Many voters remain unaware they will also be asked to decide whether they support the proposal to give unelected senators the power to help select the prime minister.

Even now, questions like “What is the referendum about?”, “When is the vote?” and “What issues are we voting on?” are being widely asked.

It seems that many of us still have little understanding of this crucial step for our nation’s future.

Given the fact that authorities are not distributing copies of the draft constitution to every household, the information gap should come as no surprise. Insufficient budget to publish and distribute enough copies, along with the difficulty many citizens would have in digesting the lengthy and technical document, were the reasons given.

Instead, authorities opted to distribute booklets summarising the draft and giving interpretations of its content by the charter writers themselves. As such, no one should expect its negative points to be highlighted.

While it’s true that the draft consists of more than 200 articles and uses legal terms that some might find difficult to understand, these are not good reasons to deny all households a copy. As voters we need full information of a supreme law we will all be living under if it passes the national vote. A full copy of the charter draft would also serve as a reference and invaluable source of debate, enabling citizens to cite accurately certain provisions to back arguments. With easy access to copies of the actual draft, we could also see for ourselves whether its content was being distorted by the junta or other groups.

Authorities have suggested that anyone interested can download an e-copy and print it out. But shouldn’t that be part of their duty as organisers of the referendum? And what of the many people across the country who still have no access to the Internet?

The reality is that without a physical copy, voters are being deprived of their right to join the public debate on contentious issues surrounding the draft. Such debate should be free and open to all, not limited to those with Internet access and savvy. The proposed law would, after all, cover each and every one of us.

When news emerged recently of a fake copy in circulation that featured distorted content, people joked that they had not even see the real one.

Some saw it as a plot to limit public debate on the draft. If that allegation is true, the plot seems to have succeeded.

With no physical copy of the draft constitution easily at hand, voters are unlikely to vote on the basis of its merits or demerits or in response to its actual content. Instead they will vote according to beliefs or emotions based on hearsay, political loyalties and other spurious sources.

Much will depend on how effective the supporters and critics of the draft are in persuading the voters to believe them.

attayuth@nationgroup.com

The latest figures show that Korean FDIs here are only one-tenth and one-fourth of Korean FDIs in Vietnam and Malaysia.

At issue is Thailand’s inability to attract more Korean firms to invest here. This was recognised by Deputy Premier Dr Somkid Jatusripitak, who recently led a delegation to Korea to learn first hand the various problems hindering Korean FDIs in the country.

As Asia’s fourth largest economy and a member of the G-20 grouping of major economies, Korea plays a key role in the global economy. It’s also the world’s sixth largest exporter with shipments worth $526 billion in 2015.

In a bid to diversify Thailand’s foreign investor base, it’s necessary to step up efforts to woo more Korean firms to put their long-term money here.

According to Noh Kwang-il, the Republic of Korea’s ambassador, Korean firms in the 1990s viewed Thailand as a vast market – but most of the business sectors were already dominated by Japanese companies.

If a Korean firm invested, say, $100 million here, the return might be small – so most Korean firms have been looking at other alternative host countries.

Vietnam was seen as more attractive, especially after the country opened up its economy following the adoption of Doi Moi or economic reform policy. In addition, Japanese competitors were cautious about Vietnam back then due to its communist regime – but big Korean firms such as Daewoo and Posco took risks and went ahead with their projects.

Other Korean firms followed suit and reaped higher returns on their investments. Today, Korea is Vietnam’s largest foreign investor.

Besides Vietnam, Indonesia is another choice for Korean investors – seen as more attractive than Thailand due to Indonesia’s much bigger population of over 250 million and its economy being the largest among the 10-country Asean Economic Community.

During his official visit to South Korea, Somkid expressed concern at Thailand’s performance in the eyes of Korean investors. As a host country, he offered Korean firms several investment opportunities for infrastructure projects, including for water and flood prevention management, as well as railway construction.

K-water of Korea, for example, was given hope for the revival of its water management project in Thailand awarded by the previous government but suspended following the 2014 coup. However, there has been no progress on project revival so far.

Meantime, Korean firms were also asked to study the feasibility of an upper East-West economic corridor railway link to connect Thailand with Myanmar and Laos.

In other words, Somkid believed, major Korean firms needed a big boost from the Thai government to kick-start mega-projects and play a bigger role in the economy and FDI scene so that smaller firms could follow suit.

