Such a claim of legitimacy might pass muster at home but from the viewpoint of the international community, Sunday’s referendum has as much credibility as the 2008 referendum in Myanmar. In many ways, the referendums in Thailand and Myanmar have a common strand – they were conducted to seek legitimacy for military-sponsored constitutions. Perhaps Myanmar’s junta, then known as State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), took inspiration from its Thai counterpart – the Council for National Security (CNS) – which had conducted a referendum to endorse its charter in 2007.

The CNS, which toppled the elected government of Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006, held the charter referendum in a relatively free atmosphere. It allowed people to digest and debate the content of the draft. Pro-democracy activists were able to campaign against the military charter. The 2007 charter got the approval of 14.72 million people or 51.8 per cent of those who cast their ballots. However, the proportion of people who said no to the 2007 charter was relatively high with 10.74 million disapproving – 42.19 per cent of those who cast their ballots.

In May 2008, Myanmar’s SPDC followed in the footsteps of its Thai counterpart and conducted a referendum amid the deadly Cyclone Nargis, which seriously damaged many areas including the largest city, Yangon. The voting date was set for May 10 but people in many areas could not cast their ballots until two weeks later due to the severe impact of the cyclone. The SPDC announced there was a 99-per-cent turnout and 92.4 per cent of the voters had backed the military-sponsored charter. The international community widely rejected the referendum as flawed.

Myanmar’s military government had refused to allow international or independent referendum monitors including the United Nations’ offer for assistance in running the referendum. Many international human rights groups said the referendum was held in an atmosphere of official coercion and vote tampering. Unfazed by international opinion, the constitution came into force and the junta called an election in November 2010, which was won by the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party.

One of the key members of the junta, General Thein Sein, became the first president under the 2008 constitution. Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the pro-democracy National League for Democracy (NLD), who had been locked in a long battle with the military since 1988 had to wait for five years before winning the general election last year. However, because of the constitution, she was barred from taking the top job in the administration. The NLD currently runs the country under military guidelines in line with the constitution, while the military preserves its right of veto. The commander-in-chief of Myanmar’s armed forces can take charge whenever he deems it necessary. The Thai junta, which now calls itself the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), has decided to follow in the footsteps of its Myanmar colleagues.

Sunday’s referendum was held in a manner very similar to Myanmar’s 2008 referendum. Luckily, there was no storm or any natural disaster.Like the SPDC, the NCPO did not allow the population to digest the content of the charter. The majority who cast their ballots on Sunday told a survey that they had not read the draft at all. Criticism of the draft was not allowed and campaigning against the draft was declared illegal. Students, activists and politicians were arrested, detained and prosecuted for their actions against the charter. International pleas for freedom of expression and people participation were consistently rejected.

While politicians and activists were prohibited from campaigning against the charter, military officers and civil servants were dispatched to communities to promote the charter. However, the Thai military are not as tough as their Myanmar colleagues because they failed to force the majority in the Northeast, the Upper North and Muslim-majority deep South to endorse the constitution. As in Myanmar, the next step is the new constitution will come into force and the charter drafters will draft organic laws to secure the military’s power in politics.As a consequence of the constitution, GeneralPrayut Chan-o-cha or other members of the junta will be allowed to take over the premiership after the general election.

Like the NLD, pro-democracy groups in Thailand might need to struggle for a while to have a chance for genuine participation in the administration as the charter has not tailored the next election scheduled for late 2016 or early 2017 – if the junta honours its word – for them.

The “happy” camp were pleased to vote for the draft constitution – partly based on the conviction that the junta’s road map will lead the country to a more stable future. Some voted with the belief that the new charter will lead to a new election, the first since 2011, to bring the country back in line with the international community for whom democratic rule counts.

For the “unhappy” camp, the reasons varied. Some do not support the junta’s course and many believe the charter will not pave the way for a rosy tomorrow. It is also undeniable that some voted “No” to support their favourite politicians who rejected the draft, ranging from Democrat leaderAbhisit Vejjajiva to Pheu Thai’s Yingluck Shinawatra. And led by the forceful fight from students belonging to the New Democracy Movement and activists, many voters were concerned with restrictions on democratic rights and potential limitations on public services as a result of the charter.

