided by authorities, 36.67 per cent said they were certain the authorities could manage to hold a transparent referendum while 35.7 per cent said otherwise; and 17 per cent had no confidence at all, as past elections always involved fraud.

Lastly, asked what they wanted to say to the authorities, 78.6 per cent said they wanted the government and the authorities to be more open and listen to opinions of all parties; 75.7 per cent said all procedures should be transparent. And 65 per cent said if any fraud was found, the culprits should face severe punishment.

Meanwhile, academics yesterday warned voters to carefully read the charter draft – not just listen to explanations provided by the drafters.

Speaking at a public seminar “The Constitution Content and Future of the People”, held by Association for the Promotion of the Status of Women (APSW), Sunee Chairos, a scholar from Rangsit University, said that recent explanations might not deliver all the facts about the constitution.

She said voters should consider if the charter provides sufficient rights and participation for the public, noting that drafters had not responded to a proposal submitted by APSW on labour welfare and rights to petition for laws beneficial to the public.

The scholar did not think the charter allows people and independent agencies to maximise the profit of their rights, as it does not include setting up necessary bodies such as law reform panels.

Siripan Noksuan Sawasdee, a lecturer in political science at Chulalongkorn University, said the Article 44 would persist after the new charter is adopted. She questioned when controversy arises which supreme law would be used.

Pairoj Polpetch, an adviser for People’s Assembly for Reform, said the extra question in the referendum, paving way for a junta-appointed Senate to vote on a prime minister, would allow the NCPO to retain power after the new charter was used. He urged people to read the charter thoroughly, not only listen to talk about it.