The phrase first emerged just before referendum day via a government spokesperson: “Don’t be afraid of the ghosts that you can’t see when casting votes in the referendum. Be afraid of ghosts that haunted us earlier.”

With “ghosts that haunted us earlier”, Prayut was reprising his much-repeated criticism of former governments, whose corruption and political divisiveness he cites as reasons for the 2014 military intervention.

But what of the “ghosts that we can’t see”? What exactly is it that the premier deems unworthy of our fear?

With the referendum over, the spotlight has swung to the question of who will be next prime minister. With the military in control of both the country and the charter drafting process, speculation is that Prayut will extend his tenure at the top.

The junta chief is famous for speaking bluntly, but has so far been cagey about his future. “It is too early to say anything,” is his typical response to questions on the subject. “It’s no use being afraid of ghosts you can’t see yet.”

It seems Prayut is telling people to not worry about the path taken to the next general election, which is being plotted behind closed doors by junta-appointed officials, amid an ongoing ban against political gatherings and under absolute power afforded by Article 44 of the interim charter.

Referendum voters also approved a proposal for the junta-selected Senate to join the elected lower house in selecting the prime minister for the first five years of the next parliament.

The powers-that-be are now debating how to put that process into practice. The draft constitution says candidates for prime minister should be drawn from the lists of political parties, with the Senate only allowed to intervene in the selection process if the lower house cannot do the job. But the National Legislative Assembly has called for the Senate to have the right to name its own candidate from the beginning.

Is this the ghost Prayut is telling people not to fear?

Another question: If he doesn’t want people to fear this spectre, why bring it up at all and thereby risk our suspicion that there is something to hide?

This is not the first time Prayut has raised the issue of political fear. Prior to the referendum, he declined to outline what would happen if voters rejected the proposed charter, merely saying he would be responsible for composing the next draft.

That uncertainty invited fear that something unpredictable and worse might follow a “no” vote.

Every good military general utilises psychological tactics to win his battles. But in his role as the country’s leader, Prayut has a duty to minimise public fear rather than magnify it with ambiguous and provocative statements.

With the current post-referendum situation of relative stability, he can afford to start now, by easing the clampdown on free expression and political activity and relinquishing some of his sweeping powers.

This would improve his administration’s image as well as proving to some that claims to be forging a path back to democratic civilian rule are not empty.

wasamon.mint@gmail.com