It is also illuminating that one “Yes” supporter admitted that she didn’t know the consequences of the additional question in the referendum – which sought support for the junta’s plan to have appointed senators involved in picking the next prime minister.

She also didn’t know that the new constitution could make it possible for the state to provide free education only until the junior high school level and to provide basic health services only to the very poor, not everyone as is currently the case. She added that she didn’t know that the charter empowers the government to approve big projects before the public-hearing process is complete and that environmental and social concerns will be addressed, but no longer as priorities.

She said she found all these details only after casting her ballot. “I did something wrong,” she exclaimed.

And she was not the only one. Many went to polling stations without knowing the content of the charter, with their minds clouded by preachers saying the charter would end a state of chaos, and many intimidated into staying silent about their opinions ahead of the vote.

Many other “Yes” voters did understand the content of the charter draft, however. One voter said only by approving the charter draft could the country have a clear road map for the future. “Disapproval might have thrown the country back into turmoil headed for an unforeseeable future,” she said.

Days before the referendum, rights groups slammed the junta for intimidation with an analyst of the Economist Intelligence Unit warned the “No” camp could win due to the high degree of intimidation. Rather than stir curiosity, however, 17 million felt this was the time to exercise their “Yes” votes.

A poll by King Prajadhipok’s Institute showed that only 0.9 per cent of Bangkok voters studied every section of the charter, compared to national average of 3.4 per cent. The ratio in the Northeast was 4.2 per cent. The percentage of people voting “No” in the Northeast was at 51.42 while 69 per cent of Bangkok’s voters approved the draft.

This creates an irony. People in the North and the Northeast have previously urged everyone to respect their votes for their favourite political party, but no one listened. Now, the “Yes” camp has urged everyone to respect their votes in the referendum, with overwhelming support from the military which now enjoys increased legitimacy in charting the country’s future.

People in the “Yes” camp disregard the fact that Thailand is now the only country in Southeast Asia that is ruled by the military – a situation that could continue for at least a decade. They did not heed warnings from Myanmar media that if the charter were endorsed, Thailand would fall into the same situation that Myanmar was in before.

But everyone must live with hope. We observed the UK referendum in June, which also produced both happiness and unhappiness. But after the vote, unhappy people did not lose hope. They tried to seek a halt to “Brexit”, submitting a petition to parliament to put a brake on the process. Realising the divisions, UK politicians handling the Brexit have also been extra careful in their actions. They know that they are doing a job that defines the entire nation’s future and they are accountable to all Britons, not just to Brexit supporters.

I sincerely hope that the junta exercises this sense of accountability and its supporters realise their true duty to the nation. Thailand cannot be further divided or this vote will be just another failure in Thai history. Everyone born here is equally entitled to the country’s resources and this should not be left to the mercy of those in power.

No matter how people voted, the junta should respect human rights and liberty in expression. The public should be given space to express their different views without any kind of intimidation.

As the country had decided to trod the path of democracy, a coup is totally seen unjustified and unacceptable.

With the passage of time, the ruling junta is under pressure from the public, which is increasingly dissatisfied with junta’s conduct, no matter what its justification.

“Following violent incidents which have erupted both in Bangkok and in several areas upcountry, resulting in innocent people getting killed and injured, and have escalated to the point that it can affect national security and public safety, the National Council for Peace and Order needs to take control of the situation as well as state power to ensure the situation will immediately return to normal, as well as national unity, and give a chance for major structural reform to bring equality to all,” declared General Prayut Cha-o-cha on May 22, 2014, shortly after the coup took place.

As people have come to terms with reality, there is widespread disenchantment with the coup, which is aggravated by the continued suppression of their rights by the powers-that-be.

However, merely fulminating against the coup is not going to resolve the underlying problems. What led us to this point? Political complications resulted from the deep-rooted problems concerning inequity in all aspects of society, something that has much to do with the principle of equality, rights, and liberty which fundamentally supports democracy.

