With less than a week until the referendum, there is no shortage of opinion about the draft charter. In these final few days, it seems discussion is becoming more open, and several leading voices have stated their preference in no uncertain terms, causing speculation as to whether they have violated the Referendum Act. But with such limited time left, it has become apparent that voters are short of information, if not outright fact-starved.
This is not a surprise to many. When the draft charter was completed by Meechai Ruchupan's Constitution Drafting Committee four months ago, it came with harsh conditions. First, the public were not even allowed to look at it. Mr Meechai was famously photographed holding the now-familiar A4-sized book with the democracy monument on its cover. But the contents of the draft were not allowed to be put into the public domain.
After that, the conditions just got tighter. Then finally the CDC was allowed by the military to reveal the full text of the draft charter -- it consists of 279 sections, with 44,000 words, the size of a paperback novel. For reasons that are still unclear, the CDC and the military regime hoarded copies as if they were gold. The full text was available only on the internet, and that came with another strong restriction.
From the first day, the regime has not permitted the publication or discussion of summaries of the constitution. This, plus the scarcity of hard copies, made it difficult for Thais nationwide to read and absorb this important but technical document. The 20th attempt at writing a permanent and acceptable supreme law for the nation was hamstrung because of bans on open discussion. Even explanations of the contents could be -- and sometimes were -- judged harshly enough for arrests and detentions.
The problem was Section 61 of the Referendum Act, arguably the most inexact section of any Thai law enacted. Without a shred of explanation or even examples, it continues to forbid "false information". It criminalises any speech or writing that authorities judge to be "violent, aggressive, vulgar or coercive".
Last week, Mr Meechai implored voters to mark "Yes", claiming that otherwise there would be riots and subversive mobs trying to overthrow the military regime. Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said he intends to vote "No", because the charter is a failed effort to end strong government and corruption. He said it would do neither. These phuyai did not break the election law, but dozens of others have been detained, arrested and even charged in military courts for voicing startlingly similar views.
The Wada Group of Muslims last week demonstrated how badly the government has erred in suppressing public opinion and discussion. The 2016 draft charter increases the emphasis on state support for Buddhism. Many in the deep South, where Islam is the majority religion, have stated anonymously but strongly that sections on religion in the new charter will cause them to vote against it. Open discussion could have overcome this problem.
If the public rejects this proposed constitution on Sunday, the government must take it as a teaching moment. A third attempt to write an acceptable constitution must involve the public at large. Many commentators have stated this rather obvious fact. Some face prison for saying it. But that doesn't make it less true. If the vote passes the draft charter, the government must loosen discussion on future political plans.