Transcript of the above video: 

Buckle up folks, this is going to be a longer one associated with banking. So folks who are sort of aware of my thinking on this, you will probably understand the opinion side of this but there is also a news element here, a lot going on here.

I'm going to go ahead and throw this up on screen. This is from Bangkok Post print edition, titled: OECD Quest Spurs Reform. Bid for Thai membership by 2028 is prompting a radical overhaul of laws and regulations. Who voted for radical overhaul of laws and regulations driven by some outside foreign influence to dictate to Thailand what our banking sectors should look like? I certainly didn't vote for that. Now I know they kind of - especially on Bhumjaithai, they kind of had as one of their planks that they wanted OECD - it was kind of like one of the last ones - I talked about it at the time. As much as I tend to be on the same frequency as Bhumjaithai, especially with matters pertaining to national sovereignty, I am really kind of at a loss, where I am not seeing whether they are not seeing the disconnect there between their otherwise ongoing message and this issue with OECD. I mean I have talked about it previously. President Trump, and believe me there are things that I disagree with when it comes to Mr. Trump's policies, but I couldn't have agreed with him more when on the first day he came into Office in the United States, he promulgated an Executive Order that said, "hey we're not having anything to do with this OECD stuff. It creates extra-territorial jurisdictional issues inside the United States, and it's an affront to America's national sovereignty." I don't get what, it's clear. We are talking about an overseas entity, a foreign entity, telling Thailand how it should regulate its banks. Why would we ever want this? And how is this one iota different from colonialism? It looks like colonialism to me. Some outside entity telling us all how we bank, and banking being the foundation for all ongoing business and economic activity. It seems pretty pervasive. I really question why this Government is continuing the way that it is. But let's jump into this. And I noticed by the way, it's like the Bangkok Post has almost just become an advertising bulletin for some of this stuff. I mean the print edition; there were two different articles. I will throw up another one which I probably won't quote but maybe I will; I may quote two here, in fact I will. I'm just going to go deep diving into this right now. That said, quoting directly: "Thailand is undertaking one of the most ambitious legal and regulatory reform programs in its modern history" - did anybody vote in the last election for one of the most ambitious legal and regulatory reform programs that would be driven by a foreign entity? Did anyone vote for that? Okay, maybe in a vague sense, again I know it was one of the Bhumjaithai Party planks that they were looking to be part of OECD. Okay, in a vague sense let's look into it. But did anybody vote to have all of our laws and regulations pertaining to banking be changed at the behest of a foreign outfit? - Quoting further: "as the government seeks to secure membership in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development." That leads me to the reason for the thumbnail which is a great quote from one of my favourite scenes, maybe ever put on film. It's from the movie Scent of a Woman and it's where Al Pacino, he's playing a guy named Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade, is defending this kid from basically being expelled from this like ritzy prep school. And at one point they say, "if this guy is still worthy of being a Baird man and basically Al Pacino says, "he doesn't need to be labeled “still worthy of being a Baird man". Thailand doesn't need to be labeled in line with banking practices around the world. Thailand needs to take care of Thailand. Thailand needs to regulate her own banking matters. Period, end if discussion. Doesn't need to be labeled anything; doesn't need to be labeled member of OECD for that matter. Quoting further: "membership to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development by 2028 says Deputy Prime Minister Pakorn Nilprapunt. Speaking in a recent interview, Mr. Pakorn, who is a former Office of the Council of State Secretary-General, said Thailand’s legal framework has long been burdened by outdated regulations and complex approval procedures." Says who? The foreigners? Yeah. It’s complex. Why would that be? Mightn’t it be because our predecessors here in Thailand knew that they had to protect themselves from undue foreign influence and created a regulatory and bureaucratic structure in order to accomplish that aim? Quoting further: "Around 90% of the Thai legal system is still based on approvals and permits, which cannot be obtained through a one-stop service. This causes unnecessary burdens for citizens and businesses," he said." Does it? Because I've never seen a Thai that wants to do business in Thailand have much of any problem with the regulatory structure. In fact, when I became Thai, that was one of the greatest things about it is because you no longer have to deal with all that. No, this stuff is designed to deal with undue foreign influence. And what are we going to do? We're going to get rid of all of those firewalls and then let in what? The foreign hordes, to do what? To defecate us all economically, through the banking