"The public hearings were not actually public," said Nelson, who attended the hearings in Chachoengsao province.

"People who attended the public hearings didn't know anything about the constitution."

Nelson said many local people didn't even know that such hearings were taking place, and for those who did, the situation was much like operations by political canvassers, with money handed out to people to attend.

"They were paid Bt100 as a transportation allowance," he said, adding that lunch was also served. The running of the whole affair, said the academic was "exactly the same method political canvassers use."

Nelson, who is associated with Chulalongkorn University, spoke at the Foreign Correspondents Club (FCCT) on Wednesday about the junta-sponsored draft constitution.

He said each hearing was attended by about 200 people - but only five or six people usually made comments.

Nelson said some villagers who went to the toilet were heard to say: "Such a nonsense."

The academic concluded that many people hadn't read the draft charter and access to the content was limited in rural areas.

He said that content of the draft would play a secondary role in determining how many people vote in the referendum, due to be held in early September.

It would depend on the political situation at the time, and "propaganda", he concluded.

Nelson said the draft charter was not just anti-Thaksin Shinawatra but "anti-politicians" as well.

The charter drafters, he said, appeared to harbour deep mistrust about the electorate's ability to make informed decisions during elections.

The charter, if endorsed, would turn the Thai government into a "bizarre bureaucratic monster" he warned.

However, draft charter Pisit Lee-artham, another speaker at the FCCT, insisted that the public hearing he went to saw a "heated debate" take place. Pisit said that he expected the Constitution Drafting Committee to change the proposed appointed Senate in the charter into a "fully elected or at least partially elected" body during the amendment phase, which will begin shortly.

He confessed the proposal to have the judiciary play a greater role in selecting members of the so-called independent bodies under the constitution had been controversial.

"We're in a dilemma", he said, referring to the problem of finding a balanced process in selecting members for independent bodies.