The clause states that propagation of information that is inconsistent with the truth, or can be deemed violent, aggressive, rude, inciting or threatening and aims to prevent voters from casting their ballot or influence their vote shall be seen as disrupting the voting process. This will be deemed a criminal offence and will be punishable by law.

Wissanu said there was no need to amend Article 61, as this law was only used for the referendum. He also rejected claims by the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship that the government had spent Bt10 billion, overshooting the Bt2.9 billion budget for the referendum. He said the spending for the referendum was still within the budget, which included the training for charter draft specialists.

NLA member Somchai Sawaengkarn also insisted that Article 61 was not in breach of the interim charter’s Article 4. He will be among those who will testify in court over the matter.

He said that the NLA, the Constitution Drafting Commission and the government had met political parties and activists last month to explain that the referendum law did not violate the interim charter.

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party issued a statement calling on the government, the NCPO and related agencies to unconditionally return to people their right to express their opinion on the draft charter so the referendum could be free and fair and acceptable to all citizens and people of the civilised world.

The party said the Referendum Act empowers government and state officials to openly campaign or influence people into accepting the draft charter. These activities are funded by the taxpayers’ money, it pointed out. On the other hand, those who oppose the draft charter are not able to express their opinion in the same manner.

Election Commission member Somchai Srisuthiyakorn posted a message on Facebook warning people to not post messages that are vulgar or false to influence people’s referendum vote.

He said the EC was looking at a “vulgar” music clip that has been posted on Facebook. If the clip had been posted after April 23, then it would be a punishable offence because the referendum law had already taken effect by then, he said. He explained that if the clip was posted before April 23, the person who posted it would not be committing a crime, but anybody who had shared the clip thereafter may face legal action. The clip is also available on YouTube.

Those appearing in the clip are advised to report to police and say that they had no knowledge that it was in violation of the referendum act if it was done before April 23. If there are more than five people involved in posting the clip, they may be in violation of clause 4 of Article 61 of the referendum law.

Somchai said the EC was also considering action against the Neo Democracy movement, which has been selling T-shirts with the message “vote no”.

He added that the EC could not wait for a ruling from the Constitutional Court because, as long as the Referendum Act is in force, the EC must take action or it will be sued for negligence.

The song had been slammed for carrying negative connotations, particularly towards some residents of the North.

Supachai said the EC would not stop publicising the song because it did not break any rules.

EC member Somchai Srisuthiyakorn also said he did not believe the song insulted anybody in any region of the country and there was no need to suspend it.

“Sometimes society overreacts and pays attention to non-essential things,” he said.

Somkid Chuakong, former Pheu Thai Party MP for Ubon Ratchathani, said the song cast people from the North and Northeast in a bad light as it described them as stupid and easy to persuade.

“The EC should respect people’s decision and I wonder if they are discriminating against people from the North and Northeast?” he asked, calling on the EC to review the lyrics since it caused ill-feeling among some people.

Part of the song’s lyric goes: “Isaan brothers, don’t let anyone dictate your decision. Use your judgement, look at content and important principles. Exercise your voting right, take responsibility for the country. Get to know yourself and others. Do not let others cheat you.”

Phra Sanyaluk Donsri, a noted composer who wrote the song, said he had no intention to look down on anyone. “Critics can interpret the song with discrimination or with political motivation,” he said.

Meanwhile, United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) co-leader Nattawut Saikua offered the EC another song on the referendum free of charge and would be shared on Facebooktoday.

“I believe this song would be useful as it touches upon people from diverse backgrounds,” he said.

In a related development, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said the EC was cooperating with military units in different regions to hold public hearings to gather public opinion.

He said the public hearings would be similar to those held on May 19 to gather suggestions from politicians, adding that the first hearing would be held on June 11. He said that he would be present at the hearing, along with members of the Constitution Drafting Commission and the National Legislative Assembly.

He also said that the May 19 hearing with politicians was “unbelievably successful”.

“I had no prepared answers, because I did not know what they were going to ask,” he said.

When asked what the government would do if the draft charter failed the referendum, he said a new one would be written.

Constitution Drafting Commission chairman Meechai Ruchupan said yesterday that the CDC would not take part in any such event to be held by the New Democracy Movement.

“We will debate with people who finish reading all the draft constitution. If they don’t read it or read only part of the draft and start complaining about its content, I don’t know how to argue with them,” Meechai said.

CDC spokesman Udom Rathamarit said the drafters had no fear of debating the draft publicly but it was beyond their responsibility. “The CDC did not write the new constitution to be dictatorial. The goal was to tackle the country’s problems. Our duty now is to tell the public about the contents of the draft constitution. But we are not trying to influence the voters’ decision,” Udom said.