system? Why is that a good idea? That said, quoting further: "He said these approval procedures also create opportunities for corruption due to the requirement for extensive interaction between officials and the public." As if the banking system of the world doesn't have corruption issues? I mean ever since 2006, '7 and '8; and by the way, after a decade before that they had told Thailand they had to do austerity and sell out their national assets for pennies on the dollar, then when the US and the West goes through problems, they just print money. So I'm not really interested in listening to the high level of integrity that exists within some foreign nebulous banking cartel. That said, quoting further: "unclear regulations and Civil Servants' discretionary powers" - yes, I like that the Civil Servants in Thailand have discretionary powers to thwart undue foreign influence. Quoting further: "Efforts to reform the legal system are not new. Mr. Pakorn said the OCS has been working on regulatory improvement since the late 1980s, drawing lessons from the international best practices and evolving global trends." Thailand doesn't need to be labeled in line with international best practices and evolving global trends. Period, end of discussion. Thailand's history is about taking care of Thailand; that's what I love about this place. Quoting further: "As globalization accelerated and international trade expanded, countries recognize the need for high-quality regulations", - high quality regulations - what even is that? That's what they say is a good regulation, rather than what might be better and in the national interest for Thailand. "High-quality regulations". What kind of nonsense term is that? Quoting further: "that ease economic activity while protecting public interest." Ease economic activity? Like requiring everybody to do facial scanning to be able to use their own bank account, and capping out the amount of money that they can move digitally through a system everybody told us was going to be easier, while it decreases the velocity of money and decreases liquidity at exactly the time that this economy needs it? These high-quality regulations brought us all of that, and that's just during this preemptive phase before we even become a full partner in this OECD nonsense. That said, quoting further: "Over time, regulatory philosophy shifted from strict government control to self-regulation and later toward a more balanced approach." Well first of all, let's be clear. Thailand never had strict government control over Thais wishing to do business and maintaining privacy in their own banking and financial affairs. So Thais who are wanting to do things were fine. No, the issue here is that the foreigners can't just gain total access to this economy and overrun it or dominate it. That's what the issue is. Quoting further: "Governments around the world came to realize that while some sectors require strong oversight, others can function effectively with greater flexibility and stakeholder participation." What greater flexibility is being added by all this onerous OECD nonsense? And meanwhile, I don't care what governments around the world think, or do, or do with their time, or think is a good idea policy-wise, legally or otherwise. I care about what's best for Thailand and I'm starting to wonder, what are our folks in public service thinking about, because they seem to be enamoured with a bunch of foreign nonsense, rather than worrying about the national interest. I also love the use of the term "stakeholder". That is one of these, it's like "governance". It's one of these new globalist terms; it doesn't mean anything. It sounds like, you think, "shareholder". No. Stakeholder just means people telling you what to do because they say they are able to tell you what to do. That's what a stakeholder is. Quoting further: "This evolution eventually led to the concept of "better regulation for better life" - are you kidding me? are you kidding me? That saying is up there along the lines of "each according to his ability, each according to his need". Ronald Reagan was dead right when he said the worst thing that you can hear is "we're from the government and we're here to help" and he also said, "Government is not the solution to our problems, Government is the problem", especially when it's governance by some offshore nebulous foreign entity that is trying to again unduly influence this country. Quoting further: "A principle that Mr. Pakorn has championed throughout his career." Great! Quoting further: "The Deputy Prime Minister said the then Government started studying OECD regulatory principles in 2015 after a member of the OECD's Regulatory Policy Committee based in Malaysia reached out to him when he was working for the OCS." So back during the early days of the coup government, that's where this brainchild came from? Because he was reached out to by some foreign national? What's going on here? Where is this coming from? This clearly wasn't - again, this is saying it right - I am reading this again because this can't be stated enough. "The Deputy Prime Minister said the then Government started studying OECD regulatory principles in 2015 after a member of the OECD's Regulatory Policy Committee based in Malaysia reached out to him when he was working for the OCS." This isn't an organic desire by the electorate in Thailand, it says right here. He was reached out to by foreign influence. What are we doing?