The deputy premier also needed to convince Agriculture Minister General Chatchai Sarikulya to give a hand on the water management project. It was felt the general might not be comfortable with the previous government’s approved project.

Regarding the East-West railway linkage, Transport Minister Arkhom Termpittayapaisith may turn to Korea for this feasibility study after China and Japan have already been invited to study and invest in high-speed trains on other routes.

In the previous gubernatorial election in March 2013, Sukhumbhand, seeking a second term as Bangkok governor, was elected with a record 1.25 million votes – more than any single candidate in Thailand’s political history.

His sweet success convinced many political observers that this politician with the blue blood – once a Democrat rising star – has the potential to lead the government in the future. However, after three years in office, Sukhumbhand seems to have been mired in deep political troubles.

He has upset many Bangkok residents over what they view as his disappointing performance. The governor angered many voters when he told Bangkok residents who complained about flooding in the low-lying city to move to a mountainous area.

His colleagues from the Democrat Party started scrutinising some of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration’s projects that they found to be unreasonably expensive.

The governor also became estranged from his party after he repeatedly refused to meet with Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva to explain about those projects. He has denied any irregularities but has failed to convince his critics.

The latest case involves the BMA’s purchase of “compact rescue vehicles”. Democrat politician Wilas Chantarapitak said that the vehicles, equipped with fire-fighting tools, are priced at Bt8 million each. He said there was a plan to buy 20 such vehicles for a total price of Bt160 million.

It was alleged that the vehicles were unreasonably expensive. It looks like an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) modified to be a small fire engine. Strangely, the vehicle has the steering wheel on the left side, which is opposite to most vehicles in this country, where traffic keeps to the left side of the road.

Auditor-general Pisit Leelavachiropas told the media that he had twice advised in writing against purchasing the vehicles. The plan calls for the BMA to use the vehicles for fire-fighting in populated communities with narrow lanes. However, tests by the auditor-general showed that the vehicles could not navigate through slums with narrow lanes. Instead, the vehicles would end up blocking evacuation in case of fire. Also, he warned that having the steering wheel on the left side could slow down future rescue operations.

The BMA maintained that the vehicles had the capability of travelling through small roads and narrow lanes. They also said that it was not against the law to drive with the steering wheel on the left side. But they did not argue against the safety concerns.

This is just the latest in a series of controversies that have shaken the governor’s seat. Earlier, Sukhumbhand was linked to alleged irregularities involving the BMA’s Bt39-million New Year light show and a Bt16-million renovation of the governor’s office. Earlier this week, the Interior Ministry instructed the BMA to take criminal action against the governor regarding the light show scandal.

It is interesting that the Interior Ministry has taken action about the governor. It is true that the ministry oversees the BMA. But in fact the National Anti-Corruption Commission is already investigating this case. It is the NACC’s duty to take criminal action against the governor, as a political office holder, and this matter is beyond the police’s scope of responsibility.

There has been speculation about the possible removal of the governor. Prime Minister PrayutChan-o-cha has axed many top executives of local administrative organisations accused of corruption, by invoking Article 44 of the post-coup interim charter. However, Sukhumbhand has managed to retain his seat despite alleged irregularities.

According to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Act, the interior minister is empowered to remove the governor with a resolution from the Cabinet.

It will be interesting to see whether Sukhumbhand will be able to stay on until his term ends in March next year.

attayuth@nationgroup.com

It is not an exaggeration to say Thailand and Laos really do not have political or security difficulties to trouble their bilateral relations. The two countries have good reasons to build closer ties and push ahead with cooperation for their mutual interests.

However, the first official visit made by the newly appointed Lao Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulith on July 5 and 6 did not produce any new initiatives to take relations to a genuine new chapter.

Thailand was the third foreign country Thongloun visited after taking office in April. He visited Vietnam in the middle of May and Cambodia in late June. It has been a long tradition for Lao leaders to visit Vietnam first as the two countries share a common political ideology. Thailand is a low priority although people on both sides of the Mekong River share a lot of commonalties in ethnicity, language and culture.

During Thongloun’s meeting with his Thai counterpart Prayut Chan-o-cha, the topics raised for discussion were mostly routine and dealt with old issues that have been left unfinished.

The routine work included preparation for the 21st Joint Committee (JC) meeting and the 3rd Joint Cabinet Retreat between the two governments.

A government statement issued after the bilateral meeting of the two premiers said: “Both parties were also pleased with the progress of Thailand-Lao PDR Joint Survey and the Demarcation of the Land Boundary.”