Since it first experienced democracy 84 years ago, Thailand has been repeatedly sucked into internal turmoil which eventually ended in a coup at least 11 times, averaging one coup every eight years.

If democracy is already strong and well developed, why do we still end up with coups that destroy the very foundations of democracy, leaving us with the task of starting all over from scratch?

This may be the time for us all to evaluate our society and our politics so that we figure out what actually is going wrong and what changes we need to make.

This needs a holistic view that cannot be achieved without a true understanding of the real meaning of rights and liberty. This also means responsibility and respect for others’ rights and liberty, plus greater tolerance, something that seem to be absent amid the war of words in our politics.

To maintain the belief in democracy, fighting for our rights and liberty against the coup would be justified, but to achieve meaningful democracy what is required is we take action that vindicates our belief.

The current coup has taught us a crucial lesson, as it is about to lead us to a tougher test on the path towards democracy, with several elements in a draft charter, if it passes in a referendum on Sunday, posing a challenge to the democratic regime that would form the next government. Besides repeatedly demanding rights and liberty, what we also need is demonstrating our tolerance and respecting for the majority that will decide the country’s future. Our belief and our maturity as a nation are about to be put to the test.

Rights and liberty are precious, and worth upholding as long as we believe in democracy, as are tolerance and respect for the rights of others so that we achieve a meaningful democracy that will not leave anyone behind following a widening social and economic gap.

The question is, whether we are ready to prove we are mature and can move forward together. The referendum on Sunday will point the way forward.

pypostbox@yahoo.com

However, Meechai Ruchupan, the country’s leading legal expert who has been with the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) from the beginning, took upon himself the task. Two other leading legal experts, Borwornsak and Wissanu Krea-ngam, were unavailable. Wissanu has served as deputy prime minister in charge of the government’s legal affairs. Borwornsak was heartbroken after his draft was rejected by the NRC.

It was a big gamble for Meechai to accept the job of leading the Constitution Drafting Commission. For a legal expert of his stature, it would be an embarrassing loss of face if his draft failed to pass the referendum. Such a scenario would also pile up pressure on the junta, as it would have to end up writing a new constitution and its legitimacy would be at risk.

Initially, it was believed that Meechai’s draft would be able to sail through the national vote easily, thanks mainly to the fact that the NCPO has exercised control over the country’s politics after the coup of 2014. Critics faced legal action if they campaigned for people to. vote against the draft.

However, as time went by, the outlook has become uncertain for the draft charter. The outreach to the public about the referendum has been low key. Many people have no understanding about the draft’s content. Several eligible voters are opting not to vote while others plan to vote in accordance with their beliefs, without knowing anything much about the merits or demerits of the draft.

Despite restrictions by authorities, people have been able to communicate through social media and the Internet, which serve as efficient and powerful tools for disseminating opinions.

Many eligible voters have learned to avoid commenting publicly about the draft charter. They prefer to exchange views with like-minded people in closed online chat groups. Opinion leaders in communities and local politicians also can communicate with their supporters through social media. And they no longer need to meet them in person, which could attract the attention of authorities.

Interestingly, many people have become frustrated with the NCPO exercising power in a way that affects their rights and feelings. The resultant dissatisfaction certainly could influence how those people would vote in Sunday’s referendum. Although the vote is on the draft charter, for many observers the referendum also could serve as a litmus test on public acceptance of the NCPO.

Many voters certainly will rely on one or a few issues of interest in the draft constitution to decide whether to vote for or against it.

There has been dissatisfaction with the draft charter. Some people are unhappy that there is only little public participation in the drafting process. Others see that provisions in the new charter are unlikely to help tackle the country’s problems as intended. So it is not surprising that many people have announced that they will vote against the draft.