Quoting further: "He said he later requested access to the OECD's library, allowing his team to study the matter." The OECD's library? What are they? The library of Alexandria? The OECD's library? And then they used those people's data to then inform them of what would be best for Thailand? So we are asking the fox how to guard the hen house? How does that work? Quoting further: "He and his team found the OECD's principles involved structural reforms, with the organization acting as a forum for the exchange of economic development strategies." What in the hell does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. So the outcome is what? It would involve structural reforms, with the organization acting as a forum for the exchange of Economic Development strategies." Okay, if it's a forum, why don't you just attend the forum and listen to the symposium, listen to what's put on there? Why do we have to go through this process of changing all of our own internal laws and regulations just to be able to attend a forum? Why? Quoting further: "Mr. Pakorn said Thailand and the OECD began their full-scale cooperation in the mid-2010's. As part of the partnership, the OECD has been sending its specialists to train Thai personnel free of charge." Free of charge! So we get undue foreign influence in Thailand free of charge. You know, there is no free lunch. Why would a bunch of bankers be doing anything for free, unless it was in their interest? Quoting further: "Thailand's goal is not to achieve a high status within the OECD" - what does that mean? What does that even mean? A high status within the OECD. Thailand is fine on her own; she didn't need to be labeled “high status in the OECD” - "but to initiate structural reforms in the legal system," - again, did anyone vote for structural reforms in the legal system at the behest of the OECD? Quoting further: "economy and society with the aim of improving its competitiveness and citizens' quality of life," he said." How does making people go to a bank to do biometric scanning to access their own money in a bank account, improve anyone's lives? What has been improved since OECD has been brought forth since this past Government. Show me a positive benefit, because everything I have seen - and I'm watching this closely - is just more onerous requirements, like Neo-Sovietism, it's just a bunch of 'make work' on things that should already be easy. Things that 5 years ago, you could do as a matter of course and get on with your day to doing business and making money and adding value. Quoting further: "Mr. Pakorn said he incorporated these principles into Section 77 of the 2017 Constitution. The provision requires authorities to conduct impact assessments, identify policy problems," - okay, so basically, they are talking about yeah, pursuant to that, they did change a few things where they have to do impact assessments before they get things wrong. Fine, okay and, again though, at the behest of foreign influence. Quoting further: "He said successive Governments have supported this reform agenda from General Prayut Chan-o-cha's administration" - except for the fact that they didn't try to bring this stuff online. And by the way, as I've discussed in other videos, say what you will about the Generals, the entire 9 years and change that they were running things, nobody from Thailand attended World Economic Forum Meetings etc. - Quoting further: "and the Governments of Srettha Thavisin and Anutin Charnvirakul," - well you left out old Paetongtarn who was meeting the WEF guy in the purple room, and meanwhile, Srettha Thavisin, come on. Quoting further: "policy makers have recognized that Thailand must adapt to remain competitive" - no she does not. Thailand is competitive. It's the rest of the world telling this place that there is something wrong with us; that there is something wrong with Thailand. As an outsider who became Thai, I am here to tell you, there is nothing wrong with Thailand, and there is definitely nothing wrong with Thailand that is going to be cured by the OECD. Quoting further: "in a rapidly changing global economy. We can't continue living the way we did in the past." - Why? Why? Because foreigners say so? - "We must move forward. If we fail to adapt, we will be left behind while other countries continue evolving." This is the same nonsense BS that was used to bring online the European Union which everybody 20 years prior to that particular development, said was a conspiracy theory. Because people said, "hey we are really concerned about losing our national sovereignty to some sort of federal union of Europe", and people were "oh you're crazy, they're not doing that", And then by the year 2000, they said this is exactly what we're doing and the argument that they made to everybody is if you don't join this thing, then you're going to fall behind, you're going to fall behind. You know what? I want to be behind; I want to live in old backward Thailand, where we are all free, and we can move our money around and do what we need to do to do our business, live our lives and take care of our families. That's the country I want to live in. I don't want to live in OECD-burg, where we're all "more competitive". And by the way, this notion that we all have to compete with each other at the behest of a bunch of global banking outfits who tell us whether or not we are productive enough is nonsense. It's a system that is dying by the way, right now. We're watching it in real time. I mean in my personal opinion is it's like that movie The Other Guys, with Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg where they find out at the end that it's the policemen's pension that is being attacked by this Global Financial outfit that broke to begin with. They are just coming along and bringing others on board – it’s a Ponzi scheme - bringing others on board so that they can suck out the economic sustenance from them, and then move on after they have depleted that shell. Bad policy thinking on all of this. 

