An avalanche of legal battles is tying the UDD leaders up in knots v Instead of fighting political foes, Sudarat wants to peer into their hearts v Suthep promotes the charter on Facebook, while the red shirts face censorship
Centres ofattention
Luck is not shining on the red shirts after their leaders were accused of inciting political chaos by attempting to set up their controversial anti-fraud centres in the provinces which were intended to expose discrepancies ahead of and during the charter referendum.
Their critics lampooned the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) leaders for trying to be whistle-blowers when many of them got in trouble with the law in connection with street protests in the past.
The red-shirt leaders have found themselves mired in legal tussles since the May 2014 coup, the latest of which involves the news conference they held last month to announce the impending inauguration of the anti-fraud centres.
The 19 core red-shirt figures were hit with summonses by security authorities after they appeared together at the conference inside a department store in the Lat Phrao area. The conference was deemed a political assembly of five or more people, which is banned by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).
Political sources said the leaders, including UDD chairman Jatuporn Prompan, may become so tied up in mounting their legal defence against the accusations that they are unlikely to have the time or the stamina to go after any cheats in the run-up to the Aug 7 draft charter referendum.
The first legal step required them to show up at the Crime Suppression Division on Thursday. Along with this appearance, they submitted a request to shift the jurisdiction of their case from the Military Court to the ordinary Criminal Court.
To the UDD, cases being deliberated by the Military Court are likely to proceed more slowly than those handled by the ordinary court. The judges in the Military Court are also mostly military personnel.
A source close to the UDD said the leaders reckon they might have a "massive hurdle" to cross as they try to convince people that the centres were not espousing a political agenda, while battling accusations from opponents that the centres were merely a means by which to keep some anti-government momentum going.
The UDD has been explaining that the centres, had they been permitted, would not have become a symbol of the campaign to boycott the referendum.
The centre organisers added the only campaign they were pushing was to bring awareness of the issues that could undermine the referendum and what the general public could do to help prevent fraud by coming out in droves to exercise their votes, which will, in the process, benefit the referendum turnout on Aug 7.
They insist the centres would have complemented the Election Commission's task of encouraging voters to cast their ballots in the referendum and help keep an eye out for any voting irregularities.
However, critics dismissed the organisers' explanations, reasoning the centres may be superfluous as there are already state-run and privately-operated fraud monitors in place.
Running a parallel centre would only complicate things and confuse people, which might cause the referendum issue to become politicised, giving way to a pretext for social disturbance, according to the critics.
Time for open discussions
Unlike most male politicians, Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan appears not to relish the role of public orator, despite being one of the country's most influential female figures.
In recent years, it has been rare to see the Pheu Thai Party key figure step forward and weigh in publicly with her views on political issues.
Khunying Sudarat has opted to keep a low profile in politics and focus her attention on activities related to the preservation of Buddhism, including a project to restore the birthplace of the Lord Buddha at Lumbini in Nepal, and to cast statues of the young Lord Buddha, known as baby Buddha.
But last Monday she made headlines with her latest political outburst targeting the draft constitution which will be put to a vote in the Aug 7 referendum.
At a forum at Mahidol University's Salaya campus in Nakhon Pathom on how the government is regulated by the charter, Khunying Sudarat made clear her opposition to the draft charter, drawn up by the Constitution Drafting Committee led by Meechai Ruchupan.
Democrat Party deputy leader Nipit Intarasombat, and Chartthaipattana Party's adviser Somsak Prissanananthakul were also invited to speak at the forum. They shared the view that the Meechai draft charter is designed to restrain the power of an elected government and strictly control party policies.
Khunying Sudarat argued that the draft is designed to allow the legislative and judiciary branches to dominate an elected government following the general election.
The draft introduces mechanisms that seek to control any party that wins a majority in the House to the extent that an elected government will be rendered non-functional, she said.
She also told the forum that the draft charter maps out a strategy to support the military government's national development plan over the next 20 years and prescribes measures to restrict the exercise of power of future elected governments during that 20-year period.
The 20-year national development plan will impose a straitjacket on future governments, crippling their ability to freely make decisions to respond and adapt to changing circumstances.