We eligible voters can determine our future by casting votes in this Sunday’s referendum. You can make your decision known at the ballot box. We would like to urge all eligible voters to exercise their voting rights for the sake of our country’s future. You have the power to decide what is good for the country.

attayuth@nationgroup.com

Both units have been hit hard by rapid changes in the telecom sector over the past few decades, making it necessary for them to embrace drastic changes. But some 15,000 employees at TOT and another 6,000 workers at CAT Telecom are reluctant to fall in line.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha threatened to take strong action against those opposed to the changes as ordered by the State Enterprise Policy Committee or Superboard, after union leaders and some executives did not cooperate with the Superboard mandate.

Basically, TOT and CAT Telecom have to merge their network operations to stay competitive within the next year, meaning transmission and fibre-optic sub-units will be combined as a new unit, the National Broadband Network Co, while their Internet gateway and submarine cable networks will be merged as Neutral Gateway Network Co.

Last but not least, the separate data centre operations will be merged as IDC Co.

However, TOT’s and CAT Telecom’s service units will remain separate operations as holding companies.

Employee unions and some senior executives have voiced their strong opposition to the drastic restructuring mandate.

Unless the two agencies are quickly reorganised, they will be heading for bankruptcy. TOT is especially vulnerable, as its revenues have dropped sharply as lucrative earnings from previous telecom concessions are coming to an end. The company has 15,000 workers.

Both agencies enjoyed an easy time for decades as the recipients of billions of baht in concession fees and shared revenues from privately-owned telecom companies which introduced mobile phone services to Thailand.

Now, their future depends on the competencies of management and workers in the highly-competitive technology-driven marketplace.

The combined assets of transmission and fibre optics are highly valuable as they are the core of the country’s national broadband network, which has the potential to take advantage of the fast-growing demand for telecom and digital services.

They are also highly prized by Internet gateway and data centre operations and could be leveraged to gain from the country’s rapidly-evolving digital economy.

Most TOT and CAT employees have little reason to fear for their future under the restructuring.

Gone, however, are the days of the easygoing work culture of state-owned agencies as these transformed units and their leadership need to adopt a more private-sector-like management style and mentality to stay relevant in the digital era.

Thailand Post is a good example of such a successful transformation. Previously, it was part of the Communications Authority of Thailand or CAT. Now, it is a competitive and a highly-profitable operator in the fast-growing e-commerce sector.

In the first half of 2015, Thailand Post reported profits of Bt1.3 billion on revenues of about Bt11 billion, with parcel delivery services accounting for nearly half of total revenues.

The company seems destined to enjoy high growth along the path of a sustained e-commerce boom in coming years.

TOT and CAT Telecom also have similar potential and they need to look at Thailand Post as an inspiration for change and renewed prosperity.

Despite pushing hard for the charter draft to be approved, the junta still faces a tough task.

The Nation last week gathered the stances of concerned groups in society to find out who supports and who opposes the draft. We found the voice of the opposition to be louder.

Those who expressed a clear intention to vote “No” were Pheu Thai Party; the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship; Democrat Party politicians siding with current leader Abhisit Vejjajiva; pro-democracy academics from the Nitirat group; 43 other civil society networks; the student-led New Democracy Movement and Resistant Citizens Group.

The “Yes” votes are from the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO); the Constitution Drafting Commission; the National Legislative Assembly; the People’s Democratic Reform Foundation led by Suthep Thaugsuban; pro-Suthep Democrat politicians and former yellow-shirt groups.

Although there are still a number of undecided voters, believed to be more than 50 per cent of the around 50 million eligible voters, and their vote could prove decisive, the junta should still be concerned about the stance of major political parties.

The Pheu Thai and Democrat parties won more than half of the total eligible votes – 15.7 million and 11.4 million respectively – in the previous party-list election. They have sent a strong message to the junta by opposing the draft, without caring if the next election would be delayed as a result of the draft being rejected in the referendum.

The parties’ stance would undoubtedly have an influence on their supporters.

Such voters will be casting their votes without considering whether the charter is good or bad for the country, whether it will help move the country forward, or whether it will make their lives better.

It appears that they are being forced to choose between democracy and dictatorship.