That said, quoting further: "Mr. Pakorn said Thailand has already completed several important steps in the OECD accession process including submitting a country report." - So now we have got to submit reports to some offshore foreign entity like we're children in school? We have got to submit homework to these people? - Quoting further: "which outlines the country's readiness for membership and completing an Initial Memorandum evaluating how closely Thai laws and institutions align with OECD instruments and standards." Thai Law doesn't need to align with anything. It stands alone. It's unique, it's beautiful. There is no better definition of undue foreign influence than this right here. Quoting further: "The next step involves revising laws and regulations." - did anyone vote for that? And does anyone in Thailand want that? To have our laws and regulations revised at the behest of a foreign banking outfit? Quoting further: "Mr. Pakorn said most Acts do not require amendment as they involve broad principles, with only a few remaining outdated." - so they are telling us that our laws are outdated? - "However, obstacles are found in Ministerial Regulations that govern licensing and approval procedures. Quote: "The Government is planning to review its 7,600 Ministerial Regulations so agencies can exchange information electronically," he said. Under the proposed digital government framework," - again, this digital government framework is operating hand and glove with the OECD which is already hand in glove with this attempt to create a supranational “Global Minimum Tax” structure. Again, did anyone in Thailand vote for this? Should we be on board with this? This goes against every notion that Thailand stood for on her own, when she stood against the Colonial powers, and even Communism. This has the undertones of Communism. Read the book The Oligarchs; I will put it up on screen. It's about basically the late Soviet system going into the '90s. It takes you basically all the way up to sort of Putin taking over from Yeltsin, and it talks about how the Soviet System fell apart. The Soviet System's banking system looks a hell of a lot like the OECD. Quoting further: "Citizens and businesses would no longer be required to repeatedly submit official documents already held by state agencies." - yeah, that is the carrot. Instead of just reforming internally within Thailand that particular piece of bureaucracy, no, no, no. The solution is a bunch of outside foreign undue influence and foreigners telling us what bureaucratic procedures we have to undertake. Rather than just curing the matter internally, through bureaucratic reform, internally, they are saying ‘oh, no, no, no, we need the OECD to help us with this’. This is neo-Colonialism; that's the only description for this.

Quoting further: "Information would be shared securely across Departments reducing paperwork, speeding up approvals and increasing transparency." I'm assuming it would also be shared with folks who are not here in Thailand; with foreign entities. And again, did anybody vote for that? I didn't. Quoting further: "Although the Government has set a target of achieving OECD membership by 2028, Mr. Pakorn acknowledged that the timeline is ambitious." Hopefully, I hope it never happens. Thailand shouldn't have anything to do with any of this. Quoting further: "He believes the process could take until 2030 due to the extensive coordination required across multiple government agencies and sectors. Nevertheless, Mr. Anutin has insisted on maintaining an ambitious goal to accelerate progress."

Mr. Anutin, please. I know you're a reasonable man. I know this because during the COVID thing you took a reasonable position when it came to the mandatory vaccine stuff. My prayer is revisit this OECD thing, especially in light of your position regarding Thailand's National sovereignty. This isn't good for us, Sir. It's not good for the country. Quoting further: "He said OECD membership does not require perfect compliance from the outset." Why should we be joining something that requires us to “comply”; compliance with a foreign outfit’s thoughts on how we should run things in Thailand internally? Why should we ever comply with that? This is Thailand; it's not OECD-land. - "Many member countries joined while still working to address remaining gaps. The benefits, he said, extend beyond international recognition.'" To what? Nobody has yet explained to me what the benefits of this thing are. What are we getting out of this? Other than complying with a bunch of stuff and them getting to basically direct how our internal banking system works, what is Thailand getting from this? What are the rank-and-file Thais getting from this? - "Membership would strengthen investor confidence" - well whoop-dee-doo! - "facilitate trade and investment with OECD countries" - don't we already have trade agreements with everybody that's a member of OECD? - "support sustainable development" - sustainable development is the most non-word, it's the most platitudinous phrase I think I may have heard in the last 30 years. ‘Sustainable development’ just means development that a bunch of globalists and international bankers say is good. That's it. It doesn't have any inherent meaning other than that. Quoting further: "and encourage higher governance standards across the economy." "Governance" - that is one of these Club of Rome, World Economic Forum trilateral commission type words that simply means 'being ruled in such a way that you're not governed'. It's basically a bunch of technocratic bankers telling us all how and what we should be doing, because they say so. Not based on anything that we've ever known to be a legitimate basis for Government, that is why they call it governance; because it's not Government, because Government presumes legitimacy. Quoting further: "My team has consulted with all parties including the Parliament, and the opposition, and they have all supported" - really? have you talked to any of the people of Thailand? Because I don't know any Thais that voted for this, that wanted this. And meanwhile, why are Parliamentarians all in support of this? And the other thing is I don't quite believe that. I would like to see Parliament actually vote on this, not some backdoor Cabinet Resolution that Parliament didn't get; where's the Parliamentary debate on whether or not we want to join OECD? You are bringing the country into this; it's bringing online, by our own admissions, by the admissions of the people that are trying to bring this online. It was initially brought to their attention by foreign influence, and all of the regulations and “compliance” protocols will be dictated by a foreign entity. Who wanted this? I'm pretty sure if you polled the electorate at this moment, they wouldn't particularly be for this.

