He said a seat in the Security Council would help Thailand project more voices in the multilateral arena and as head of the Group of 77 developing countries, it could deliver the group’s agendas for UN’s consideration more effectively.

Having a seat at the council would also help Thailand gain more international trust. “It’s not about whether I’m the PM or not. It’s all about our performance,” he said.

The seat will be up for votes today at the UN headquarters in New York, with Thailand competing with Kazakhstan for a slot in the Asia-Pacific region.

While Kazakhstan offers freshness at the global stage, Thailand is promoting sustainable development with a focus on sufficiency economy as its key strength in the competition for one of the 10 non-permanent seats.

Campaigning since 2009, Thailand has also boosted its profile by sending peacekeeping troops to different countries. It previously held the seat in 1985-1986.

Prayut admitted that the competition with Kazakhstan was tight. “We support each other. Some countries want to support us, but they have already made promises to others, though that should not be a problem,” he said.

Former Asean secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan, who has been leading the campaign for Thailand, is assured of nine votes as promised last year by Asean foreign ministers. Surin, however, admitted that the campaign had been disrupted by the Thai political setbacks.

He will be joining the Thai delegation along with Foreign Ministry’s permanent secretary Apichart Chinwanno for today’s elections at the UN General Assembly.

PRIME Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday welcomed the United Nation’s offer to help Thailand to return to the democratic path following his phone conversation on Monday with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

According to the latest statement from UN headquarters in New York, Ban reaffirmed the agency’s readiness to support Thailand during this critical juncture to facilitate a swift return to democracy.

“Referring to reports about restrictions on the freedoms of expression, opinion and assembly ahead of the August 7 referendum on the draft constitution, the secretary-general stressed that an open and inclusive debate would be essential to ensuring the legitimacy of the constitution and achieving national unity,” it said.

But Prayut was reluctant to discuss this yesterday. Asked about a possible move by the UN to monitor the referendum in August, he said: “I don’t answer an ‘if’ question.”

Earlier, the red-shirt United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) said they would petition the UN and the European Union in coming days to monitor voting in the referendum.

The red shirts spoke after meeting with the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bangkok about the junta’s suppression of different voices on the referendum.

A few hours earlier, Prayut made the phone call to Ban and then informed the public of their conversation.

Prayut said he would send officials to talk to the UN about the UDD move.

“You should oust those lawbreakers, not us,” he said grudgingly. “That would be the best solution.”

Deputy Premier Prawit Wongsuwan said the UDD should work with the Election Commission if they want to monitor the vote on the charter.

“The public should not be worried. We will carry out the referendum in a straightforward manner,” he said.

“The red shirts could join the EC because they need people to participate in the process. In fact, only the five commissioners of the EC are not enough.

“However, there is no need for others to monitor the referendum. In fact, the people are the ones observing the whole referendum process,” he said.

The government’s move – to shut the UDD’s planned anti-fraud centres – was in accordance with the law, he added, even though red-shirt leaders said they would resubmit a petition for the government to review the move ahead of the referendum.

Opposition to Article 61

In a related development, several academics and rights groups issued a statement yesterday calling for the removal of clause two in Article 61 of the Referendum Act, saying it would ensure fairness in the August 7 vote.

The statement was signed by six academics and three rights groups: the Union for Civil Right and Liberty, the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies and ilaw, that petitioned the Ombudsman to seek a ruling from the Constitutional Court on whether the clause in the law was unconstitutional.

“We believe that the August 7 public referendum will not be carried out with justice if clause 2 of Article 61 of the Referendum Act and the Election Commission’s announcement on May 2 are in effect,” the statement said.

Clause 2 of the referendum law bans dissemination of messages that are vulgar, false and inciting.

The EC’s May 2 announcement, the group said, restricted the rights of charter draft opponents to present their views because the EC regarded such action as a campaign against the charter draft.