The potential obstacle arrived when the Ombudsman’s Office decided to ask the Constitutional Court to rule on whether paragraph two of Article 61 in the Referendum Act meets standards laid out in the interim charter. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha subsequently suggested that the national vote “would be delayed if necessary”.

The Ombudsman’s Office took the action in response to a petition filed by Jon Ungphakorn, head of the Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), former senator Kraisak Choonhavan, and Nirun Pitakwatchara, a former member of the National Human Rights Commission.

The petition claimed the clause in question appeared to violate Article 4 of the provisional charter, which states that, “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 international obligations bound by Thailand, shall be protected and upheld by this Constitution.”

Article 61 of the referendum law prohibits dissemination of untrue, aggressive, vulgar and provocative messages through print and electronic media or other channels that could incite unrest. Offences under the clause carry a prison sentence of up to 10 years, a fine of up to Bt200,000, and the revocation of voting rights for 10 years.

Critics say the clause is aimed at intimidating voters and discouraging them from commenting publicly on the draft constitution. They point out that the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in the interim charter and is especially important at a time when voters need open access to information so as to make well-informed decisions before they enter the ballot booth.

The Ombudsmen’s concern focuses on the phrase “aggressive, vulgar and provocative messages”.

The agency believes the clause fails to clearly define the terms “aggressive”, “vulgar” and “provocative”.

Without clear definitions, the clause is open to abuse by opportunists who could use it as a pretext for filing criminal complaints against others. The ambiguity could also have the effect of discouraging citizens from commenting on the draft charter. In effect, the clause restricts basic rights and liberties.

Some legal experts have cautioned that, whatever the Constitutional Court rules, it is unlikely to result in the referendum being postponed.

They explain that the controversial clause is merely part of the referendum law and has no impact on the rest of the legislation. They also point out that postponing the referendum would entail the laborious process of amending the interim charter.

Whatever the legal ramifications, however, the Constitutional Court’s ruling will have a significant impact on the referendum. If the court rules that the clause is constitutional, we will see a very quiet vote, with few citizens daring to voice their opinions in public for fear of violating the referendum law.

If the court rules it is unconstitutional, voters will get some respite from the clampdown on free expression – though tight restrictions on campaigning applied by the National Council for Peace and Order will remain in force.

attayuth@nationgroup.com

According to AVCJ of Hong Kong, the first quarter this year saw a jump in start-up funds flowing into Singapore, the region’s start-up hub, to US$199 million, compared with just $53 million in the same period last year.

Indonesia attracted the largest share of funding, followed by Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.

For Southeast Asia, the 10 countries grouped together in the Asean Economic Community (AEC) have a combined population of over 600 million while India’s current population is around 1.3 billion.

Previously, most venture capitalists flocked to China and India for start-up investments. In the first quarter of this year, China attracted $1.8 billion in funding, down 28 per cent from the same period last year, while funding for India’s start-ups dropped 17 per cent to about $730 million.

On the other hand, funding for the AEC’s start-ups has been growing rapidly. According to Google, Southeast Asia currently has the world’s highest growth rate of Internet users, with more than 120,000 new netizens added every day.

At present, AEC countries have a total of 260 million Internet users out of the combined population of 600 million.

The number of Internet users is projected to reach 480 million in the next four years, so there is tremendous growth potential for start-ups in the AEC as e-commerce, online media and other digital content look sat to dominate the regional economy.

Over the next decade, the value of digital economic activities in the AEC is projected to rise from the current $30 billion to around $200 billion per year.

However, there are a number of challenges facing tech start-ups in the region, including barriers of different languages, laws and regulations as well as diverse consumer preferences.

In addition, the region needs to catch up on developing an ecosystem conducive to nurturing start-ups, especially with regard to logistics for delivery of goods and services as well as for payment.

In Thailand, tech start-ups are seen as a new economic growth engine, but one lacking an ecosystem that would attract newcomers. Responsibility for building that ecosystem lies with the government and other stakeholders.

For instance, the Thai finance ministry is considering tax exemption on capital gains and dividends for venture capitalists and private equity trusts as well as individuals and companies who invest in venture capital and private equity funds.

In addition, state-owned Krung Thai bank and SME Bank will provide a combined Bt6 billion in seed money for investment in promising start-ups in addition to funding from overseas and domestic venture capitalists, private equity trusts, individuals and companies.

Some of the promising home-grown start-ups include the seven fin-tech, travel tech, logistics tech, and social-tech teams recently selected by the Dtac Accelerate programme.