Now let's move over here to another article that was in the Bangkok Post, in the same print edition, at the same time, under the headline: OECD bid hinges on 'rule of law' fix. So before we even dive into the article, I talked about this in another video where they were talking about "oh, rule of law, we have got to have rule of law." First of all, this is all part of this nonsense vernacular that even the Prime Minister of Canada brought up, unfortunately at a recent meeting of the World Economic Forum, where he said, "look all of these terms: rule of law, rules based order - those have all been used, by for lack of a better term, I like calling them the Golden Billion; I think Putin or somebody came up with that, and he called them the 'Golden Billion', where basically that is a buzz word to be able to tell the rest of the world, all of us uncivilized folk in all the rest of the hinterland of the Earth, how to do things. So let's start there. And as I discussed in another video, when you do a deep dive into what they mean by "oh, we need to have rule of law", they want to bring the "informal economy" “in line with” the rule of law, which means they want to track and trace everybody so they can tax everyone in the "informal economy". And let's remember, it was the "informal economy" that saved this country economically, when again these same foreign bankers, this same undue foreign influence laid Thailand low economically in 1997, utilizing financial chicanery in order to try to buy up national assets for pennies on the dollar. So let's not forget what happens when we start hearing all these platitudes about "rule of law". 

That said, quoting directly: "Outdated regulations weaken 'bid effort'. So oh my, we have to bid to be in the OECD. Well excuse me, I don't want to bid. I don't want to be part of this. Quoting further: "Thailand's bid to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is a crucial opportunity to address deep-rooted structural weaknesses, particularly rule-of-law shortcomings that undermine investor confidence and competitiveness, the forum was told." Who says? A bunch of foreigners? Why do they say we are weak? The US is 125% debt to GDP ratio; that's third world country stuff. Meanwhile, most of the Western countries in Western Europe are financially depleted. I think it was Doug Casey that said, when it comes to the dollar, it's 'I owe you nothing', and then when it comes to the way the European banking system works, it's 'who owes you nothing?' These systems aren't built on like some rock. That said, quoting further: "Speaking at the Thailand Rule of Law Leadership Forum 2026: Competitiveness and OECD readiness recently, Kittipong Kittayarat, Chairman of the Thailand Institute of Justice and a member of Thailand's OECD accession oversight committee, said the country's slow economic growth reflected declining confidence amongst both domestic and foreign investors." No it doesn't. No, it doesn't. It reflects the fact that Thailand's demography is shifting; we are becoming a more aging country. It also reflects the fact that Thailand is already a sophisticated economy. It's this constant mindset that is being pushed on Thailand, that Thailand is somehow substandard. No. Thailand has built up all of its infrastructure, okay? There are countries in Southeast Asia that if you put a laundromat in that country, it would jack its GDP up by 5%. Thailand is long past that; it's developed, that's why its GDP does not race ahead like these developing countries. But that misnomer of conflating that less growth because we have already done our growing basically, they conflate that with weakness. It is not weak here. We're already sophisticated. This economy, this country is fine, and this notion of competitiveness, competing with what? America's ability as the reserve currency creator, to what? Engage in its exorbitant privileges de Gaul said, to what? Print money? Thailand doesn't have that ability, so what the hell are we talking about? Competitiveness. Competitiveness with whom? Thailand makes more cars than anything I see coming out of the West: Thailand creates more actual value than anything I see coming out of the West. They create actual goods and services; things. It's not a bunch of people moving paper around and saying that they are engaged in - I don't know what they're calling it now - whatever the latest bubble is, AI or whatever that's emanating from the Financial Centres of the West. Thailand actually makes stuff, so what are we talking about when we are talking about competing? Quoting further: "He argued Thailand's excessive and outdated regulations, combined with broad discretionary powers granted to state officials, had contributed to perceptions of corruption and weakened the country's competitive position."