The two countries set up a joint border committee in 1996 to demarcate the boundary. Indeed, the two countries have nearly completed the demarcation of the 702-kilometre land boundary but the work has been slow over the past few years. Some disputed areas – notably three villages and Ban Romkloa, where military clashes ignited between the two neighbours in 1984 and 1987 – are difficult to resolve. Both sides claim the areas and there is no clear solution to resolve the issues.

Thongloun proposed the same idea he always raised when he was the foreign minister – a prompt delimitation on mutually agreed areas in order to promote people-to-people relations.

Beside the land boundary, the two countries also need to overcome a lot of technical challenges to demarcate their 1,108-kilometre maritime boundary along the Mekong River and Nam Heung watershed. That boundary demarcation is unlikely to be finished soon.

One concrete outcome of Thongloun’s visit last week was a new memorandum of understanding on labour cooperation to regulate and manage hundreds of thousands Lao migrant workers in Thailand. Lao migrants generally have fewer problems in Thailand than do those from Myanmar. Many of them are able to exploit ethnic, cultural and language similarities to work illegally without drawing the attention of authorities.

The two countries face a common challenge over the utilisation of the Mekong. Judging from the government statement, it seems like neither side has an idea how to tackle the issue. The two premiers did, however, agree to conduct a study on water management and to discuss systematic management of the river with other stakeholders.

Bilateral cooperation between Thailand and Laos is not enough to cope with the challenge. Management of the Mekong River requires regional approaches and cooperation from all stakeholders in the basin including China, Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam. Some projects such as hydropower dams in the main tributary of the Mekong in Laos generate electricity used in Thailand but have negative impacts on the people and the environment in downstream countries. Putting bilateral ties into a regional perspective, both countries needed to take joint responsibility respecting all of the affected countries.

The two premiers also discussed so-called “connectivity” to fulfil shared dreams to turn each country into a linkage for regional logistics. Thailand wants to be a regional hub while Laos has dreamed since the early 1990s that it could turn its land-locked geography into a land link connecting the entire Southeast Asia mainland. Things have gone smoothly as transport infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports have been built in Laos, but a regional rail link from Kunming in China via Laos to Thailand does not seem to have a very bright future. While Laos managed to reach a deal with China on its train project, Bangkok still does not have a clear path to conclude a deal with Beijing. To that extent, the connectivity plan still has a serious disconnect.

made the latest move in the junta’s efforts to take back state land from those having illegal possession. This has been at the top of the NCPO’s agenda from the time it staged the coup two years ago.

PM Prayut signed a new NCPO order, which in effect would empower concerned state officials to take back forest land from encroachers, and allocate it to poor farmers under the Agricultural Land Reforms Office (ALRO)’s supervision.

The order said vast land area earmarked for allocation has been extensively encroached on while the plots already allocated have changed hands from farmers to big investors.

Hence the government intends to take such lands back and redistribute it to poor farmers, who are expected to be the real beneficiaries of the scheme.

The problem of lack of land to sustain the livelihood of poor farmers has long been a challenge for many governments in the past. What complicates matters is that many of the large number of such farmers listed with the ALRO, which reflects the scale of the problem, are found to be the same persons who have a role in the alleged illegal occupation of forest areas.

As such, if a government managed to tackle this problem, it is always believed that a conflict concerning forestland occupation would be relieved to some extent. That’s crucially part of the reason why the ALRO’s work is critically important and gets close attention from all governments. The other reason is that those who are found to have received the ALRO land from farmers are often influential figures, including politicians.

According to the ALRO, around 34.7 million rai has been allocated to 2.1 million farmers. But over time, these deeds have changed hands – which is addressed by the NCPO order – and a lot of illegal occupation of land has been reported. The order, coming at a time when state mechanisms are generally viewed as weak, is seen as a medicine for the malady and has won praise from the public.

However, as revealed by the latest statistics from the Agricultural and Cooperatives Ministry observers may have to rethink their stance.

The ministry, which supervises the ALRO, found almost 500,000 rai being occupied is actually land in stock pending agricultural land reform procedures. Only a relatively tiny portion is found to have changed hands – some 5,000 rai – compared to the almost 35 million rai already allocated to farmers. The order stipulates that those occupying the land in stock must prove their land use rights by showing validated documents, and if they are unable to do so they must immediately return the land to the ALRO under the NCPO order.