If you decide to vote “Yes”, you could be branded as favouring the military regime. But in reality, you could have been fed up with professional politicians who in your eyes have done nothing good for the country except further their own interests. They are also the main factor in the prolonged 10-year conflict.

In fact, you may be just a pro-democracy activist who believes the end justifies the means. You just want the general election to be held as per the road map and you do not want any delay because of a new round of charter writing.

If you vote “No”, you will be called anti-coup or anti-dictatorship. But in reality, you wanted to show your rejection of the NCPO and their legacy – the charter draft.

Your “No” vote may have been to enable the NCPO to stay in power for as long as possible. Your simple reason could be that you are fed up with corrupt politicians and don’t want to see an election being held until reforms ensure all the defects in the political system, including bad politicians, are eradicated. You are not certain if the party you hate would win the election again, or you may think the country is not ready for democracy yet.

The outcome of the referendum will see different interpretations on the legitimacy of the winners and losers, which will definitely have a huge political impact.

A “Yes” win could be claimed by coup supporters as legitimacy for the coup makers, as it would be seen as a rejection of the politicians and their supporters who had rejected the draft.

But if the “No” camp wins, the anti-coup movement would claim the junta has no legitimacy and they would certainly put pressure to ensure the junta has no say in the writing of a new draft. In a worst-case scenario, they might come out on the streets to oust the junta from power.

Whether the draft will pass or not, the deep division in society still remains and this time it would be a fight between democracy and dictatorship.

jintana@nationgroup.com

For years, every party that got involved with the capital market claimed ownership of the Thai bourse – brokerage houses, asset management firms, listed companies, and even state agencies.

Under the law, the SET was set up as a special corporate under supervision of the Finance Ministry through the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SET, as the operator of the Thai stock market, gets exemption from corporate income tax, which is part of the government’s policy to encourage more fund-raising via the capital market.

During the government of Abhisit Vejjajiva, when Korn Chatikavanij was the finance minister, there was an idea to demutualise the SET in a bid to make it more efficient and free from dominance. This would have made the SET a private entity, which also enables raising of funds via the stock market. Certainly major stakeholders were most likely to be brokerage firms as the SET’s founders.

The idea was greeted with agreement and disagreement.

The disagreement side views demutualisation (privatisation) as unsuitable for the SET even though it agrees with the benefits of demutualisation, as it would make the SET more efficient, flexible, and free from political interference. One reason the opponents give is the SET is not a kind of operator of services related to infrastructure that are a pivot to people’s daily lives. The SET is not ready to do so, as its market capitalisation is not yet sizeable and there is still a shortage of infrastructure preparation.

Given that the SET is a monopoly by nature and requires high capital, once it is demutualised, it could be open to being monopolised by the private sector. Stock markets in the US and EU face fierce competition and need to survive on their own. As is known, the SET holds funds for capital market development worth more than Bt8 billion apart from earnings – derived from transaction fees contributed by brokerage firms, listing fees, and clearing and settlement fees – after expenditure of more than Bt1 billion annually.

The government of Yingluck Shinawatra, under finance minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong scrapped the “demutualisation” plan for the SET.

Current Finance Minister Apisak Tantivorawong also disagrees with the idea of demutualisation, but it has now been floated with a new name – “corporatisation” – meaning the state retains ownership of the SET.

What will change is a reduction in the number of seats on the SET board for the private sector – from five to four – which has not really pleased stock brokers.

And the key point is that the Bt8-billion fund for capital-market development will be moved out of the SET and put under the supervision of a committee, which will be set up by the new law.

At the end of the episode, all this means is that demutualisation is not ncecessary for the SET to prevent interference. The Finance Ministry is the SET’s real stakeholder even though stockbrokers believe they deserve to be the owners.

It would not matter who are the stakeholders in the SET if the capital market is not developed, as it should be.

sasithorn@nationgroup.com

Many people are still unaware when the national vote takes place and whether August 7 is a big day.

