Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are asking the question, is the current state of play if you will in Thai politics, a game of "wag the dog"? Now what are we talking about here? Well first of all, as the thumbnail suggests, there's this line from the film Wag the Dog which in my mind, if you are a follower of politics, if you are a follower of movies, Wag the Dog is really the Venn Diagram of political analysis and good movie making; it's almost a total overlap of the movie Wag the Dog. It's a great film, well made, I think it provides a lot of insight into especially how narratives are created in the political sphere, and I think it is pertinent at the moment, this whole as it says on the thumbnail, the B-3 Bomber, I'll get to that in a moment. But I think all of this Wag the Dog stuff is pertinent at the moment. I did a video made contemporaneously with this one where I was talking about how there seemed to be obfuscation regarding the passage of the Budget here in Thailand which just barely passed and was pretty solid evidence of just how tenuous this current government truly is in Parliament. They only managed to get passed 257 votes out of a 500-person chamber, and that thing had broad-based support. Me, even though I don't really like much about this government, I was in favour of getting the budget passed at the very least and I think a lot of folks here in Thailand felt the same way regardless of their own personal politics; it's a good thing to get the budget on down the road so we can keep moving ahead as a country basically.

That said getting that done by 257 out of 500, that's not a ringing Clarion call in support of this current government. And folks who have been watching my channel or kind of paying attention to what's going on over here, folks are not really happy with the way that this government has done things and again there are even legal problems for the government which we will get into here in a moment insofar as the Prime Minister is currently under suspension pending a final adjudication regarding the appropriateness of some of her behaviour in the past, and let's dive into this so people understand the background. 

Quoting directly from Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Paetongtarn Court ruling set for August 29. "The Constitutional Court will rule on August 29 in the case seeking the removal of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra for her handling of a phone call with former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. The Court said on Wednesday that it would hear testimony from Ms. Paetongtarn and the National Security Council on August 21 and closing arguments on August 27. The Judges will convene at 9.30am on Friday, August 29 to discuss and vote on the case, and will announce their ruling at 3.00pm." So we have a hard and fast date as to when the ruling on this will happen. Quoting further: "The ruling in the Prime Minister's case will come a week after a Criminal Court ruling on August 22 in a lèse-majesté case against her father, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The case stems from remarks he made in an interview with a South Korean newspaper in 2015. And on September 9, Thaksin will be in Court again, this time to hear the Supreme Court's decision on his controversial six-month stay at Police General Hospital from August 2023 to February 2024." So there's not only her case, but also these other two cases against him that are coming up, all sort of right around the same time frame. Now I thought this was interesting in another article, again from the Bangkok Post, and by the way for folks who don't know, yeah Bangkok Post is a great resource, you could definitely say it's the English language paper of record for Bangkok, you could argument it is for Thailand. They do keep a pretty close eye on especially Thai Parliamentary politics and the Cabinet, so it's one of the reasons I like to quote from them a lot. 

That said, regarding her defense I thought this was important to point out. Quoting directly from another article, Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, Suspended PM won't confirm she will be in court on her birthday. So this was an interesting one. Quoting directly: "Suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra has not confirmed if she will be in Court on August 21 to give defense about her controversial phone call with Cambodian strongman Hun Sen, saying only that the date is her birthday. The Court has scheduled a witness hearing for August 21, during which it will hear from Ms. Paetongtarn and the Secretary General of the National Security Council." - I thought this was interesting. The Court went out of its way to note this. - "If either of them fails to appear, the Court said, it will be regarded as a waiver of their right to testify, and their absence will not delay the proceedings." So the ruling regardless, will happen on August 29 and we will be hearing about it by 3.00pm. Quoting further: "The Court has also instructed both the petitioners and Ms. Paetongtarn to submit closing statements in writing no later than August 27." It's also worth noting, there had been a request for an extension that was granted by the Court but there were four Justices on the Court who were not in favour of that prior extension. I think it's worth pointing out just to provide some insight into the complexion on the posture of that overall case. Meanwhile, in issues pertaining to her going in person, again this is where we get into some of this "Wag the Dog" stuff. And what I am talking about here is there seems to be a concerted effort now and I don't know, I can never quite figure out where the press is in all of this, and again there is a good video, I'll put a link in the description below, it's what is referenced in the thumbnail in that clip from Wag the Dog where Robert de Niro's character is talking about getting announcements out to the press - I think he calls them the jackals in that scene - in order to get ahead of stories and things like that, but there is a lot of obfuscation and in my opinion spin going on now, I have to wonder if it is not from a certain level of desperation possibly due to the political position of some of these folks. So let's get into this further. And then, Bangkok Post, again bangkokpost.com, article is titled: PM expected in person for court date on Hun Sen call.  Now see, it is interesting, the title that says PM expected in person for court date on Hun Sen call. Now let me get into actually quoting it, quoting directly: "Suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra is expected," - and again "is expected" - "to appear before the Constitutional Court in person regarding the controversial audio clip case between her and Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen, according to her secretary. Dr. Prommin Leetsuridej, the PM's Secretary-general, on Friday commented on the Court's decision to summon Ms. Paetongtarn, who also serves as Culture Minister, and National Security Council Secretary General Chatchai Bangchuad to appear on August 21 ahead of its ruling on August 29. Asked whether the premier would attend, Dr. Prommin said: "When the time comes, we will know. I believe she will decide for herself, and she will likely go." Well, from the title: PM expected in person for Court date on Hun Sen call, that sounds a little harder or “firmer” even if you will than the quote, again: "When the time comes, we will know." Yeah, when the time comes, we will always know anything. Quoting further: "I believe she will decide for herself, and she will likely go." Well that's not an overly direct answer on that, just from an outside perspective.