The latter may be a lengthy process, as it has already passed verification of rights, whereas there has long been a number of reports of a huge amount of ALRO lands changing hands for years.

The latest figure shown by the ministry, therefore, has raised a fresh question as to whether the NCPO is really serious about tackling the core problem of the ALRO lands being sold.

The NCPO had previously issued at least two orders – 64 and 66 – when it first took office two years ago, to take back forest land encroached upon in protected forest areas, but as the statistics from concerned forest agencies have shown, cases of fresh forest encroachment are far fewer in number compared with the plots changing hands and becoming court cases.

Despite claims of success by the government in reclamation of encroached forest land, it is undeniable that the plots in conflict are still far greater in number, and the government can hardly do anything about it.

To demonstrate that it’s really serious about it, the NCPO and the government need to show that they have placed the right focus on the problem and come up with more responsive measures. Without that, we can never be sure that our forestland or agricultural reform land taken back by the state will go to the right recipients, and it’s not just window-dressing to buy time.

Piyaporn_won@nationgroup.com

In a press release, the court stated that it found the clause in question was not in conflict with Article 4 of the provisional charter. That ruling was in response to a petition by the Ombudsman’s Office following a request by a group of activists. The Constitutional Court on Monday provided its detailed explanation for the verdict.

Court verdicts must certainly be treated with respect. However, critical analysis and debate on interesting court verdicts is something that should be encouraged for better understanding.

The second paragraph of Article 61 in the referendum law prohibits dissemination of untrue, aggressive, violent, vulgar, provocative and intimidating messages through print and electronic media, as well as any other means, with the goal of influencing votes or preventing eligible voters from exercising their right, or causing unrest during the referendum.

Article 4 of the interim charter states that, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, all human dignity, rights, liberties and equality of the people protected by the constitutional convention under a democratic regime of government with the King as the head of state, and by existing international obligations bound by Thailand, shall be protected and upheld by this Constitution.”

The Constitutional Court’s verdict in this case has two interesting issues. First, the court ruled that it is not against the interim charter to issue a new law to restrict rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution. The court explained that the freedom of expression protected under the interim charter may be restricted by certain legal provisions, which is stated in the charter.

The court gave as an example a clause in the previous constitution of 2007 that stated that restriction of rights and liberties “shall not be imposed except by virtue of the provisions of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of maintaining the security of the state, safeguarding the rights, liberties, dignity, reputation, family or privacy rights of other persons, maintaining public order or good morals or preventing the deterioration of the mind or health of the public”.

It should be noted that Thailand’s constitutional guarantee of rights and liberties differs from some other countries. The Kingdom’s supreme law often states that the guarantee of those rights and liberties “shall be in accordance with the relevant laws”. That means a particular law may overrule the constitution even if it restricts certain rights and liberties. It is because that is allowed by the constitution itself. In effect, the constitutional guarantee is completely meaningless.

This is certainly different from some other countries where the individual rights and freedoms are guaranteed in a way that they cannot be restricted by any other law.

The next interesting issue involving the latest Constitutional Court verdict is about the ambiguity of certain terms in the Referendum Act clause in question, namely “aggressive”, “violent”, “vulgar”, “provocative” and “intimidating”. The group that petitioned with the Ombudsman’s Office expressed concern that such ambiguous terms could land defendants in jail.

The Constitutional Court verdict described the terms as “clear words with no specific meanings”. The court gave as an example the word “night” that can refer to any time between sunset and sunrise.

However, the court also admitted that the terms used in Article 61 could lead to judgement. That means the terms are actually ambiguous.

Also, the court seemed to attempt to allay fears by stating that it was likely defendants would not face the severest penalty imposed by the law. In fact, people who do not commit the alleged offence do not deserve any punishment, even if it is the lightest of penalties.

Speculation is rife on the outcome of this vote, which will either endorse or reject the new constitution that was drafted while the country is under a military-led government.

A comfortable margin of victory for the new charter is supposed to be as much as 60 per cent. An outcome similar to the recent Brexit vote in the UK, however, would be disastrous for the military.

Regardless, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has made it clear that he will not quit even if the new constitution is rejected.

In preparation for the August 7 vote, the Pheu Thai Party and its allies have stepped up their attempts to influence voters to vote against the charter, as has the camp that favours it led bySuthep Thaugsuban and his allies. Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan, a key figure of the former camp, has also entered the fray after staying quiet for a long time.

