He also asked fellow Asean nations to join hands to tackle increased regional security challenges.

Member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations should adhere to a “strategic new equilibrium”, he said, and address regional security challenges, such as terrorism and extremism, cyber-security, irregular migration, climate change, South China Sea disputes and tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

General Prayut made the call in his keynote address during the opening ceremony of the 15th Asia Security Summit in Singapore on Friday night.

“Countries in the region should think of sovereignty in less traditional terms in order to support collective security in the long term,” he said. “If we look at everything from the standpoint of conflict, we will never be able to see a way out.”

“If we focus solely on borders, some of which are still in dispute, then again, we’ll never find a way out,” Prayut told the annual meeting.

He also reiterated that the military had to stage the 2014 coup as a necessary step in the transition towards a sustainable democracy.

“Thailand is in a transition towards a strong and sustainable democracy,” Prayut said before an assembled ballroom of defence ministers, senior military officers and defence analysts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies-hosted event, also known as the Shangri-La Dialogue.

He was quick to defend his government’s record on human rights, refuting critics who say that Thailand has increasingly clamped down on freedom of expression.

“We have enforced the law only in situations where the laws have been broken,” he said. “So taking action in these instances should not be considered in violation of human rights.”

Emphasising that stability within Thailand was important for stability in the wider region, Prayutcalled for increased cooperation between countries to build “a strategic new equilibrium in the region” and ensure peace.

“All countries have to begin from a foundation of security and stability and no one country can face these challenges alone,” he said.

Alluding to tensions in the South China Sea, Prayut said that small and mid-sized countries should “avoid the trap of having to choose sides”.

“Compromises must be made for the common interest, for common security,” he said.

Other issues addressed by the Thai premier in his speech included irregular migration, a major issue for Thailand as it grapples with the challenge of dealing with waves of migrants and refugees fleeing nearby countries like Myanmar.

“Irregular migration is the joint responsibility of the origin, transit and destination countries,” he said. “The responsibility should not be a burden on any one country.”

The former general led the Thai Armed Forces in a coup in May 2014, establishing the National Council for Peace and Order, which continues to govern Thailand today.

THE authorities and related parties yesterday concurred that the potential annulment of a controversial clause in the referendum law would not result in a referendum on the constitution draft being postponed.

They agreed that the removal of the second clause of Article 61, which prohibits the dissemination of false, violent, or vulgar messages that could incite unrest, would not invalidate the entire law.

[Referendum explained]

The development came after junta chief, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, had said the referendum could be postponed if necessary.

His remark was in response to the Ombudsmen’s petition to the Constitutional Court seeking a ruling on whether the clause contravened the 2014 interim charter’s protection of people’s rights and freedom.

The chief of the Constitution Drafting Commission, Meechai Ruchupan, said yesterday the issue was not critical.

He re-emphasised PM Prayut‘s statement that the referendum would be put off only if necessary.

Asked whether a delay would shake the government’s security, Meechai replied that he did not think so. He said there would be no postponement based on a personal demand from the powers that be.

He added that the annulment of the second clause of Article 61 would not delay the referendum. “It could be postponed only if there is a nuclear attack or a world war, I guess,” the CDC chief said, in apparent jest.

However, Meechai expressed concern that an annulment could open the way for the distortion of the charter, thus affecting the CDC’s information dissemination of the charter content.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam agreed that an annulment would not have a great impact on the referendum and the law regulating it.

“If the [Constitutional Court] rules that it [the clause] really violates the charter, then we remove the three problematic words: aggressive, harsh, and rude,” he said. “It will not affect the rest of the referendum bill.”

However, Wissanu agreed that the potential for the charter draft to be distorted as a result would be an issue, adding those distorting the charter could have various intentions and manipulative approaches. The deputy PM did not say what measures would be used against them.

Seree Suwanpanont, chairman of the political reform panel under the National Reform Steering Assembly, concurred that the referendum bill would not be invalidated by a single clause in Article 61.

“The petition was only against the second clause of Article 61 … The referendum could still go on,” he said.

He added that the National Legislative Assembly could adjust the clause to make it clearer, if the government insisted on wanting to contain any act deemed seditious during the run-up to the referendum.

He suggested that the government and the NLA propose an amended version of the bill by immediately removing the controversial clause so that the Constitutional Court would not have to rule on the matter.

