Transcript of the above video: 

So if you can't tell, this is another one of these videos where look I'm following this political situation very closely now and as we'll get into here in a moment, there looks to be a pending no confidence vote now coming against the current Prime Minister, nominal Prime Minister, whatever you want to call her. I can't even believe that there are enough people that are willing to back her at this point after her actions as of late. That said look, I take this really, really seriously and I want to be clear. I'm not a partisan person and I've stayed away from this kind of stuff in the past, but this is on a whole order of magnitude above anything I have ever seen in Thai politics in nearly 20 years; I've never even heard of this, okay? In fact, everything I was taught - especially during the naturalization process - and I did go through sort of historical study not only language, but also like the history of Thailand, I learned a lot about like the evolution of the political systems, this is just an anathema to how Thais operate and it's what concerns me so. And when I view it in the context of her actions with regard to the World Economic Forum and the World Economic Forum spokespeople themselves talking about how they will “infiltrate” the Cabinets of the various nation states of the world and use it to subvert them to bring them to their vision of this supranational state wherein “we will all own nothing and be happy", I view all this in its totality and I think again I have talked about it in a prior video, much akin to there came a certain point during COVID where I just was like ‘wait, none of this is making sense. It clearly looks like people are operating to the detriment of the common man’ and I just felt like I had to speak up on it and that's sort of where I'm at with this at this point. As a Thai and yeah, I'm going to make another video coming up here, I've seen all these comments and these trolls whatever telling me I am not a real Thai, and even though I am naturalized, they can always revoke it. Do you think I am unaware I'm not a "real Thai"? Every time I look in the mirror, I look at myself and say, "hey how many blonde-haired, blue-eyed Thais are there out there? They are around, I've met them, I see some of them on a frequent basis but yeah, I get it, okay. And by the way, no Thai person I have ever interacted with has ever treated me like that, okay. Most Thais are aware that I went through a lot to become a Thai, and I am very proud to be a Thai. It's one of the reasons I'm doing this, because quite frankly I am in a unique position. People say, "well why don't you speak Thai on your channel?" I'm not great at Thai compared to a fluent Thai speaker. What would the point of that be? I am very articulate in English and by the way, I view my sort of role as to provide some level of elucidation, illumination and perhaps commentary on the nuances of the Thai system, be it the legal system, now the political system whatever. Hate somewhere else or I guess hate in the comments, because it helps my channel algorithmically, so pour it on. But yeah, I'm not unaware that I was not born Thai. I was born in Kansas; I was born in the country of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday; I wasn't born in downtown Bangkok. I get it. I see it every day when I look in the mirror. That said, this country has been good to me; it's taken care of me and one principle I really believe in is 'you dance with the ones that brought you' and the Thais took care of me and Thailand took care of me. World Economic Forum hasn’t done anything for me and one of the reasons frankly looking back especially, I found comfort in East Asia - I first moved to Korea before I came down here - I was only there briefly was I realized now I was running from this corrosion from the likes of the World Economic Forum and Davos and this movement to homogenize the nation states of the world basically toward the end of creating some sort of hybrid between fascism and communism, basically “serfdom with clerks” is the only thing I can describe it as. In retrospect, I was trying to avoid that, I was trying to get away from that. I also think inherently I'm descended from people that just kind of prefer being on the frontier if you will. But long story short, I was trying to get away from that and it has now come here, and I don't like to see it destroying frankly or attempting to destroy the country I have come to know and love, and that is why I am making these videos, and that is why I get so upset about this stuff. And yes haters, I'm well aware that I am not a “real” Thai but I'm as Thai as I am ever going to get it, so as they say, “cowboy enough”, well I'm Thai enough, whatever. 