So the foreigners don't like the way our laws work, and they don't like the fact that we have folks in a regulatory position to stop them from doing whatever the heck they want in this country, and therefore, we have the problem. Is that what I'm hearing? That said, quoting further: "Visible infrastructure such as roads, bridges and technology can be repaired when problems arise. "The more difficult challenges are invisible infrastructure -- the rule of law. If laws are enforced inconsistently and outcomes are unpredictable, investors become reluctant to commit to long-term investments and innovation suffers." Well my first question is investments in what? These data centres, at first I was thinking this was a good idea and then I started looking into it further. What are we getting out of this? They suck up all the water; they suck up tons of power and energy and wattage and from what I'm hearing it's four guys get a job out of the whole thing. So investment in what, first of all? I want to know what they want to invest in? And meanwhile, a lot of what I see when investors come to Thailand is they want to invest in things that are restricted from them, like land for example. Is that going to be on the table here? Is that part of these reforms? Because the reforms that were dictated to Thailand by the IMF in the aftermath of the '97 thing - as we talked about in another video, and then somebody that went on Tucker Carlson was interviewed brought up - all their "reforms" were aimed at was trying to buy assets of Thailand for pennies on the dollar, after they had used a bunch of financial chicanery to put Thailand on her back. So is that the kind of reform we are going for here? Is the reform, "oh we have got to let the foreigners in to do whatever they want and run rampant? Is that "rule of law"? 

Quoting further: "He noted the international measures such as the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index demonstrate that the rule of law can be assessed through factors including government accountability, law enforcement effectiveness and corruption risks." What, what, what? A metric of what? How do you measure law? I've been an Attorney for almost 20, actually 20 years now. I don't know how you measure with a metric ‘law-ness’. The reason for this is it is all smoke and mirrors. It's all smoke and mirrors because they want to have influence on Thailand. They want to tell Thailand what to do; that's what this is all about. That's what all the, "oh, you have got problems with your rule of law. Let us come in". It's why I have always hated that movie The King and I, because it is all predicated on this notion, “oh, the Thais didn't know what to do and then this Farang lady came in and everything is great again”. Nonsense. It's the same nonsense thinking here. That said, quoting further: "He added that strengthening the rule of law was no longer solely a legal issue but required cooperation across Government, Business and Civil Society." So the rule of law is not a legal issue? Huh! When you start seeing circular reasoning and nonsensical rhetoric, you know they're trying to sell you a con. Quoting further: "The newly established Thailand Rule of Law Leadership Program" - we have a process for creating folks who deal with the rule of law here in Thailand. It's called going to University, getting a Degree in Law, sitting for your exams if you want to be a practicing Attorney in the Courts and dealing with it that way. We don't need a "Rule of Law Leadership Program" at the behest of some foreign undue influence. "a 14-week initiative bringing together leaders from multiple sectors, was designed to support reforms aligned with OECD standards." Multiple sectors! What does an engineer have to do with the law? Quoting further: "Tatyana Teplova, senior adviser on justice at the OECD's Public Governance Directorate, said the rule of law is a cornerstone of public trust, economic resilience and institutional effectiveness." Well thanks, Ms. Teplova. Don't sound Thai to me. What has this got to do with anything? What does that even mean? "is a cornerstone of public trust"? Great, yeah we get that. What is this? A Civics class? What does that have to do with Thailand? and by the way, so by this logic, your version of rule of law is what matters, because Thailand has been operating under rule of law, albeit their own organically promulgated legal system and jurisprudence, promulgated and enforced by their own people. We have Rule of Law in Thailand. It's just not what you the OECD say is the rule of law. That's what this comes down to. Quoting further: "She said clear and consistently enforced rules enable businesses and citizens to access justice, make decisions with confidence and operate within a transparent system that serves the public interest." Okay, neat. Quoting further: "There is no magic formula for successful reform." So why are you presenting us with one? Why are you saying that from your library we can glean all this magical formula? Quoting further: "The most successful factor is ensuring that all sectors of society move forward together." Again platitudinous nonsense. Quoting further: "Payong Srivanich, Chairman of the