The Internet Law Reform Dialogue, or iLaw, the organisation which lodged the petition against Article 61 with the Ombudsman’s Office, issued a statement on its website in which it said the nullification of the clause would not affect the referendum or other clauses in the bill. If the referendum were to be postponed, it would be the result of a decision made by the powers that be, iLaw said.

It reasoned similarly that any verdicts given by the Constitutional Court would only affect the problematic clause. The rest of the referendum bill would still be in effect and the planned referendum on August 7 would not be affected, it said.

“iLaw would like to stress that if the referendum is delayed, it wouldn’t be the result of the verdict of the Constitutional Court against the second clause of the Article 61 of the law. But it would rather be the arbitrary decision of the powers that be,” the statement read.

“However, if the Constitutional Court rules that the petitioned clause is against the constitution, it will help make the referendum law not become a tool to limit rights and the freedom of expression of the people.”

Prayut said last night on his TV show, “Returning Happiness to the People in the Country”, that he had discussed the issue with his Deputy PM, Wissanu, who confirmed that an annulment of the clause would not stop the referendum.

During his weekly talk show “Returning Happiness to People in the Country”, Prayut claimed that people who distort information about the National Council for Peace and Order wanted to escalate conflicts.

“Some people are motivated by fame and say things to garner more likes and followers,” Prayutsaid. “They don’t realise that fuelling hatred leads to destruction and conflict.”

With less conflict, Prayut claimed, authorities would be able to conduct their duties more effectively.

Prayut‘s response came in light of the amended Computer Crime Act, which many are worried could limit people’s rights as well as violate their privacy.

For example, Article 14 stipulates that those posting information that could “potentially frighten the public” could face defamation charges.

Article 20 also allows authorities to remove any information stored on computers that may be deemed perilous to public peace, even if this data does not infringe any laws.

The bill, passed recently by the Cabinet, is being considered by the National Legislative Assembly. Amnesty International (Thailand) and Thai Netizens have sought a revision of the bill.

Prayut, meanwhile, defended the upcoming regulation as nothing near a violation of human rights because it is merely designed to keep order in the Kingdom. “If people just want it their way, then let’s not have me or any government, or an election for that matter,” the premier mumbled, “and let’s just live in anarchy.”

The use of a justice system is essential to curb something violating laws, he added, “otherwise there will be no justice and we will be mired in conflict”.

The PM also cited the military’s strategy of cyber-warfare, where armies take control of the communication channels of the enemy in order to gain the upper hand. Cyber-warfare deals with members of the public who make hate speeches by defaming another person without due cause.

During yesterday’s one-hour programme, Prayut was again accompanied by a presenter, this time Priya Natevichien, who interviewed the premier on a range of issues including concession of Thailand’s source of natural gas to possible removal of the referendum bill’s contested Article 61.

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha will point to the importance of the military in maintaining security during his speech today at the 15th Asia Security Summit in Singapore.

Government Deputy Spokesperson Maj-General Werachon Sukondhapatipak said Prayut would stress the military’s role and development as the key factors promoting security. He will also speak about Thailand’s willingness to contribute to security in the Asia-Pacific at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)-hosted event, Werachon said.

He said Prayut‘s speech would cover regional and global security issues and their impacts on the region, including threats to Asean such as extremism, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and irregular migration.

Prayut said on Tuesday that his 30-minute speech would also cover poverty, inequality and human-trafficking issues. He will seek Asean’s cooperation in these areas through existing regional mechanisms. “I will have to be careful that my words won’t cause any further problems,” Prayutsaid.

Werachon said that Prayut would be the first Thai leader to speak at the summit, also known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, after being invited to do so by his Singaporean counterpart, Lee Hsien Loong, and IISS.

Lee, last year’s keynote speaker at the event, will host a tea banquet to Prayut prior to the summit.Prayut is not expected to hold significant talks with Lee – except thank him for the invitation and discuss a date for their leaders’ retreat.

Werachon said a longer meeting was not necessary because the two leaders had met in Sochi during the Asean-Russia Commemorative Summit two weeks ago.

Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai, Interior Minsiter General Anupong Paochinda and the National Security Council secretary-general General Thawip Netniyom will also attend the summit.

Lee and his deputy Teo Chee Hean, who met with Prayut on Monday for talks on anti-terrorism, will be present at the summit, which runs from today to Sunday.