These Thai start-ups attracted an initial combined investment worth Bt70 million from venture capital and private equity funds such as 500 Tuk-Tuk, Golden Gate Venture, KK Fund and Galaxy Fund, among others.

Fin-tech start-ups Piggipo and Finnomena promise to revolutionise online banking and financial services, while travel tech start-up Take Me Tour will leverage Thailand’s strength in the tourism industry by offering a new option for foreign visitors to experience local culture, attractions and way of life as part of the new “sharing” economy.

Nophakhun@nationgroup.com

The group, led by Jon Ungpakorn, director of Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), petitioned the Ombudsmen to consider whether Article 61 contradicts the 2014 interim constitution, which guarantees people’s rights and freedom of expression.

The Ombudsmen last Wednesday agreed with the group that the second paragraph of Article 61 – which prohibits dissemination of untrue, aggressive, harsh, rude, provocative or intimidating messages intended to influence voters or incite unrest – could be deemed in violation of the interim charter that guarantees freedom of expression.

Key figures in authority appear unworried about the impact any court ruling might have on the referendum.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam and Constitution Drafting Commission chief Meechai Ruchupan have reiterated that the referendum can not be put off since doing so would violate the 2014 interim charter’s stipulation that it must be held within 120 days of the CDC submitting its draft to the Election Commission.

They also believe that the court ruling will affect only the controversial paragraph and not the rest of the Referendum Act.

[Referendum explained]

Wissanu, who is the government’s legal expert, said that if the court rules that the paragraph violates the charter, then the three problematic words – aggressive, harsh, and rude – would be removed.

But if we examine three potential scenarios of a court ruling, things don’t look as simple as the deputy PM claims.

In the first scenario, the court dismisses the petition and the referendum process can continue as scheduled.

In the second, the court rules that only the second paragraph is unconstitutional, so the concerned agencies have to amend the bill to comply with the verdict. This process would not take so long.

Third, the court rules that the whole Referendum Act is unconstitutional because the second paragraph is pivotal to the legislation. In this case the whole act would have to be annulled, resulting in a lengthy process of drafting and passing a new bill.

Missing the 120-day deadline would also mean the 2014 interim charter would have to be amended to extend the pre-referendum period.

Delaying the referendum could also impact the National Council for Peace and Order’s road map and its election date, set for late next year.

Some observers also detected doubts in the reaction of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who appears to be the only government member concerned about the verdict.

Prayut said that if the Constitutional Court rules Article 61 of the referendum act is a breach of the interim charter, the referendum would be postponed.

“But it won’t be me that orders the postponement. Second is the question of when the court issues 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.

The remark seemed aimed at sending a political signal, or perhaps he just wanted to remind the court that its verdict had the potential to derail the junta’s road map.

Worse still would be any accusation that the junta is trying to scrap the referendum in order to extend Prayut and his cohorts’ stay in power.

Those same accusations emerged when the first charter draft, written by Borwornsak Uwanno’s committee, was shot down by the now defunct National Reform Council (NRC).

Had the NRC approved the draft, Thailand might now be witnessing an election campaign or even a new government, as scheduled in the original road map.

Now, the second road map seems in danger of being overtaken by events on the ground.

jintana@nationgroup.com

Yet, each attempt has either been sidelined or conked out long before it could have an impact. As a result, how many older cars are permitted to enter which zones in the capital has always been in dispute.

Given the repeated failures it’s surprising that the Office of Industrial Economics is now proposing action to get cars older than seven years off Bangkok’s roads. Practically the same proposal was made three years ago by the Metropolitan Police Bureau – before being quickly aborted.

This time round, the suggestion is that hiking tax on older cars will drive the heavy polluters off the road which will in turn increase demand for new cars and boost the economy.

As of March 31 there were 36.9 million vehicles registered in Thailand, 7.89 million of which were cars. Almost half of those were registered in Bangkok, according to Department of Land Transport figures.

Raising tax barriers against cars older than seven years could drive almost four million off the streets of the capital by 2020.

Yet there is good reason to believe that fate of this latest measure will be no different from its predecessors.

Many would agree that, in theory, the move would cut road accidents and also pollution while boosting demand for new cars – as indeed it has in several developed countries. But Thailand is not a developed country. Still just a production base for developed countries, we are stuck fast in a middle-income trap. As such Thailand is still a long way from joining the handful of rich countries where a significant portion of the populace can afford to buy a new car every seven years.