In any event, I also wanted to comment regarding the photos. So this will be the third time we have used this photo of Paetongtarn and Hun Sen mostly because, as I will quote in one of the articles I am going to cite in here or the article, main one I am going to cite in here, it shows the obsequious for lack of a better term, “submissiveness” to paraphrase this upcoming citation of Paetongtarn toward this guy. I don't know what the deal is, what the hold is over her. She is the Prime Minister of Thailand. I don't understand where this attitude on her part comes from, hence the reason I keep using that same photo. The other photo in there and in the photo credit below it will take you to a link, to a site that will talk about, that's actually the cover of a book that was written about the Munich Agreement that so-called “peace in our time” between Neville Chamberlain and the leader - knowing YouTube, if I use certain words it will cause the algorithm to kick me back or whatever - but let's say the leader of Germany at the time, and it revolved around the basically the handover of what was called the Sudetenland to Germany at the time. And I am also kind of scholar of history and there is one historical character among a few, that has always sort of stood out to me when I watched the movie Schindler's list, Oscar Schindler fascinated me. I have read multiple biographies on Schindler, super complicated guy. He is not like a Saint by any stretch of the imagination, but he saved a lot of lives of people at a time that it was very difficult to do that and it was not sort of politically correct to do that in any stretch, in fact he was risking his life to do it, but he was actually a Sudeten German, and the reason I get into this is I have read that book that's in the thumbnail but I have also read about Schindler. He's very controversial in Czechoslovakia because he worked for the German Abwehr and he was instrumental in all of that hand over, but it's analogous at least to some degree to what's going on here because it comes down to the issue of a foreign sovereign frankly dictating to another country, how their borderlands should be administered basically. And again appeasement isn't even quite, or peace in our time or looking at it through quite the lens of Chamberlain, isn't even quite analogous under the current situation because Chamberlain was an outside actor. He was British and basically the thinking was we are going to “appease” Germany for the moment, in order to buy time - he himself said this - to re-arm for what they perceived to be was the coming of another conflict. 

So the current situation looks to me as more akin to the notion that if the Czech President, I think they had a president at the time, if the Czech President himself just unilaterally with handing over Sudetenland. I mean that's kind of more like what we are looking at right now, but again the historical analog is worth analyzing and that's the reason for the thumbnail.

So that said, I thought of making this video after reading a recent article - and hats off to the Bangkok Post - they're covering all this stuff really well. I'm going to quote a lot of this, but the article goes on in great detail. I urge those who are watching this video go check out Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com. That said, the article is titled: BJT puts PM in firing line. Quoting directly: “The Bhumjaithai Party (BJT) will file a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra amid the fallout of the leaked audio clip of her talking with Cambodian strongman Hun Sen. Quote: “The motion is set to be filed once the third parliamentary session opens on July 3^,“  she said following a joint meeting between the party's executive committee and its MPs.” Again I urge those who are watching this video, there is other context in there but long story short, and I urge those to check out that article, Bhumjaithai was part of the Coalition. This is something to understand - was part of the Coalition, they have left the Coalition, they have said, “hey we're not doing this” - and candidly I've said before, I have sort of an affinity for Anutin Charnvirakul as a political observer. I just kind of like the cut of his jib if you will. The way he does things I find it to be very pragmatic; he tends to, in the past, I'm not saying I've agreed with everything. In fact during COVID, when he was Minister of Public Health, I was vocally in opposition to certain things he did during that time, so take it for how you will. But the past couple of years, I have felt like that he was somebody that was looking out for the best interest of Thailand. That said, I try to remain as non-partisan as possible, and I mention that just so folks who are watching may understand any biases that I may not even understand that I have. So that said, Bhumjaithai is going to file this no confidence motion. I will definitely be keeping track of that because if it isn’t abundantly clear from my videos thus far, I definitely think that this Prime Minister needs to step aside. I mean we are either talking about something where there was intent here - and if that's the case, this conduct is reprehensible, morally, ethically, frankly legally probably, although I can't really adjudicate to that but also just as a lay Thai person, I don't want somebody like that being the PM. So yeah, I think that she needs to step aside. Now that said, going through the motions of getting that done remains to be seen. Also, as we have discussed in other videos, the Constitutional Court is going to be taking up some of this and the National Anti-corruption Commission, which is mentioned at length in that article, I'm not going to go into great detail into that analysis in this video, but it's mentioned in that article. Again I urge those who are watching this video, check that out. They seem to be taking an active role in this, and I expect based on what I'm reading, their sort of activities may be at the forefront of any opposition - not opposition - but any actions that may come against her moving forward. So again check out that article for further context there.

Real quick, as we have discussed in other videos, we do have a paid news service on here. If you are interested in its longer form content, albeit this video is probably going to be pretty long, [email protected]. I'm doing videos more for the expat audience and how all of these machinations and how all of these events may have an impact on folks in expat Thailand, expat Southeast Asia. Also, as I have discussed in other videos, Pancake Palace. Those who are interested in American diner style food, we're in downtown Bangkok between Silom and Surawong Roads, Soi Anuman Rachadhon; we are serving pancakes obviously, breakfast anytime, cheeseburgers, buffalo wings, chilli - all of that kind of good stuff. If that is something that interests you, we'd love to see you down at the Pancake Palace, link to a map in the description below for our location here in downtown Bangkok. 

