The general also said he would deal with those people himself. “We have some means to deal with them,” he said. “They are troublemakers. They may stir up trouble as much as they like, but we will arrest them.”

When asked if authorities would “play hardball” with the political activists campaigning against the draft charter, the Army chief responded: “You will have to wait and see. But we will no longer summon them for ‘attitude adjustment’ any more. They just didn’t get what we said to them.”

He said the media paid too much attention to the small group of protesters.

“Three or four troublemakers came out loitering. A dozen reporters followed them, and more than 100 police officers showed up. A lot of confusion ensued,” Teerachai said.

“In fact, we should not pay attention to them. If the media do not treat them as important, nothing will happen.”

Teerachai said there was no plan to summon former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s son Panthongtae for questioning in connection with an allegation he was funding some of the eight webmasters arrested recently for campaigning online against the draft charter and the junta. He said some of those arrested had confessed to the alleged connection.

However, deputy police spokesman Pol Colonel Krissana Pattanacharoen yesterday declined to confirm any connection between Panthongtae and the arrested persons. But he added that more arrests would be made of individuals found to be linked to the suspects.

“If evidence points to Panthongtae, police investigators must summon him for questioning as part of the procedure,” Krissana said.

Meanwhile, NCPO spokesman Colonel Winthai Suvaree yesterday countered a call by ex-prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra for Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha to listen to his critics.

The spokesman said Prayut had been open to comments about him and his regime on many channels so that they could be adapted to benefit the country. He said the government was not prohibiting dissent, it was simply attempting to ensure that such opinions were spread through appropriate channels, with non-violent means.

The spokesman said this was unlike events in the recent past, when the country not only was divided but also saw loss of lives due to political violence. “That was not acceptable, in any society,” he added.

At the Crime Suppression Division, Chatchet Songsri, who claimed to represent a group calling itself “We Love the Country”, filed a police complaint calling for investigation into the New Democracy Movement (NDM) group of activists.

Chatchet said police should trace the trail of money used to fund the NDM’s frequent activities. “I wonder if there is anyone behind them and if their activities are funded by anyone,” he said.

In a related development, the military court yesterday granted a police request for further detention of Pheu Thai Party politician Watana Muangsook over accusations he violated an NCPO order. Watana is to be detained from today until May 14 pending completion of an investigation.

He defended against criticism that the EC’s six guidelines for ‘dos’ and eight guidelines for ‘don’ts’ were not clear. If people voiced their opinion with no intention of influencing the public on how to vote either way, then it was legal, he said.

“Reasoning in an academic way with honest intention – such as why one agrees with the draft is alright. If one makes a provocative comment that the public should not accept the draft, then it is illegal,” he said.

The Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) or other government agencies cannot campaign for the public to accept the charter draft.

Supachai said the courts of justice would decide who broke the law or the EC regulations, and not the EC.

Former government chief whip Udomdej Rattanasatien said the EC regulations might be both appropriate and not appropriate – but people must comply with the regulations. Critics must offer their comments carefully and be sure they give correct information. “The EC has the right to sue charter draft critics who will face lengthy court cases,” he said.

Democrat Party deputy leader Ongart Klampaiboon said the circumstances surrounding the referendum were nothing short of the people being “held hostage”.

This was due to the fact that the CDC, the state agencies, could disseminate the content of the charter without being accused of trying to persuade the public to vote for the draft.

“It is believed that they reached out to the public as part of a public relations campaign to tell the people the good points of the draft,” he said.

On the contrary, those who have different opinions cannot reveal what they see as drawbacks in the draft. “The government had better allow people to speak about the drawbacks – then it will be regarded that the referendum is being carried out with justice and liberty so that the country can move forward without conflict,” he said.

“The EC and people in power must understand that the reason we have a referendum is because people have different opinions. To settle the differences, people must feel that the referendum is justified so they accept the results of the referendum,” he said.

The National Reform Steering Assembly’s political reform committee chairman Seri Suwanpanont moved to criticise as confusing the EC’s “dos and don’ts” for the public in regard to the referendum. He said that Article 61 of the Public Referendum Act had clearly stated what activities were banned. EC guidelines that banned campaigning about accepting or rejecting in a manner to instigate political disturbances were confusing, he said. “Does it mean people can campaign in a manner that does not instigate political turmoil?”

EC member Somchai Srisuthiyakorn was quoted as saying that the erecting of signboards, using needles, stickers for individuals are allowed for now – “but be aware these activities might be deemed illegal. So the public is left with doubts [about what] can be done,” he said.

Seri added many individuals would not dare to make any comment about the charter because concerned officials had the right to interpret what was right or wrong.

Meanwhile, Somchai said that when the EC declared something could not be done, it did not mean the agency was banning such activities. People who wanted to adopt such activities can go ahead – but if someone filed a complaint with police, [the result] would depend if the public prosecutor was willing to indict them and if the court found them guilty.

“The court may rule otherwise on what the EC says cannot be done. The EC only gives guidelines. It is a misunderstanding for people to think that these guidelines are too strict. They are actually very lenient and promote freedom of expression – but this liberty is limited in that their statements must not be vulgar, false and instigating,” he said.