Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) chairman Borwornsak Uwanno has made it clear several times that he supports public endorsement of the new charter through a referendum.
Speaking to the media over the weekend, he said once again he would propose to the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) and the government that a referendum be held on the new charter.
Like many issues, Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, as head of the NCPO and prime minister, has the final say and should endorse the holding of a referendum.
The draft charter contains so many significant — and controversial — changes that make a referendum obligatory, if not mandatory.
Apart from radical changes in electoral structures that are deemed to weaken the political party system, the 2016 Senate, for example, would be wholly selected.
Under the draft charter the new Senate will consist of 200 members who will serve up to two six-year terms. And while backers of this proposal argue that the intention is for the Senate to be pluralistic — comprised of representatives from various professions and walks of life — the fact remains that its selection is exclusive from among certain, pre-determined groups of people.
And as things stand at the moment, the new Senate may wield greater legislative power than its present function of screening laws. It remains to be seen whether the Senate will have greater powers than their elected brethren.
The drafters have also decided the proposed 2015 charter allows for an unelected person to be prime minister — supposedly a safety valve to break a political deadlock. This decision is highly controversial and described by critics as a backward step for democracy.
The draft charter also requires a referendum if future parliaments want to make important changes — a move seen as an attempt to protect the work of the CDC.
Unlike the drafting of the 1997 "People's Charter" which was the most inclusive in the country's political history, there is far less public participation in the drafting of this proposed charter.
The NCPO may argue that thousands of names were proposed and that a process was put in place to select representatives from all walks of life to become members of the National Legislative Assembly and National Reform Council. Both bodies have a key role in providing input to the new charter.
Authorities may also argue that people are entitled to send in their views to the drafters. But what is clearly missing in the present political environment and atmosphere is open debate.
Many officials, military and civilian, have repeatedly hauled out the arguments against a referendum. Among them: it is expensive; it is difficult to word vital questions so voters can understand; and a vote cannot address complex questions like a constitution.
These are not irrelevant but they present no more of a case against a referendum than they do against any type of election.
Mr Borwornsak's referendum idea should be commended. But he should not stop there. If the CDC is of one voice on a charter referendum, it should push for the referendum proposal to come about to avoid a legitimacy problem.
The NCPO, the government and the CDC owe the nation a clear voice in deciding the future of the country. Given the many controversial changes in the draft charter, it is crucial to bridge rifts and new political conflicts through a referendum. If the NCPO and government refuse to hold a referendum and try to impose radical changes, the new charter could bring more problems than solutions.