That said, coming back to Bhumjaithai and Anutin Charnvirakul specifically, quoting directly: "Anutin Charnvirakul, Bhumjaithai leader, said at the joint meeting that the Party has received strong support from local people, affirming that it has made the right decision to leave the Coalition Government. Quote: "We will do our best as an opposition party, and…" - and I thought this was key, ".. and none of our MPs have decided to leave the party after we joined the opposition," he said.” It is worth pointing out, and I discussed this in other videos, the Democrat Party has said that they have a “considered consensus” regarding this whole matter and as we have discussed not so much in other videos, but you can read about it a lot in the Bangkok Post, UTN, the United Thai Nation Party - I think that's their name - their Executive Board is sort of saying one thing, they are staying in, but it is kind of mixed. There seems to be a lot of rifts within that Party. 

The point I am trying to make is the current coalition, I think is nominal at best, so I am not convinced that when you read in the Bangkok Post that they have X, I think they'll say 261 votes out of a total of whatever it is, 459 or whatever - I'm not convinced all those votes are there. Again, the Executive Boards of these parties may have signed on with the current setup - probably in order to get some kind of position in the Cabinet or their executive leadership presumably, although I am speculating there - but I am not convinced that the whole Parties, the rank and file, the actual Members of Parliament are completely on board with this, but it is notable that Bhumjaithai left the Coalition and none of their people defected. So if that gives you any kind of insight into the nuance of what's going on here, I think that is a pretty good barometer of at least sort of the attitude to certain folks. That said, quoting further: "As the opposition party, the party does not support the Entertainment Complex Bill." - now this is key critical, I'll get to that in a moment – “Earlier, the party was on the government’s side and had to support the Bill he said." So this is something worth pointing out. I made a video that went up at 7.45 am. this morning, presuming this video goes up when I think it will, approximately 11.45 am same day, where I discussed what's the proposed Interior Minister moving over from Defense Ministry and why that is occurring. My speculation is and still is, look one, in this Entertainment Complex Bill to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been changed, that foreigners could end up owning casinos outright in Thailand if the Bill is to pass. Then the next question was, and you sort of put two and two together, the Interior Minister has the authority to sign off on foreign ownership of land in Thailand under certain circumstances. So the question then posed is, is that the big plan behind all of this? To push the Entertainment Complex Bill. And as I discussed in that prior video, even the Speaker of the House seemed to be and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but it seemed like he was kind of hinting at or implying if you will, that look, there's going to be kind of a political issue between pushing through the Entertainment Complex Bill versus the budget. And I think one of the reasons many political actors may be still on board with this supposed Coalition is everybody wants to get the budget passed so we can get through the next fiscal year. We will have our house in order financially and then deal with the political fallout of what has occurred since this phone call and all of that stuff. Again, I can understand the argument behind saying, "hey we need to be pragmatic, let's get the budget done," but it also looks like the Core Coalition Parties main priority is passing this Entertainment Complex Bill, and to what end? To sell a bunch of wholly foreign owned Casino enterprises along with the land to foreigners? I don't think that's an outlandish question to ask based on the totality of the facts that are in front of us right now. That said, quoting further: "Ms. Paetongtarn said she is ready to respond to all questions posed by the Constitutional Court...” Yeah, and apparently the Constitutional Court has now taken this up. They are going to be reviewing this. Quoting further: "…over the leaked audio clip asserting that she has done nothing to damage the nation." Nothing to damage the nation? I mean I did the video with the thumbnail; you don't got to be Stonewall Jackson to know you don't want to undermine your own Field Commander. You called your own Field Commander the "opposition", and an "opponent" and then meanwhile, basically caved anything Hun Sen wanted with regard to the border. I have cited all of this. No damage? I mean what? Meanwhile Hun Sen is over there talking about his Thaksin Shinawatra room in his house and his Yingluck room in his house, and frankly just making a mockery of us. I know that is not exactly a geopolitical consideration but as a Thai, I find it to be a bit of an afront. It's just ridiculous. That said, quoting further: "Ms. Paetongtarn said that she is prepared to provide full information and clarification. She reiterated that the audio clip involved a type of diplomatic conversation commonly held between national leaders.” Yeah, like appeasement? Just give them whatever they want? I mean and again it's not even historically analogous because again when Chamberlain went in and “got peace in our time”, he was doing that on behalf of British interest. Now you can argue the moral, ethical and legal ramifications of selling out a third party for your own interest - which you could argue that's what happened there, and I don't want to go too deep into that - but he wasn't even selling out his own country. Here, this