Group seeks to nullify new referendum act

A GROUP of high-profile human rights advocates and former senators yesterday lodged a petition with the Ombudsman’s Office, seeking the nullification of the newly enacted referendum act, claiming it violates the interim constitution. while carrying a maximum penalty as harsh as that of the killing by negligence 

Under the 2007 charter as well as the 2014 interim charter, the Ombudsman can forward the petition for hearing by the Constitutional Court.

The Ombudsman Office secretary-general Raksagecha Chaechai accepted the petition on behalf of Ombudsman Sriracha Wong-sarayangkul and pledged to take immediate action. However, he refused to confirm when and even whether the ombudsman will submit it to court, saying its preliminary review must be carried out first. 

The group, led by former senator and director of Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw) Jon Ungpakorn, asked the Constitutional Court via the Ombudsman’s Office to look at the second and fourth clauses under Article 61 of the Act. He said the clauses in question violate Article 4 of the interim charter, which guarantees freedom of expression.

Hence, the act breaches the constitution and should be nullified. 

According to the petition, signed by 100 law experts, academics and human rights advocates, the clauses contain broad and vague terms, such as “harsh”, “aggressive” and “seditious”. The group said people in general would not understand these words and know what actions can be considered illegal. 

Furthermore, the clauses ban the dissemination of false and harsh messages through the media, and entail penalties such as up to 10 years in jail, a fine of up to Bt200,000 and a 10-year ban from voting. 

The maximum penalty should not be equivalent to that of killing by negligence, as people are only expressing their views “peacefully”, the group said. Expressing one’s views in a “rude or aggressive” manner may be inappropriate, but it should not be taken as a violation of law, it added. 

Sedition, the group pointed out, also carries a severe maximum penalty of seven years in jail. Plus, the authorities are now applying their legal interpretation of the law far too broadly to threaten people against expressing their views on the draft charter. 

Jon said the clauses discourage the general public and the media to voice their opinions on the draft. 

“We have no intention to overturn the August referendum, but just want people to be able to arrange debates on the draft during the lead-up to the referendum,” Jon said. 

Former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission and the ex-senator who championed human-rights protection, also voiced concerns over the clauses, saying the referendum may end up being a waste due to them. 

The referendum aims to hear people’s voices, so why is the law discouraging people from speaking out, he asked. 

“Fear has spread throughout the country and is harming democracy,” Niran said. 

 Krasiak Choonhavan, a former senator on foreign affairs, said that Thailand has come very far in terms of human-rights protection because people are becoming increasingly aware of their own rights. 

He is confident that people understand the contents of the draft charter and will be able to decide on their vote themselves, provided the regime allows inclusive debates and discussion. 

Pro-democracy law lecturer at Siam University Ekachai Chainuvati said the concerned clauses did not just scare ordinary people, but also legal experts.