CDC spokesperson Chartchai na Chiangmai told The Nation that the content dissemination sub-panel had reported progress to a meeting of the commission yesterday.

However, he downplayed the negative responses, saying the emerging problems were minor and “could be fixed”.

They involve technical errors, including broken projectors or poor speakers at some training venues, as well as some lack of understanding of the content among the trainees, which he said was “understandable” because it was quite complicated in some places.

The spokesperson said that while the programme overall had been running smoothly, one foreseeable issue which could arise after the training was to what extent the trainees could reach the targets. This is because, in the end, only four Kru Khor, or Teacher C, would be dispatched per community, some of which can comprise as many as 1,000 households. was to what extent the trainees could cover

“There’s not too much to be fixed I think,” Chartchai said. “We just need to support and boost each others’ morale to get the job done.”

The CDC came up with the training programme shortly after it completed drafting the charter in late March.

The programme is aimed at training volunteers to disseminate draft charter content to the public at the provincial, district and community levels.

The volunteers are known as Kru Kor (Teacher A, province based), Kru Khoh (Teacher B, district based),Kru Kor (Teacher A, provincial based), Kru Khoh (Teacher B, district based), and Kru Kor Kru Khor (Teacher C, community based), with the latter meeting voters in person to explain the charter content before they vote in the August 7 referendum.

There have been reports in some areas that some trainees’ knowledge did not meet expectations, raising fears about how well they will be able to inform voters about the charter.

The training is set to be completed by the end of this week, before the volunteers start being dispatched on their dissemination task.

Meanwhile, leading human-rights advocates held a seminar at Thammasat University yesterday, analysing the degree of freedom of expression ahead of the referendum.

The group included the Union for Civil Rights and Liberty, the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies, and the iLaw group.

They focused on the problematic issue of the implementation of clause 2 of Article 61 in the referendum law, arguing that it was infringing people’s right to have a say in the charter draft, and possibly also violated the interim charter, which guaranteed such rights.

Jon Ungphakorn, director of the iLaw group, said he believed clause 2 violated Article 4 of the interim constitution, which guaranteed people’s rights and liberty.

Jon and other figures from the group had earlier submitted a petition with the Ombudsman calling for nullification of the clause, and the Ombudsman has forwarded the issue to the Constitutional Court for a ruling.

“If the court ruled that clause 2 was unconstitutional, people would enjoy freedom to express views on the charter draft and it would make the referendum procedure fair,” he added.

Jon said that while the government was restricting the rights of charter opponents, it was also spending taxpayers’ money to train charter draft specialists to disseminate information that touched on only the strengths of the draft.

“It is like a campaign to make people accept the draft, but draft opponents cannot launch a campaign as they risk being sent to jail,” he stressed.

Sriprapa Petmesri, lecturer at the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies, said she believed campaigns for or against the draft should be allowed.

“We often hear that the country is not in a normal circumstance, and that is why rights are restricted. But is there an attempt to create abnormal circumstances,” she said.