"Actually there was no discussion about taking a secret vote," Angkhana told The Nation after yesterday's CDC meeting. "Those supporting [secret voting] must be confident that they can gain considerable advantage from it."

Many drafters tend to keep their silence and the public will never know how they will vote, she said. "It should be transparent and they shouldn't hide things. Each should reveal his or her stance. The constitution must be written transparently if it's to belong to the people."

Angkhana said she has been trying to talk the controversial plan out, but progress was scant at best.

Choochai Supawongse, the CDC's fourth deputy chairman, also supports an open meeting and vote on Tuesday but believes it may be too late to do anything. "But if something fishy occurs I may emerge [from the behind-doors meeting] to do something," he said.

CDC chairman Prasong Soonsiri insisted on going ahead and urged the public to trust the "good intentions" of all members. "I've asked for a secret meeting from the beginning. Please give us 35 drafters time to exchange views frankly. We can't always be suspicious and must respect [others'] opinion."

Sceptics fear the confidential balloting will allow manipulation of the charter so that the Council for National Security can extend its grip on power beyond the election scheduled for December. The military junta directly appointed 10 drafters and indirectly selected the rest.

Prasong said his panel's work could not be compared to the Senate or House, where polling is conducted publicly. "This is not a parliament. It's a special task."

Yesterday's CDC meeting agreed to put into the new charter a requirement that international treaties such as free-trade agreements that might compromise national security receive prior approval of Parliament. Any victims of adverse side-effects from such pacts would have to be "appropriately" assisted by the state in a "just" and "suitable" manner.

The meeting also resolved to add into the charter Article 225/1, which allows all citizens to appeal directly to the Constitution Court if they feel their rights under the charter have been violated - but only after they exhaust all other channels, such as petitioning the National Human Rights Commission or the Ombudsman.

The rationale for not letting citizens appeal personally to the Constitution Court from the very beginning is because some drafters are concerned that the bench would be inundated with unqualified petitions.

The committee also approved a proposal to transfer the power to remove politicians who dishonestly declare their financial status from the Constitution Court to the Supreme Court's "political cases" division.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Bang Saen, Chon Buri