In reality, the latest proposal risks becoming a discrimination issue, hindering the poor by offering them less chance to posses their own cars or restricting their older cars to certain zones in the capital. It could also be difficult to implement, with little to stop owners registering their older cars in the provinces and then using them in Bangkok.

Most people buy a car through hire purchase on monthly instalment plans that average four years but can last as long as six. Meanwhile, the price of cars in Thailand is higher than those sold in more technologically advanced carmakers such as the United States, European Union and Japan.

Scepticism remains over whether increasing car production in Thailand would boost the economy, and, if so, which part of it would grow? Do we really need that kind of growth?

The problem is exacerbated by the paucity of public transport choices in central Bangkok. We have only two electrified train lines covering a total distance of 56 kilometres.

Rather than focusing on cars, the government would do better to pour more effort into improving the country’s mass transport systems, both in terms of efficiency and reach.

Authorities could also collect tolls on roads in restricted areas where public transport is already both efficient and plentiful.

Bangkok plans at least 10 electrified metro lines running 300 kilometres in length. Only when those plans have been realised should we think about limiting access to the capital for older cars.

sasithorn@nationgroup.com

Certainly, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) wants the voters to say yes to both questions. For the NCPO, passage of the draft charter would mean a new political landscape in keeping with their road map for a return to civilian rule with fresh elections. In turn, pressure from the international community would be relieved.

Voters’ approval for the additional question would also ensure that all the 250 senators picked by the NCPO had the power to select the next prime minister for another five years. The handpicked senators would, in effect, serve as the country’s largest political party since no party would be able to win a majority in the lower house under the new electoral system.

With majority support for both referendum questions, the NCPO would secure a strong grip on the post-election government.

That explains why every state mechanism is now actively pushing for passage of the draft charter and extra senatorial power.

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) and the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA) have deployed their people around the country to help with campaigning in the run-up to the referendum.

Over 400,000 state-trained volunteers will take part in the campaign, which authorities claim will help voters “better understand” the content of the draft constitution.

It will interesting to see what kind of “message” the army of volunteers transmit during their door-to-door visits. One thing is certain: They will extol the benefits of the draft charter. The volunteers in the provinces are, after all, taking their cue from members of the CDC.

Volunteers at the provincial level have been tasked with taking information from the drafters and using it to train volunteers at district and village levels. The NLA and NRSA are also relying on the volunteers to inform voters about the additional query regarding increased senatorial power.

The volunteers include state officials, local administrators and military officers. As such they are unlikely to spread any message or information that is unfavourable to the government.

Critics have voiced suspicion that the state-trained volunteers will also impart a “hidden message” in a bid to effect a referendum result desired by those in power.

Meanwhile, those opposed to the draft charter and extra senatorial power have been stifled by the referendum law. Clauses in that legislation effectively prevent campaigning for a “no” vote and are aimed, say critics, at silencing anyone opposed to the draft.

As a result, the government appears to have taken total control of the run-up to the nationwide vote. And even if that tight grip fails to squeeze a “yes” vote, those in power will no doubt still have a trump card up their sleeves – and more time at the table to play it.

attayuth@nationgroup.com

President Barack Obama’s visit to Vietnam, along with his Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip to Myanmar, last week sent a strong message to the Bangkok elite that Thailand’s international status is diminishing fast.

It is true that Obama’s foreign-policy rebalance towards Asia-Pacific is aimed at containing a rising China, but Bangkok would be wrong to interpret this as a return of bipolar cold war politics.

Waning US power is signalling the end of our unipolar world as China rises economically and politically.

Furthermore, China has territorial disputes in the South China Sea with several members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, notably the Philippines and Vietnam. Thailand is not directly involved in the disputes but finds itself in a difficult position between China, a major trade and development partner, and its Asean neighbours.

Since seizing power in May 2014, the Thai junta has been tightening ties with Beijing and Moscow through frequent visits to the US’ rivals paid by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, his deputy Prawit Wongsuwan and other senior officials.

Of course, it is good strategy for a medium-sized country like Thailand to retain friendly relations with all global powerhouses. Here, the junta has done the right thing – but for the wrong reasons. Beijing and Moscow have shown themselves to be good friends, but the Thai junta sought closer ties because of dismay at criticism from Washington and other Western countries. Washington had long been a good friend, so its unrelenting criticism of the coup and junta regime has come as a disappointment to the Thai military.

