Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing, well it may not be quite apparent exactly what we are discussing from the title of this video, so the title is: When "Because I Said So" Goes Wrong.

I got to thinking about this, I was talking to a friend over the past weekend about all the news and I will get into it here in a minute, but everything going on around the “mask mandate”. At the end of the day, the whole thing is just essentially based on a "because I said so" argument in my opinion, and I will get into the analysis of why I believe that. Then when it goes wrong, this whole mask mandate thing is not going great. It needs to end for a lot of different reasons, a myriad reasons at this point in fact and it is just causing confusion and consternation in my opinion, again we will get into it in a minute. Again the reason for the title, I was thinking of one of my favourite comedians, arguably one of the great philosophers perhaps of the last quarter century is Dave Chappelle and he used to have this sketch on his show, "When keeping it real goes wrong" and I just thought this seemed kind of analogous, not exactly apples to apples, but maybe you will agree as you get through the rest of this video. 

The reason for the video is I was reading in the Thai Examiner, that is thaiexaminer.com, the article is titled: Conflicting signals nationwide and in Phuket on face mask mandate with two volte-faces this week. Quoting directly: "Impatience appears to be growing in the nightlife sector and across the foreign tourism industry for not only a return to full normality but stronger support for Thailand's vibrant nighttime culture which is at the heart of the country's attraction to foreign visitors. This took on a political tone this week with the Thai Cabinet voting down a proposal from Public Health Officials to rescind the face mask mandate in June while the new Governor Bangkok and former Phue Thai Minister, Chadchart Sittipunt, has voiced support for such a move in the capital." Quoting further: "The Governor of Phuket, Narong Woonsiew, on Friday, rescinded a May 31st order, (now this gets a little confusing) "rescinded a May 31st order which would have made face masks optional in public parks, on beaches and in open spaces where social distancing can be easily achieved. This sudden reversal of the order came on Friday after a series of clarifications and walk backs on Wednesday and Thursday. This week, the Cabinet in Bangkok, in a surprising move, rejected a proposal to scrap the face mask requirement from mid-June. Meanwhile the newly installed Governor of Bangkok, Chadchart Sittipunt, has indicated that he would like to see an end to face masks in Bangkok to boost trade and is to consult with Officials on this matter." So that is all interesting.

On top of that, this is a little bit more recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Chadchart backs 2 a.m. closing time. Quoting directly, and that was a pretty broad article but we are just quoting a tiny little excerpt. I urge those who are watching this video go read these in their entirety if you are interested in this because there is a lot going on here. Quoting directly: "Regarding the possibility of easing the face mask wearing mandate, Mr. Chadchart said the CCSA will make a decision, but that City Hall will recommend such a move." Yeah, good. We need to recommend such a move and I don't understand what the CCSA is doing. Quite frankly I don't understand where the CCSA claims a legal authority to do this at all. As we have discussed, this has been bandied about, the Public Health Minister himself and we have done a video on this, has been quoted as saying there are no laws backing this up which then begs the question "how are they doing it?" which we did a video I think it was last week, I think it was titled "Per SE" when we quoted this article where they said "it is not a law per se but it is an enforceable mandate"! Well that is not a thing in a Civil Law country, okay? And let me explain why. I'm just going to throw this up and I know it may seem simplistic, it is Wikipedia, and this is under where they are explaining the basic concepts of Civil Law and let me be clear, I come from a Common Law background. My Doctorate is primarily in Common Law studies but you do take courses on Comparative Law, Conflicts of Law, things of this nature. Over time, I have studied pretty intimately, just as what I would call an outside observer, the Thai legal system which is a Civil Code based system which is why I want to quote this from Wikipedia. Codification under Law. Quoting directly: In Law, codification is the process of collecting and restating the law of a jurisdiction in certain areas usually by subject, forming a legal code i.e. a Codex or Book of Law." Quoting further. This is really key because I have had a lot of people asking me about this and I don't think they understand just the fundamentals of the Law, Jurisprudence. "Codification is one of the defining features of Civil Law jurisdictions." Let me state that again. "Codification is one of the defining features of Civil Law jurisdictions. In Common Law systems such as that of English Law, Codification is the process of converting and consolidating Judge made law into statute law but to be clear," and I want to say this one more time, let me just repeat, quote: "Codification is one of the defining features of Civil Law jurisdictions." When I first started comparing Civil Law to Common Law and when I first started doing it, especially in a Thai context but I have also seen it for example when briefly dealing with things involving like Louisiana's Code in the United States, they utilize sort of a Napoleonic Code inspired legal system there, the Civil Code is different from the Common Law. The Common Law you can have this kind of Judge made law out there that exists, and it may not even be fully codified. For people that don't operate in a Common Law system this can be a little bit scary and Common law folks that deal with Common Law a lot often find Civil Law a little bit weird to deal with for lack of a better term because it's done very differently in both places. So in a Common Law system, you could have a situation where the overriding authority to do something is somewhat nebulous, I will put it that way but that is not how it is in a Civil Law system. In a Civil Law System, you have got to codify what is legal and what is not. If you want to make something illegal or create a "mandate", you have got a codify it and you can't codify it vaguely. You have got to come out and say it and as we have said, there is nothing in the Communicable Diseases Act that states that a Mask Mandate can be imposed. Therefore just because the Emergency Decree springs from the Communicable Diseases Act, how does that connect the dots between something that is not codified becoming an enforceable mandate? How do you get there? The short answer is you can't. I don't think anybody exactly wants to hear it this bluntly, but really at this point, especially 2 years later; again this is not June 2020, this is not June 2021, it's June 2022. We are in a very different position than we were in even a year ago. When I had an issue with this to begin with because I was very unclear and I remain unclear and I am happy to stand corrected but everything I have read has been citing the Communicable Diseases Act. Well there is nothing codified in the Communicable Diseases Act that says the Government can impose a mask mandate. It's just not there and there you go. I mean at the end of the day that is sort of where I am at on that. Now if somebody wants to have a counter argument, I guess I am open to hearing somebody out but especially years in, whatever. 

That being said, it does look like this is moving pretty rapid pace. I'm very much hoping we could be done with this. I don't think there's any, well there are some countries who have taken hysteria to a whole different level, I'm not going to point any fingers, but most other countries I put this pretty well behind them. I don't understand why there is this big "push and pull" on this issue at this point, when we know exactly what this is; we know it is not some major existential threat; we are seeing other countries that have pulled back all of these mandates and they are fine, so what are we still doing? Meanwhile, as noted in these articles, this is having a tremendously negative impact on tourism, on the prospects of tourism especially looking at High Season, this coming High Season at the end of 2022. People book their flights and make travel plans now for that time. We really, really need to put this behind us as amicably as we can and just move on with our lives because really I think we are, to put it one way, maybe we are all just talking past each other but I don't think that's the case. I think there has been a lot of misinformation out there and frankly if I have and I have said it before and I will say it again, if I have a major bug bear in all of this, it is definitely, I am looking at the media. The media has been in my opinion not really doing their job in terms of really looking at the situation. Instead it seems many have kind of just fallen into some sort of hysterical fit of hyperbole for the last couple of years, but it needs to end now. We have got to get on with our lives. Thailand has got to get back on her economic feet because if we don't and we keep languishing in this feedback loop on these issues, I think other countries are going to get ahead of us, especially here in Southeast Asia, especially in the tourism sector and it’s only going to hurt in the long term.