Meanwhile regarding the outcome of this, I think it's important for people to understand just the magnitude of what this is. As I have discussed briefly in other videos, and more at length in our paid news service, and I get into a lot of topics in much more depth on our paid news service, and for those who are interested in that you can email us, [email protected], I get into how all of this stuff interacts and then how it interacts with what I would call expat land here in Thailand insofar as how it can have an impact on things like ongoing policy, including Tax and Banking and then how that tax and banking policy can ultimately impact expats. So for those who are interested check out our paid news service, again, [email protected]. Send us an email over there and we can get you on the mailing list to receive long form content. Also, while I am talking my book, really quickly, my better half and I did set up a restaurant here in downtown Bangkok, Pancake Palace. Link is in the description below, but we have got American Diner style food and breakfast anytime. Again that is Pancake Palace, you can see link in the description below to come by and see us there.

That said, again I don't know that people really understand how big of an impact this can have and also I think Paetongtarn and her legal team are probably weighing the pros and cons, possibly, I should say possibly weighing the pros and cons of her appearance in the Court because there is also a National Anti-Corruption Commission proceeding that is this also happening in the background of all of this and what she does with regard to showing up or not showing up in this proceeding, could have an impact on possible adjudication in that proceeding, which that could have possible criminal implications and things as well. So it's interesting to look at it from that perspective, as well as understanding just how impactful this could be legally in the aftermath of a Court ruling. Again Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, PM expected in person for Court date on Hun Sen call. But going in a different direction, quoting directly: "Former election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn has warned that the case could escalate if the Court rules her call as unlawful. The Court's ruling "binds all state parties." he added. He cited Criminal Code Provisions concerning offenses against the external security of the Kingdom. They include Section 120 for conspiring with a foreign state to wage war against Thailand, Section 121 for a Thai national who wages war against or joins the enemy of the country, Section 122 for aiding enemies, Section 123 for obtaining state security secrets, and Section 124 for disclosing such secrets." Quoting further: "Dr. Warong Dechgitvigrom, leader of the Thai Pakdee Party, said Ms. Paetongtarn's telephone conversation with Hun Sen could suggest the offering of benefits for personal or political gain. Dr. Warong said her moral Integrity is also now in question after she seemingly verbally attacked the Second Army Region Commander during the controversial call." So again, there are a lot of possible implications arising from this, so again her legal posture is precarious to say the least. 

Now this is where I get more back to the point of this video which - that is sort of the background of everything that's going on - so we know that there is a very serious political state of affairs that are underway here in Thailand regarding the Prime Minister, which brings up the whole Wag the Dog thing. And I thought of that, and I will get into the article I am going to cite here real quick, but what I want to be clear about what I am wondering is happening here, is there a level of spin, which that is what Wag the Dog is all about, is spin to create narratives basically. And is there an attempt being made here to spin up a narrative that what I can only surmise to be, to call into question the integrity of the Court itself in the lead up to this decision which we are supposed to have on August 29. As much as I don't really want that to be the case, I am worried that that might be what is going on again, and I thought of that after reading a recent article again from Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, and by the way Bangkok Post, hats off to you guys, you are doing a great job following all of this stuff. I do have some questions as to how this is presented sometimes, but that said, when you read, you flesh out the articles on all of these developments, Bangkok Post does do an overall good job of keeping up with the detail. That said, political narratives are what they are and they are sort of created and maintained in real time so it is not really so much a matter of journalism, it's a matter of just what is sort of presented in the moment if you will. It's very similar to the process of sort of “going viral” in a social media sense. And I have discussed at length a little bit on this channel, but I've actually talked about it on the paid news service and a fair bit out there on my Twitter or out on X, whatever you want to call it, about the era we now live in with social media, constantly I keep coming back to the term Glasnost that the Russians came up with toward the end of the USSR where ostensibly it was about “transparency” but the real translation was publicity, and I again would liken it to the social media world and narrative creation within this social media world; that's the real thrust of what I am getting at. And what I am concerned about is there may be an attempt to sort of “Wag the Dog” if you will, creating a narrative that for whatever reason, may sort of muddy the waters if you will regarding the Court and the process. Again, let me get into this.