Yet Western powers and the United Nations are not the enemies. Their criticism of the junta and its government can in no way be regarded as a threat to national security or the national interests of Thailand. Instead they offer guidelines for democracy and development. The rights of citizens in a country where democracy has been the norm for almost a century must be safeguarded. Thais have the right to elect their own premier and lawmakers, to speak and criticise freely and to live in a peaceful society. All these are enshrined in international obligations Thailand ratified decades ago but which the junta has now violated. These obligations also place a duty on governments around the world to speak out against rights violations in the international community. Russia and China choose not to, preferring a narrower focus in foreign policy, but this does not mean countries that do speak out should automatically become enemies of Thailand.

Past Thai governments have criticised rights violations in neighbouring countries like Cambodia and Myanmar, yet the current government now denies others the right to do the same and call Bangkok to account.

There is nothing wrong with the Thai military buying arms from China or Russia, but the government cannot claim it is being forced to do so by the attitude of long-time ally America. The junta has no need to worry about access to the US arms market unless it is preparing to perpetuate its rule. As long as the government has budget and such equipment is necessary and fit for purpose, Thailand will have the right to buy US-made weapons. But placing arms deal in an international political context will complicate Thai foreign policy.

To maintain its balancing act in international relations, the junta must adjust its attitude and perceptions of the global political landscape, restore basic civil rights and democracy and reheat its thawed relations with the US while maintaining engagement with China and Russia.

Supalak@nationgroup.com

I was dismayed by the coverage of the unfolding situation, as I am sure were many of the millions of Thais – including youngsters – who were watching TV that day.

And how much more will Thailand suffer if that coverage now leads to copycat crimes?

The live broadcasts didn’t halt even after they drew a barrage of public criticism followed by an order to desist from the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC).

NBTC member Supinya Klangnarong took to Twitter to voice criticism, pointing out that concern with ratings should never override ethics.

TV crews covering the drama could be forgiven for being overwhelmed with a situation they had never been in before. But what about the editorial teams in studios, who had access to feedback from various sides?

Four TV stations subsequently summoned by the NBTC remain unapologetic, insisting they were merely doing what had to be done.

Representatives of TNN, Thairath TV, Nation TV and Spring News explained they believed they were covering the arrest of a murder suspect. They denied any suggestion that they were “selling a suicide”.

Their cameras had zoomed in on Wanchai Danaitamonut, a lecturer at Phranakhon Rajabhat University who was accused of shooting dead two of his colleagues a few days earlier.

Their coverage started as soon as police surrounded Wanchai in front of a Bangkok hotel.

For hours, the TV audience at home watched as a media scrum relayed footage of Wanchai pacing and occasionally pressing the gun in his hand to his temple. Also recorded was a hubbub of different voices.

Viewers watched as his family members moved closer to the gun-wielding murder suspect in a bid to talk.

Viewer numbers for stations that continued to broadcast Wanchai’s final struggle soared, according to Supinya, at the expense of those who agreed to halt their live coverage. Those who broadcasted for the full six hours did so for the sake of the ratings alone, she said.

The cameras were still running when Wanchai shot himself in the head, though mercifully the act took place beyond the frame.

Many say the media coverage contributed to the violent outcome. Had he not been surrounded by cameras Wanchai might have felt less stress and been able to focus more on negotiations to surrender.

The broadcasters involved have been blamed for violating basic ethical standards as well as NBTC rules.

The NBTC and the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association have decided against taking punitive action against the offenders.

However, allowing such behaviour to go unpunished can only degrade social standards.

Wanchai’s case also underlines the need for police to review their approach to such situations. Protocol already exists but the prescribed procedures were apparently not followed.

How could police allow people get so close to a gun-wielding murder suspect, even if they were there to help persuade him to surrender?

What if a pressured Wanchai had shot one of them?

One expert commented that police should have realised that the only ones assigned to negotiate with Wanchai should have been officers with special training.

“The negotiators should come from a hostage negotiation team. A situation like this needs well-trained people,” he insisted.

Meanwhile a psychiatrist explained that police at the scene should have been more careful about their choice of words. Especially inappropriate, she said, were declarations like, “A suicidal man has no honour” and “Your students won’t respect you anymore because you don’t even know how to respect yourself.”

Wanchai’s case may be the first-ever breaking news event in Thailand that was covered live for several hours. It should definitely become a case study from which lessons are drawn.

Only by learning from this distressing episode can we prevent recurrence of a similar situation in the future. Standards need to be shored up.

Chularat@nationgroup.com

On that Thursday afternoon, a university lecturer struggled over his next step after having reportedly killed two fellow academics. He seemed torn between surrendering to police surrounding his hideout in the heart of Bangkok, and taking a more drastic option. After almost six hours of negotiations, during which the gun in his hand was frequently lifted to his temple, the lecturer made the latter choice and ended his life with a single shot.