Many people have just started to pay attention to the upcoming referendum following the news of voter lists displayed at polling stations being damaged or stolen – in some cases by some unexpected perpetrators, such as little children and macaques.

Interestingly, despite the low level of public awareness, opposition to the draft constitution seems to be higher than it was ahead of the vote on the 2007 charter. At that time, the charter’s opponents mainly consisted of politicians from former premier Thaksin Shinawatra’s dissolved Thai Rak Thai Party, as well as activists and academics close to the red-shirt movement. In the previous referendum, 14 million people voted to approve the draft, written after the coup of September 2006, compared to 10 million who voted against it.

This time around, many people have come out against the draft written by the Constitution Drafting Commission. They include politicians from the Pheu Thai Party, which is linked to Thaksin, and leaders of the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD). There are also academics from the Nitirat group, the student activist group New Democracy Movement, and a network of 43 groups of academics, students and public members. A number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also made it clear that they would vote against the draft.

A high-powered group Platform of Concerned Citizens is not clearly against the draft charter but they disagree with a number of points in the draft. The group consists of people from several circles including some government supporters and many well-known politicians from different political parties. They include Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, Pheu Thai key figure Sudarat Keyuraphan, Chart Thai Pattana heavyweights Somsak Prisanananthakul and Nikorn Chamnong.

Some political observers have played down the opposition to the draft charter. They are not convinced the draft’s opponents will be able to turn the size of their supporters into actual majority votes against the draft. For them, the opposition to the draft comes mainly from Pheu Thai and the red shirts, which are essentially the same group of people.

Unlike Pheu Thai and the red shirts, the observers are not convinced NGO activists and academics who are against the draft will be able to influence people to vote the way they like.

As for the Democrat Party, Abhisit and his faction may not be totally pleased with the draft charter. But Suthep Thaugsuban, the leader of the People’s Democratic Reform Committee, has retained his influence among many Democrat politicians although he left the party as secretary-general after leading a street protest against the previous government.

Suthep is an avid supporter of the draft charter, having spoken in his daily Facebook Live broadcasts about what he describes as benefits of the “anti-corruption constitution” draft.

Some critics have described the seeming lack of decisiveness among the Democrat politicians as a “two-faced strategy” to ensure that they can go with the flow whichever side wins in the referendum vote.

It should be reminded that we still have not heard the views of many ordinary people what they think about the constitutional draft. Due to the strict Referendum Act and Election Commission regulations, many people have been too afraid of legal consequences to speak publicly in the run-up to the referendum. These people certainly will make their view known when they cast their ballots.

Their fear was reflected in the results of recent public opinion surveys, which showed that no more than 10 per cent of respondents said they would vote against the draft. However, in many polls, up to a third of those surveyed said they remained undecided – although it was likely that several of them in fact had already made up their minds.

Some people involved may be happy with the poll results that show only a small percentage of eligible voters are against the draft charter. That may turn out to be a big mistake for them, when the referendum results actually come out.

attayuth@nationgroup.com

The mood and sentiment might be different but the logic is exactly the same as when Thailand blocked Cambodia’s proposal to list the Hindu Temple of Preah Vihear as a world heritage site in 2008.

During a meeting of the World Heritage Committee in Turkey from July 10 to 20, the Myanmar delegation wanted the committee to delay the Thai proposal since the area apparently overlaps territory under the sovereignty of Myanmar.

Everybody knows, including Thai officials at the Foreign Ministry, that world heritage status in areas where boundaries are unclear has no bearing on sovereignty rights.

Paragraph 3 of Article 11 of the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage makes that point clear. The article states: “The inclusion of a property in the World Heritage list requires the consent of the state concerned. The inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one state shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute.”

For the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) World Heritage Committee, territorial conflicts could undermine the spirit of world heritage as happened during the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia between 2008 and 2010. The committee told delegates of the two countries to settle the issue in a timely fashion. Thanks to the Turkish coup attempt, however, the committee decided to postpone the meeting to October.

