The first draft of the constitution came under a fresh barrage of criticism yesterday from politicians, academics and activists, with one party leader suggesting that the charter could be at risk of rejection during the referendum if the embarrassing de-facto amnesty for the junta was not deleted.

"A referendum has never been held before in Thailand," said Likhit Dhiravekin, head of the Thai Ground Force Party. "But if this referendum fails it'll be tantamount to people not forgiving the junta."

It would be wise for the Constitution Drafting Assembly to delete Article 299, which grants indirect immunity to the junta, he added.

Up North, Somchai Preechasilpakul, Chiang Mai University's law dean, criticised the charter for giving unprecedented power to the bureaucracy. "People may end up being discriminated against by the bureaucracy."

The junta's ongoing prohibition of political activity means that politicians have become less vocal in reacting to the charter, he said.

Likhit said he found Article 68, which introduces the idea of a special committee to solve a political deadlock, rather redundant. He said it could not be implemented effectively because even if a prime minister was urged to resign, he could just run again and cite the people's renewed mandate.

Democratic Party deputy leader Jurin Laksanawisit lashed out at the charter for bringing back an undemocratic appointed senate.

"Instead of reforming it they step back in time and hand over power to seven people to appoint senators," he said. "Why don't they allow the people to choose by themselves?"

Pongthep Thepkanjana, a caretaker deputy Thai Rak Thai Party leader, said the new charter was best described as "distrustful of the people", pointing to the appointed senate.

"They allow people to elect their own MPs: it's odd they don't trust them to elect their own senators. Let me ask whom you trust more: seven people comprising the president of the Constitution Court, the head of the Election Commission, the Ombudsman ... [etc]? How capable will they be, and what selection criteria will they use?" Pongthep asked.

Even the courts have problems selecting their own judges, he said.

"I beg you to turn back and trust the people. Will you go back to bureaucratic rule?" he said.

Corrupt bureaucrats, who will be selecting future commissioners of independent organisations, unlike politicians, are not required to reveal their assets, he said. Similar bans should apply to bureaucrats and heads of independent organisations as apply to politicians owning shares in any news organisation, he said.

Pongthep warned that unless people critical of the charter were given equal space by the media and allowed to criticise the Council for National Security for not revealing which charter they would revive if the new one was rejected during the referendum, this could lead to resistance.

"This is unjust. They should announce it ... so people can judge ... and not make them feel as if they're being forced."

Suriyasai Katasila, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy, said the charter had both strengths and weaknesses but the task ahead was to raise the level of the people's participation in politics. He attacked the increased authority and role of the judiciary as a weak point of the charter.

"I don't believe the courts are the answer to a sustainable solution and don't believe the courts can be accountable under the charter."