During those hours of teetering between life and death, the public learned not only the story behind his crime – curriculum fraud and unfair treatment – but also of the depths that Thai media were willing to sink to.

Several television channels cleared their schedules to cover the drama live. The graphic nature of the coverage prompted the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) to issue an urgent and unprecedented notice, demanding that the outlets abide by broadcasting law and cease telecasting the scenes of heightened threat and impending deadly violence.

There has been less focus on the fact that the coverage was yet another gross intrusion by the Thai media into the personal arena and, as such, violated not just the law but also journalistic ethical standards.

The drama’s denouement was mercifully off-camera, but a TV crew at the scene was caught on tape muttering, “Damn, we missed the shot!”

The legal ramifications along with the public resentment that immediately flooded the social media prompted some media organisations to call emergency meetings in a bid to stave off criticism and tighten codes of conduct.

The five major media organisations, including the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association, proposed during a meeting that the joint standard for news reporting they had drafted be used for their future operations.

Meanwhile, the NBTC is working on forging a similar code for TV operators.

There’s no denying that the live broadcast of last week’s suicide drama saw Thai media plunge to a new depth of sordid sensationalism that has damaged their credibility in the eyes of the public. That credibility now desperately needs to be shored up if public faith in the media is to be restored.

This is hardly the first time that Thai media have crossed the line. Widespread dismay and disgust caused by the media’s invasion of privacy in its coverage of the funeral of a young star recently has still not been addressed.

Last week’s violation should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

With some media outlets apparently in ethical free-fall, we can no longer afford to stand by and wait for them to self-correct. The collective media conscience must step in and press for the new standard of journalistic behaviour to be applied in order to safeguard public order and peace.

pypostbox@yahoo.com

The National Reform Steering Assembly’s administrative reform committee has proposed issuing the new law as part of national reforms.

If passed, the proposed law would give citizens greater power to monitor the implementation of policies by state agencies.

Thawilwadee Bureekul, research director from King Prajadhipok’s Institute and a member of the administrative reform committee, said the law could help guarantee genuine public participation in state policies and projects at every level.

She said the principle had been adopted in the 1997 and 2007 constitutions, as well as in the latest draft charter. However, no legislation had been passed to ensure it was put into practice, she added.

Thawilwadee is convinced that the civil sector has a better chance of success in pushing for the law now, under the current post-coup government, than it would under the elected administration to come.

Thawilwadee and other researchers proposed a similar law two years after the 1997 constitution was promulgated. The 1997 charter required public hearings for projects that would impact the environment, public health and quality of life. But the proposed law needed for implementation of that policy was never passed.

As a result, Thailand witnessed a slew of disputes, as controversial government projects pitched state agencies against affected communities and civil groups. Despite many attempts to push for a law to allow public participation, no success was achieved. The previous attempt came underYingluck Shinawatra’s administration, when a civil group managed to gather more than 10,000 signatures for the cause. But before the House of Representatives could deliberate on the proposed legislation, it was dissolved amid political unrest.

In the latest proposal from the NRSA’s panel, state agencies would be required to support public participation in all stages of policy implementation. State agencies would have to provide sufficient information on projects to the communities affected, listen to locals’ views, and allow them to scrutinise the implementation. The consultation could even result in policy being changed or rescinded.

In formulating policies, state agencies would be required to heed views aired at public hearings, and they would have to provide remedial and rehabilitation plans in case of adverse impacts.

That would mean state agencies having to heed the people’s voice before, during and after the implementation of policies.

The proposed law would see the launch of a 19-member committee, to be headed by the prime minister or a deputy, to support the new role for citizens. It would also detail penalties for public officials who failed to abide by the law or the orders of the committee.

Many NRSA members have hailed the move as a “revolution in the process of public participation” and an important mechanism to boost participatory democracy. However, others have warned that such a law would end up obstructing implementation of government policies and threaten government projects with delays.

The assembly voted in support of the report that proposed the legislation. The report will now be submitted to the Cabinet, which will decide whether to forward it to the National Legislative Assembly where it could be voted into law.

It’s too early to say whether Thai democracy is about to be given a boost, or whether the proposal that citizens play a greater role will join other reform ideas that have been shelved and forgotten.

Much will also depend on whether the post-coup government accedes to this “revolution” in public participation that could pave the way for a future of participatory democracy.