These are such sensitive times. Feelings are easily hurt. Egos demand special treatment. You can offend friends without even realising you have done it - especially when you start asking them whether they will vote for or against the draft of the new constitution.

If you tell them they should go for it, your colleagues might think you are nothing but a lackey of the coup leaders. You aren't critical enough. You aren't fighting for democracy.

If, on the other hand, you tell them to reject the draft, they stare you in the eye before asking: "You got paid by that guy too?" They would, whether you like it or not, assume that you have always been a die-hard hopelessly pro-Thaksin supporter.

For some strange reason, we Thais have managed to excel in a painting of a special kind - painting ourselves into a corner, especially a political one. And we spend most of our productive time these days trying to wriggle out of this Catch-22 situation.

The current "constitution dilemma" once again confirms the validity of the axiom that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The coup leaders staged the September 19 military takeover last year with a sense of guilt perhaps. They then bent over backward to make sure the putsch was an exercise in using "an undemocratic means to a democratic end".

And when they went through the motions of drafting a "democratic" interim constitution, one of their legal wise men had the bright idea at the height of their desperate search for legitimacy to say, "Let's do something Thai democracy has never had the guts to do before - let's put the draft constitution to a referendum".

If you thought the coup-makers were genuinely handing over real power to the masses, and that all they wanted was to get rid of Thaksin and nothing else, then you would have been badly mistaken. In that same interim charter they have also made sure that they retain the final say.

Herein lies the rub. If not defused in time, this time bomb threatens to explode into a political conflagration.

The idea of the referendum is to seek public legitimacy for the country's constitution. However, since members of the public can only cast a "yes" or "no" vote, they can easily be swayed by only one or two clauses with which they personally have problems.

In any normal democratic practice, a "no" vote should register as the dissatisfaction of individuals seeking better conditions. Not this one. A negative ballot in the upcoming referendum (tentatively scheduled for September 3) could send the draft constitution back to the coup leaders who, according to the interim constitution, have the sweeping power, together with the Cabinet, to dust off any of the previous constitutions and declare it the national charter within 30 days.

What it boils down to is that we have all been put somewhere between a rock and a hard place - damned if you do and damned if you don't.

As a result, any attempt at an informed debate over the details of each controversial clause has been rendered irrelevant because you would have to win all of your arguments to feel you were correct in voting "yes". And if there is a particular point that you feel strongly about - and you lose out as a dissident, minority voice - any thought about rejecting the draft would haunt your conscience even more. By casting a "no" ballot in the referendum, you would in effect be handing over the whole exercise to the coup leaders.

They threw some colourful toys at us, promising that we could play to our hearts' content - only if we behaved ourselves. We know and they know that they can snatch them back anytime.

Remember what the good old pros used to warn us about, and how we thought they were being hopelessly cynical? Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.