Are people allowed to campaign freely for or against the draft charter? The question is straightforward enough. If the answer is yes, which should be the case as far as the public referendum act is concerned, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), government and Election Commission (EC) must stop creating areas of ambivalence where they can use other laws or orders to stymie the activities.
It is now less than a month away before Thai citizens vote on the draft charter on Aug 7. The proximity of the date, the little time that remains and serious implications that the vote will carry for Thai politics in the future demand a more open discussion not just about what the draft says but what its rules will entail for the Thai public. Hearty debates about the draft's 279 sections covering such crucial areas as the rights and liberties of Thais, the duties of Thai people or guidelines on public policies must be allowed to take place.
A free and fair exchange of opinions must be stipulated while an atmosphere of trust in which people can discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the draft charter liberally and exhaustively must be established.
These conditions are prerequisites for informed choices to be made when the public votes. It is also a necessity for the result of the vote to be accepted both by the people of Thailand and members of the international community.
Unfortunately, such an open, vigorous and extensive examination of the draft charter has not occurred. This is mainly because a climate of fear still prevails. The military regime, essentially the architect of the draft charter, maintains its unrestricted power to summon, detain and charge people whom it views as causing disturbances.
A recent arrest of student activists who distributed leaflets to people in Samut Prakan apparently in a peaceful manner as they campaigned for voters to reject the draft charter being viewed as being undemocratic is a case in point.
Section 7 of the Public Referendum Act states clearly that people are free to express and publicise their honest opinions about the referendum as long as they remain within the law. In this case, the law in question is Section 61 of the Act which bars people from spreading distorted information about the draft charter or campaigning in a violent, aggressive, vulgar or coercive manner.
The EC has reaffirmed on many occasions that it is not against the law for people to show or say that they will vote against the draft charter. In the case of the student activists, however, they were barred by military officers from distributing "vote no" leaflets to people at a market on June 23.
When the students defied the request and handed out their "vote no" leaflets, however, they were arrested for breaking the NCPO's order banning a gathering of more than five people and for instigating unrest.
The military court eventually ordered that the students be released as "there was no reason for further detention". Still, the arrests pose a serious question: what legal standard should be applied to guarantee the propriety of the charter referendum? If the EC and government officials are allowed to publicise the strong points of the draft, even in the media, why can't those who find it unfavourable do the same thing? Leaving it ambivalent leads to a perception of selective treatment which will further compromise the public vote.
The answer is indeed clear enough. If the government wants the referendum to be well-respected, it must strive to uphold the principle of free exchange of opinion as stipulated in the public referendum act both in letter and in spirit.