He said the concept was problematic, if not lacking, as the drafters began their process by putting forward some 36 questions to the public without having a clearly-thought-out concept beforehand, unlike the 1997 constitution.

"It's like seeing the trees but not the forest," he told the NLA yesterday.

Wissanu said another problem with the draft is the attempt to weaken political parties though Thailand is a parliamentary democracy. "It's ironic," he said.

He also attacked Article 68 of the draft charter, which invokes an ad hoc crisis council to help solve political impasse. He questioned who would define when the country is in crisis.

"What if the organisation itself creates the crisis?"

The proposal for an appointed Senate was also criticised by Wissanu. He said that if the new Senate is allowed to retain its current power, it would be against the principle of popular rule to have it appointed and not elected.

He said the separation and balance of the three branches of government had to be maintained, but the charter drafters were trying to empower the judiciary over the executive and legislative branches.

"This may lead to distrust of the judiciary," he said.

On the matter of the language used, Wissanu said the drafters did not heed the example of preceding charters. "They must explain why they're not sticking to tradition," he said.

In terms of principle, Wissanu said too much has been put into the charter about what ought to be the basic policy of the state - which led to the question of what level of flexibility future governments would have to implement their own policy.

Many of the articles also required that laws be passed within a year of the charter coming into effect, but Wissanu said the new elected government may not be able to meet such a deadline because of the likely unstable political situation.

"The draft may be endorsed [in the referendum] if they adjust it, but even if it is approved, will the charter become a good constitution?" he asked.