Khunying Sudarat also disagreed with draft charter provisions which give independent bodies such as the Election Commission, the Office of the Auditor-General and the National Anti-Corruption Commission so much power over elected governments that they could suspend any government projects suspected of irregularities.
Government policies could also be suspended if the Constitutional Court were asked to rule on their constitutionality. "So, how can we develop the country?" she asked.
One of 111 executives of the Thai Rak Thai Party, now defunct, to receive a five-year political ban back in 2007, Khunying Sudarat admitted that politicians were partly to blame for the political conflicts that led to the May 22, 2014 coup that toppled the government of Yingluck Shinawatra.
Khunying Sudarat also revealed that she met Mr Nipit and Mr Somsak to discuss the role and mistakes of politicians in order to come up with ideas on political reforms and find ways to correct behavioural flaws which had contributed to social and political instability in the past.
The speakers were limited to Khunying Sudarat, Mr Nipit and Mr Somsak to avoid breaching the National Council for Peace and Order's ban on political gatherings.
However, Khunying Sudarat's suggestion that politicians come together and embrace political reforms has been chided by opponents as being politically driven. They say her credibility and close ties to Pheu Thai make her a wrong fit to be "mediator" in any reform efforts.
She wrote on her Facebook page that politicians need to consult to achieve political reform as they are prime stakeholders. However, she lamented at how the leader of an old political party -- a reference to Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjaijva -- has been lukewarm on consultation and quickly dismissed any notion of talks that might offer a constructive path to ironing out problems.
She said the old mindset centred on "turning state affairs into political business" must change.
A voice in the wilderness
It has been a week since former protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban engaged his supporters on his daily Facebook Live page to voice his opinions of the charter draft.
Since then, the chairman of Muan Maha Prachachon for Reforms Foundation has been spending about 10 minutes each day telling his supporters why he will accept the charter.
The live broadcast usually opens and ends with a marching song that is familiar to supporters of the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC). It became Mr Suthep's theme song during the group's street protests prior to the May 2014 coup.
He has touched on a number of elements including the political system, political parties and the police. And to cut to the chase, it simply answers the call for reforms by the PDRC which was transformed into the Muan Maha Prachachon foundation after the military putsch.
Mr Suthep's Facebook account has 2.92 million followers, while his first live broadcast on the charter on June 24 registered 188,000 views. But not all in the audience are big fans, judging from remarks they have left in the comment box.
According to a political source, the idea of Mr Suthep talking about the draft charter on a daily basis is not warmly welcomed, even among PDRC ranks. There have been concerns that it could be in violation of the Referendum Act which prohibits anyone from speaking about the constitution draft in a way that influences voters or incites social or political unrest.
Moreover, it might also upset the regime which has come under fire for gagging critics of the draft and spoiling a process that is supposed to be fair, transparent and inclusive. Mr Suthep re-emerged at the same time as the red shirts were planning to set up their controversial centres in the provinces supposedly to fight fraud in the referendum, a move swiftly shut down by the regime.
However, Mr Suthep has pressed on with his broadcasts, which apparently triggered United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) leader Jatuporn Prompan to hold similar Facebook broadcasts to speak against the charter draft.
The reaction from the regime so far is a verbal warning from Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha that both Mr Suthep and Mr Jatuporn are proceeding at their own risk. Meanwhile, the Election Commission (EC) which is responsible for enforcing the referendum law, insists that as long as their opinions are based on facts and are made without ill intent they will be just fine.
To political observers, Mr Suthep's latest move is far from defying the National Council for Peace and Order. It is unlikely to harm the regime in the wake of criticism that the atmosphere in the run-up to the charter vote, which is just five weeks away, is not conducive to a free debate.
According to observers, Mr Suthep's live broadcasts are strictly about the contents of the draft charter and are widely seen as informative, rather than provocative.
The veteran politician's purpose is to show that the regime has no problem if the expression of opinions is to give information and educate, the source points out.
It is believed that if the regime suspends Mr Suthep's daily talk show, he will comply without resistance to send a signal that there are no double standards at play.