should be like the President of Czechoslovakia saying "yeah, yeah the Sudetenland, yeah go ahead." And again, this isn't hyperbole, that is not an inaccurate analogy to my mind. That said, quoting further: "The content, she insisted, clearly shows that she had not caused any harm to Thailand." Really? Says you. I mean, I have got another video coming up talking about, and they talk about it in this article, that there are groups now forming that are protesting. Now they are going to do it peacefully and they are talking about all that, but apparently there is at least something of a consensus that some harm has been done here. And again, going back to the response to this was initially to spin it and “oh it's a gaff” or “it's just normal talk”, and “Hun Sen is the bad guy for leaking it”. Well he probably shouldn't have done that and in the future, I am sure anybody that ever talks to him in this way will be very circumspect about what they say. But that is not the issue. The issue is the content, and the content is her saying hey we'll open the border at the same time. No I don't want to do that. And the content is also her giving away the farm as it were and saying that our own guy in uniform leading our guys in uniform who by the way were fired upon, as I cited in another video, along the border some time back. And again I am in favour of de-escalating this; let's pull it back. Everybody come back to their sort of lines of demarcation, and everybody just simmer down, and this Joint Border Committee get together and start working out something that everybody can deal with moving forward and just kind of de-escalate it down. But then, at the same time because of her trying to save her political skin, she is doing all this stuff to “look tough” on Cambodia and arguably making it worse. So again it really does come back to, and I've asked this before, if this was a man, would this person still even be in the office? Because it would be expected of a man at this point, in my opinion, to step aside; the honourable thing, the thing to do under the circumstances as Chamberlain ended up doing in the aftermath of what turned out to be the failed project of appeasement, he stepped aside as Prime Minister. There's a certain point where, where is it unreasonable to say "hey maybe it's time to step down". That said, quoting further: "She explained that the discussion was of a nature typically understood to be confidential and not intended for public release." Well you are a public figure; you are talking to the de facto Head of Cambodia, the guy that has been in power over there for 40 years. His son is the Prime Minister; he is the President of the Senate. Okay, you made the assumption, and okay, let me walk back some of my rhetoric here. If genuinely you did not intend to undermine Thailand to the extent that frankly as a factual matter it has been undermined, if you did not have that intent, fair enough okay, but at least have the intellectual honesty to say, "hey I'm out of my depth. I need to step aside." Because if you thought that "oh it was confidential", well one, Hun Sen is a pretty canny guy, okay? To think that what you say, especially in a “submissive” sort of manner, would just stay behind the curtain if you will, I find that one, to be something of a disingenuous argument. I just don't understand how you can be Prime Minister and be that sort of willfully naïve if you will, and maybe not willfully, but that naïve. But okay, put that aside. If it's true though, I am sorry, it still augers towards, you need to step aside; you don't know what you're doing. Because again, yes, leaders do have these private discussions, but there is a limit there. And also it is worth pointing out, that at least we the Thai people, would allow a certain amount of discretion on the presumption that you are operating in our interests. But where you're not, where do you think that presumption gets to be applied? That said, quoting further: Quote: "The clip reflects a private conversation, and I am fully prepared to confirm and explain every aspect of the matter, should I be required to do so before the Court", she said." Well okay, great. We will be following that on here. I'm really curious to see your explanations for some of this stuff, especially as it pertained to the Commander in the field. Quoting further: "The leaked conversation included derogatory remarks about the Commander of the 2nd Army Region, branding him as an adversary, as well as a submissive tone towards Hun Sen with Ms. Paetongtarn signalling readiness to comply with his demands." Hence the term appeasement; this isn't hyperbole here. I'm very concerned for Thailand; I'm not going to continue to just drive the point home; at this point it is kind of beating a dead horse. Again, if there was no ill intention and if it was a mistake born of naïveté, okay fair enough. But I'm sorry, again in the context of Chamberlain, he probably had the best intentions at least for his own people; I don't think you could argue he had the necessarily best intentions for the Czechoslovakians at the time, but at least for Britain, and if you read about the context of it, there was this element of ‘we were trying to buy time so we can re-arm for a future conflict’. But he stepped aside later because it was clear that that was not the correct path to take diplomatically. 

So I guess in closing on this video, what I have to say is we are certainly going to be keeping people updated with regard to the upcoming no-confidence motion and we will certainly be following any procedures and proceedings that occur in the Thai Courts with respect to this, because honestly, this is probably the biggest legal issue that's going to be out there in Thailand for at least the forthcoming what, 4 - 8 weeks I would imagine. Minimum.