However, the Thai team might need to do more homework. The explanation that the designation has nothing to do with sovereignty over the territory in question was not convincing for Myanmar because Thai representatives registered similar concerns nearly a decade ago against regarding the Cambodian proposal to register Preah Vihear.

Myanmar officials referred to a meeting between State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha when the former visited Thailand in June, which saw an agreement that Thailand would not propose the designation of the KKFC before the border is demarcated. Thai officials referred to the same meeting in a different fashion, telling media that Prayut guaranteed there would not be border issues involved in listing the forest as a world heritage site.

Thailand’s delegates also showed their Myanmar counterparts a revised graphic with new coordinates demarcating the area. The new graphic indicated that the proposed forest area is situated only in Thailand’s territory. The western side of the area runs along the boundary line between the two countries delimited by Anglo-Siamese treaties, according to an official at the Thai Foreign Ministry.

The Myanmar delegation’s problem, however, is that the revised graphic was submitted late and, furthermore, the boundary between the two countries in the area is still unclear.

Thailand, then known as Siam, signed an agreement in 1868 with the British Empire to demarcate the boundary at the Tenasserim area indicating a boundary running from present-day Mae Hong Son province down to Ranong.

Time and nature have since destroyed the demarcation signs. Thailand and Myanmar set up a joint boundary committee in 1993 to redraw the boundary demarcation but many areas along the 2,401-kilometre border still have not been settled. The Tenasserim area where the KKFC is located in Petchaburi province, which is mostly forested and inhabited by ethnic Karen communities, is one such area.

Prayut and Suu Kyi have agreed to resume the joint boundary committee’s work but it will not be easy to progress quickly. There is no way the committee will make the boundary line clear before the world heritage session in October.

History now haunts Thailand. The Thai team needs to convince Myanmar that the world heritage status has nothing to do with territorial sovereignty, and more importantly make sure that ultra-nationalists in Thailand do not politicise the issue for political gain as happened with the Preah Vihear issue.

When the referendum law was promulgated a few months ago, the PCC expressed serious concerns about strict restrictions it placed on debate of the charter draft content. As the vote draws near, the concern has intensified over a lack of transparency in the whole referendum process, where tight control is apparently being applied by authorities in a bid to prevent the worst-case scenario of the charter draft being voted down.

Key government figures including veteran legal expert Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam have repeatedly explained that if the current draft fails to pass, the interim charter would have to be amended to pave the way for another drafting process.

With such a firm stance from the government, the calls from scholars and prominent politicians now go beyond the pre-referendum process and touch directly on the heart of the issue: the lack of public participation in the charter drafting process, which in turn gravely undermines the legitimacy of the proposed supreme law itself.

Besides calling for free and fair debate ahead of the referendum, the PCC also called for information on alternatives in case it fails to pass, so as to help people make better decisions at the referendum. Most importantly, the group has called for any fresh drafting process to be genuinely inclusive and constructive rather than the exclusive preserve of the powers-that-be.

Since the CDC was appointed to draft the charter nine months ago, people from various sectors have voiced concern over the lack of participation in the process. Those concerns grew after the implementation of the referendum law’s strict restrictions on freedom of expression and ambivalent statements from the Election Commission.

As a result, the legitimacy of this present draft is being seriously questioned, to the point that prominent figures, including Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, have predicted that if the highly divisive draft passes the vote, a new conflict could arise.

Political experts in the PPC ranks have pinpointed the heart of the issue, and the powers-that-be would be wise to heed their recommendations before it is too late.

With the government enjoying full and unchallenged authority, the charter draft may well pass the referendum. But without widespread acceptance its legitimacy would be undermined.

Although time is short, the government and the National Council for Peace and Order still have room to heed the group’s calls and correct the missteps. This could start with their support for free and fair discussion during the next two weeks, and assurance that any fresh drafting process will be inclusive of all sectors of society.

Without that shared feeling of ownership in the highest law that will govern our lives, any claim of legitimacy for the charter will ring hollow. Worse still, it could sow the seed for fresh conflict that plunges Thailand into deeper division.

Piyaporn_won@nationgroup.com