He said the activist group’s challenge for a debate with the CDC seemed to be politically motivated.

“They seem to be inciting opposition against the draft. The CDC is not a party in the political conflict,” the spokesman added.

“If the New Democracy Movement wants to debate about the draft, they should better find a politician group that disagrees with them or any group that supports the draft.”

The spokesman said some groups seemed to be trying to drag the CDC into conflict. “We don’t want to |fall into the trap,” he said.

Udom also disputed claims by critics that the draft would steer the country towards a decline. “That’s pure imagination. What the CDC does is not going to damage the country. People who disagree with what is written in the draft constitution may voice opinions against it. But they should not distort it.”

Clarifies on ‘amendment’

Meechai also rejected reports that he called on voters to back the draft so that the charter could be amended in the future. He simply said any flaws could be corrected in the future as a new constitution would be in use for a long time. Meechai’s supposed remark led to much criticism against him.

“I said that when the situation changes, amendments can be made accordingly,” he said, adding that the rumour was an attempt by detractors who could not find anything bad to talk about the draft charter. “They should at least have goodwill for the country,” he added.

In a related development, the Ombudsman Office will look at a petition by the Internet Law Reform Dialogue, or iLaw, that certain clauses in the Referendum Act on the Draft Constitution violate people’s rights and liberties, the agency’s chairman Sriracha Wongsarayangkun said yesterday.

He said that in his opinion, the current situation was not open to full public debate on the draft constitution in the run-up to the referendum. “Many incidents have discouraged people from expressing their views. This was unlike the time before the referendum on the 2007 constitution,” he added.

Meanwhile, the government yesterday denounced a petition to a UN agency by a group of academics to intervene in the human rights situation in Thailand as “opening the door to a dangerous foe”.

The authorities should support public participation in the upcoming referendum, said Niran Pitakwatchara, former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Such participation included those receiving, exporting, and exchanging information, he said.

Participation is crucial to the referendum process, he reasoned, as the vote contributed to direct democracy, allowing the public to decide on national policy and legal agendas.

“There is no need to say what to do and what not to do,” he said, referring to the Election Commission’s guidelines regarding the referendum. “Current laws have already been designed to punish false and abusive information.”

The former chairman worried that too narrow an interpretation against public expression, such as campaigning and political movements, could suffocate public freedom and consequently affect people’s decisions on their choices.

“If that happens, the plebiscite will be unacceptable and unreliable. On the contrary, if the process [of holding referendum] is fair it may enhance reconciliation in the country,” he said.

The government should also separate the draft matter from itself, he said. For instance, it should not view people criticising the draft as its rivals. If the draft is rejected, that will be because of its own content and not a reflection on the government, he said.

He suggested that the upcoming referendum should be open like the one in 2007, which was also hosted by a military junta.

Meanwhile, the government spokesman denounced an academic group’s move to petition against the government with the OHCHR, slamming them for “imagining information”.

The reaction came after the Thai Academic Network for Civil Rights (TANC) said on Thursday that it had submitted a petition to the OHCHR against the junta-backed government for alleged rampant human-rights violations.

Government Spokesman Maj-General Sansern Kaewkamnerd denied that the government had physically abused anyone, including repeat offenders, contrary to what was stated in the petition. All lawbreakers are detained and processed under the laws, Sansern insisted.

“Calling the UN agency to intervene in the country’s internal affairs is like opening the door to a dangerous foe,” Sansern said, in reaction to an academic group’s petition.

He also accused the group for “mixing up” facts, such as connecting the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Order No 13/2016 to curb mafia with the referendum bill. “The order aims to curb the mafia while the bill is designed to prevent distortion of the draft’s contents,” he reasoned.

Deputy Government Spokesman Maj-General Werachon Sukhondh-apatipak said Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha was aware of the group’s move.

Jeremy Laurence, spokesman of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said the office always encouraged engagement between the government and civil society, including academic groups.

Both Sansern and Werachon said the government and the NCPO were not worried about the movement, and the government would not be affected by such actions.

Meanwhile, the OHCHR revealed that Thailand’s human rights record will be examined by the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review Working Group next Wednesday in Geneva. The Kingdom was first reviewed in 2011, it said. The issues to be reviewed include expansion of internal policing powers for military officials, cases involving lese majeste, martial law and special emergency laws in southern border provinces, freedom of expression and assembly and the upcoming referendum.

In a related development, the Bangkok Military Court has approved an arrest warrant on lese majeste and computer crime charges for Patnaree Charmkij, the mother of key anti-junta activist Sirawith Seritiwat. She was denied bail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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