A former public health minister and close confidant of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, Sudarat attempted to play a reconciliatory role, but Pheu Thai’s arch-rival Democrat Party and party leaderAbhisit Vejjajiva declined to join a recently planned meeting with Pheu Thai and other political party leaders.

However, there will be further moves by the Pheu Thai/Thaksin camp in the lead up to next month’s referendum.

In response to the anti-charter camp’s actions, the Prayut government has instructed the Interior Ministry to set up operation centres at provincial and district levels nationwide to ensure that the referendum will not be disrupted.

Peace TV, a satellite channel linked to the red shirts, which are allies of the Pheu Thai/Thaksin camp, has also been ordered to suspend satellite broadcasting for one month starting on Sunday.

Other similar measures are probable ahead of the vote, which the military believes it can win but with an uncertain margin of victory.

Unless the margin is substantial, there will be more challenges down the road, opening the way for opponents, especially the Pheu Thai/Thaksin camp, to play their own games to counter the NCPO’s power.

In such a scenario, Suthep and his allies would also return to the scene with familiar confrontational tactics playing out again.

After all, veteran politician Sudarat has just become a resurgent and crucial factor in the Pheu Thai/Thaksin supporters’ latest struggle to stay relevant in politics after their wings were clipped following the 2014 coup.

When Thaksin was prime minister starting in the early 2000s, Sudarat was a leading woman in the Cabinet holding several important portfolios, including at the helm of the Public Health Ministry.

She also played a leading role during Thailand’s fight against the bird flu and Sars outbreaks.

Previously, she managed a significant faction of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai Party, which preceded Pheu Thai.

Now, Sudarat is reputedly the new choice to lead the country if the Pheu Thai/Thaksin camp has its way again.

She could be the fourth candidate for prime minister fielded by that camp since Thaksin, who was followed by Samak Sundaravej, Somchai Wongsawat and Yingluck Shinawatra.

However, such an idea is still farfetched at this stage.

After British citizens voted to leave the European Union last week, no one knows what its impact on the world economy would be until the separation actually happens, which could take as much as two years.

There is full backing for the current efforts of Deputy Prime Minister Somkid Jartusripitak, who is in charge of economic affairs, to woo foreign investors to come to Thailand, as this might be the last engine to either drive or shore up the slowdown in economic growth.

During his five-day visit to China ending yesterday, Somkid addressed the government’s five-year plan to develop the “Eastern Economic Corridor” project to Chinese investors with offer of “Super privileges” the following day after the project got the green light from the Cabinet on Tuesday. That’s timely for him.

His mission in China follows his road show in Japan early in June. Under the plan, all preparations will be made for investors, from land plots and privileges to rules relaxation.

In his presentation to Chinese investors, Somkid said the government would set aside 26,000 rai of land in industrial estates, focusing on targeted industries such as biotech, biofuel, aviation, automation, IT and digital, medicine, and medical equipment.

For privileges, the government will offer the investors more corporate and personal income tax privileges, separate from the existing privileges offered by the Board of Investment. Under the BOI’s current privileges, investors in the special economic zone are allowed to waiver of corporate income tax for eight years and the right to lease land for 50 years with renewal of contract for another 50 years.

Some rules and regulations will be also relaxed to unlock obstacles to foreign investments in regard to city zoning and foreign shareholding limit of 49 per cent, especially in the aviation industry.

In addition, infrastructure projects concering rail, road, air, and marine transport will be under integration plan, comprising Laem Chabang’s third-phase expansion, U-Tapao International Airport, U-Tapao deep-sea port, and Bangkok-Rayong high-speed train projects.

The total investment for these projects would be US$55 billion to $58 billion in total, or Bt2 trillion, Somkid said in China. It is not clear how Somkid arrived at these figures, as the eight-year infrastructure development plan announced by the government was worth Bt2 trillion.

As part of the “Eastern Economic Corridor” project, which is an initiative of the joint public-private working committee under the “Pracha Rath” scheme, the East-West Ferry development project is likely brand new. The project will link the East’s Chon Buri province to the South’s Phetchaburi.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has ordered the relevant agencies to speed up the project. He wants the Chon Buri-Bangkok-Phetchaburi ferry project to be completed by 2018. The fact is that the rail projects being built in cooperation with both China and Japan are unlikely to get off the ground as quickly as expected while the commercial seaports could happen in two or three years as the feasibility study is already complete.

One can only hope that the mega-investment projects under the East Economic Corridor plan don’t turn out to be old wine in a new bottle.