The US defence secretary and the defence ministers of Canada, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam will be at the summit, according to the IISS Asia executive director Tim Huxley.

China’s People’s Liberation Army will send a delegation to speak about the South China Sea, one of the summit’s key issues other than growing tension on the Korean peninsula.

The IISS has organised the summit with the support of the Singaporean Defence Ministry.

– The referendum will take place on August 7.

– Voter will be asked to decide on two issues. One is whether to approve the charter draft written by a junta-appointed panel. The other is whether to agree that the next Senate, handpicked by the junta, should jointly choose a prime minister along with the elected MPs.

– Anyone who is 18 or older on the day of the referendum is eligible to vote but it is not mandatory.

– The referendum bill prohibits organised campaigns for or against the charter. Violators could face up to 10 years imprisonment and a Bt200,000 fine. The Election Commission has already filed a complaint against at least one person, who is accused of posting rude comments about the draft charter on Facebook.

– If both issues pass the plebiscite, the government promises a general election could take place next year following its road map.

– If not, the general election might be postponed. A new round of charter drafting could start, which would probably take about two months to finalise a new charter.

– Controversies about the charter include its provisional clauses: the junta will appoint the first Senate, which potentially will have the authority to jointly choose a future PM during the five-year transitional period; and Article 44, granting broad executive powers to the government, will still be in effect after a new constitution is adopted.

– Another significant point about the referendum is that “No” votes against the draft could be interpreted as a rejection of the current regime.

– Former members of the now-defunct People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) and pro-junta forces are among the charter’s supporters, while major political parties – Pheu Thai and Democrat – as well as pro-democracy groups are against it.

– The junta-led National Council for Peace and Order will be in power at least until the new cabinet is set up.

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.

THE REFERENDUM on the charter draft will be held as scheduled on August 7 irrespective of the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Ombudsman’s petition whether Article 61 of the Public Referendum Act 2016 is unconstitutional, an Election Commission member said.

[Referendum explained]

The second paragraph of Article 61 prohibits dissemination of untrue, provocative, vulgar and intimidating messages through print and electronic media or other channels that could incite unrest.

The Ombudsman has ruled that the Article could be deemed in violation of the 2014 interim charter that guarantees freedom of expression.

The ruling came after former senator and director of Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), Jon Ungpakorn, filed a petition with the Ombudsman seeking a ruling on the legality of Article 61.

Election Commission member Somchai Srisuthiyakorn said the referendum would continue to be held on August 7 even if the court rules in support of the Ombudsman’s stance.

It is yet to be seen if the Constitutional Court would accept the petition from the Ombudsman to rule on the legality of Article 61, Somchai said.

He supported the Ombudsman’s move, saying it would provide clarity on the legal issue. The public referendum law is still effective. “The EC must uphold the law until the court rules otherwise,” he said.

Somchai, however, warned that even if the court ruled the second paragraph of Article 61 as unconstitutional, people who disseminate untrue, provocative, vulgar and intimidating messages through print and electronic media could face charges under the Computer Crime Act or the Printing Act.

National Legislative Assembly member Wallop Tangkananurak said although the legality issue has not yet been ruled on by the court, the process of holding the referendum would be carried out.

He added the EC still had power to check if anyone was committing offences as stipulated in the referendum law.

“Article 61 is completely valid. Anyone committing offences would face prosecution, and action may also be taken under the computer law,” he said.

He said if the court ruled in favour of the Ombudsman’s petition, only Article 61 would be invalid and not the whole Act.

Wallop dismissed speculation that the move to seek the Constitutional Court’s ruling was intended to scuttle the referendum, saying the Ombudsman had no ulterior motive but only wanted to prevent implementation problems.

Siam University law lecturer Ekachai Chainuvati saw two possibilities: either the referendum could be annulled if the Constitutional Court finds Article 61 violates the interim charter, rendering the whole bill illegitimate; or, only the article would be deleted without the rest of the bill being adversely affected.

Ekachai explained the Article would still be effective until the court decided otherwise.

“The obvious problem is nobody knows how to act with regards to the Article,” said Ekachai, who also signed the petition seeking the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

“The Ombudsman’s decision is also a big surpise to me,” he added “It’s like snow is falling in Bangkok.”

Charter writer spokesman Udom Ratamarit said if the court ruled that the paragraph was unconstitional, the dissemination and public relations on the charter draft might be adversely affected.