Thai Bankers' Association" - great, they are chiming in; so the bankers have chimed in. You notice all of this, it's either undue foreign influence people - the OECD, these murky, etheric again Senior Advisor on Justice at the OECD's Public Governance Directorate; Public Governance Directorate" – I remember somebody, what does the word “Soviet’ mean? It means "Committee", it means "rule by committee", and here we are. We are getting one of these commissars showing up. A senior advisor on Justice at the OECD's Public Governance Directorate. If you can't see what this is, I don't know what to do for you. This mirrors the Soviet System almost to a T. Again, they throw some extra sort of window dressing on, and make it look a little different, but it's not. Quoting further: "Payong Srivanich, Chairman of the Thai Bankers' Association and President of Krung Thai Bank, said investors needed confidence that they could compete fairly in Thailand." Which investors? And no you don't always get to compete fairly in Thailand. The name on the door is not Fair-land, it's Thailand, okay? it is a rigged game in favour of the Thais; that's how it works. It was set up that way because outside foreign influence some 2- 300 years ago came out here and started trying to tell Thailand how to do everything. But she maintained her sovereignty and this is just the way it works in Thailand; you are either Thai or you are not. I am not really interested in the confidence of investors who want to come in here and throw a bunch of money around and tell Thailand what to do and change everything. There is a great scene at the end of a movie, it is sometimes titled The Day of the Falcon, I have also seen it titled Black Gold. It has Mark Strong in it and it's a movie about basically the early days of oil exploration in the Middle East and there is this conflict between these two Sheiks and like they have to exchange prisoners and things. And there is this part where this son who has been estranged from his father because of this sort of exchange of hostages effectively, he gets back and he sees his father, and the son has been so sort of enthralled and enamoured with all of these Western developments and his father is telling him, "no, you need to understand, if we let these people come here - even if we think it is a good thing - we'll never be ourselves again. They will have changed us; we'll never be what we were; we'll never be what we are now". And Thailand needs to be hyper-aware of this right now because this OECD stuff - and it will be pernicious in its subtlety I expect - like with everybody just going along more and more with digital oversight, and totalitarian banking nonsense and more and more and more, and it will take away the very essence of what it means to be a Thai. And I was taught when I was becoming Thai that what it means to be a Thai is that you are free. Quoting further: "Thuttai Keeratipongpaiboon, Director of the National Economic and Social Development Council's international strategy and coordination division, said structural and institutional weaknesses including outdated regulations, corruption and governance" - notice that word again - "governance deficiencies had slowed growth and trapped the country in a cycle of low credibility and weak growth." Says who? Says who? A bunch of outsiders? The OECD?  

Notice the BRICS isn't saying this stuff and I don't even love bringing that up either. I have my own concerns about the BRICS but I don't see the BRICS trying to change everything internally in Thailand, telling us all we don't have real rule of law here; telling us all that they want to track and trace the internal economy; telling us all that we have weaknesses and corruption, because we have bulwarks that protect our national sovereignty, protect our local labour pool, protect our local people from outside undue influence and from a bunch of bankers dictating to us all, what we can and can't do. And by the way, if you think that's impossible, they're already doing it to the foreign nationals here; they are already doing it indirectly to expats. The banks are already telling them, "oh you have got to freeze your account for X number of months before we will give you a letter that will allow you to get a Visa". That isn't Immigration Policy, that is Bank Policy. You think there's going to be less of that when we are being dictated to directly by this offshore entity? Quoting further: "Thailand has reached the technical review stage of the OECD accession process, which he said is regarded as the most demanding phase." Demanding of what? What do we need to prove up to these people? Thailand is fine. What it looks to me like is they are trying to take advantage of us; it looks to me like a classic con. They come in and tell you, “Oh you are not quite doing this right; you're not quite good enough. Da, da, da. Go through this process so you'll be better", and meanwhile, all they are doing is trying to rob us blind. 

If it is not immediately clear my issues with this stuff, I guess I'll just sum it up by saying, again I pray the Prime Minister reassesses this and looks at this for whether or not it is in the best interest of this country.