I thought of this when I was reading this article from Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: PT rejects 'secret deal' rumours. "The Phue Thai Party denies claims that former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra struck a secret deal with Constitutional Court judges to influence the upcoming ruling in suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra's case over a leaked audio clip of her conversation with Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen." Now first of all, let me just get into the technique and again there is a link in the description below that refers to the thumbnail and it goes into this, what they are doing is they are trying to buy time because the President in that movie is involved in a scandal. They are trying to buy time, and they are trying to create basically misdirection for the press to keep them off of this underlying scandal. And so what they do is they say okay he is still in this other country, I think it's China in the movie; he's in China, he's going to stay in China a day, he's sick, whatever. And then de Niro gets into this thing of denying something in order to basically bait the press to get them to pick up that narrative, so he says, "oh I hope this doesn't have anything to do with the B-3 program. What about the B-3 program? Oh well, it hasn't been fully tested. Hasn't been fully tested?” There is no B-3 program. It was all nonsense but again it is a misdirection technique to basically get the press to sort of grab onto that. So the first thing I thought of when reading this was just the fact of denying claims. I mean is that what they're doing here? It's oh, like denying the B-3 program in Wag the Dog? That said, quoting further: "Prompong Nopparit, a former Phue Thai spokesman" - note, a former Phue Thai spokesman, so what exactly is his function here? - That said quoting further: "on Saturday dismissed the reports as a "groundless fabrication" designed to discredit both Thaksin and Ms. Paetongtarn, as the Courts prepare to hand down verdicts in two politically sensitive cases this month. The Criminal Court has scheduled August 22 for its verdict in the lèse-majesté and computer crime case against Thaksin, widely perceived as the de facto leader of the ruling Phue Thai Party. A week later, and on August 29th, the Constitutional Court will rule on whether Ms. Paetongtarn breached ethical standards in connection with the audio recording."  So again, and my first inclination was like well why would they deny, are they denying it because there's something there, or they just trying to create misdirection for misdirection’s sake? And that's what I think is happening here. Let me get into it further here in a moment. “Former Senator Somchai Swangkarn also refuted the rumours in a Facebook post, saying the August 4-9 trip by certain Constitutional Court Judges to India was an official study program, not a secret negotiation. He dismissed the claims as "completely untrue", citing clear evidence published on the Court's official website about the Judges' India visit. The site confirms the President of the Court, along with several judges, travelled to India as part of the Executive-Level Constitutional Court Officials Training Programme (Batch 1). The delegation, he said, met India's Chief Justice, visited the Supreme Court and Delhi University's Law Faculty and paid a courtesy call on the Thai Ambassador in New Delhi."  

Look, I don't see, like the Court's trip over there sounded like what my dad goes through which are called Judicial Conferences okay. Just some edification about me personally and my background. My dad is a Judge from back home in Kansas. He's a Trial Level Judge, State District Judge as they are called back in Kansas and he has to go to Judicial Conferences frequently. Sometimes he leaves the state, sometimes he stays in the state. He has gone to foreign countries for these kind of conferences before, including Canada. This is not untoward, okay? The Judges, they go to these conferences, and they meet counterparts in other jurisdictions, oftentimes to just talk, they gain insight oftentimes from each other on how these things work. I am bringing this up because the whole thing just smells like Wag the Dog. “Oh nothing is going to happen the B-3 program. Why would anything happen to the B-3 program?” Well what about this “refuting” that it's a secret negotiation and then citing that yeah, there was a visiting delegation of these Judges that went to another Court. The minute I read that part, that was where just from my own background, I was like Judges do this all the time. This isn't anything out of the ordinary. So then my question was, why all of the hullabaloo if you will? And it looks to me like, again one man's perspective, one man's opinion, that there is some political desperation in certain circles here in Thailand and they are looking to spin up any kind of, basically any kind of mechanism of "wagging the dog" that they can, any kind of narrative that they can to try to maybe create some levels of doubt in the public's mind, to create some levels of maybe even consternation at the public level, I don't know, but at the end of the day, when you read through this - I was looking at all the underlying facts of what is going on here, at least what is being presented in the English language press - and when I say that, what I view is the English language paper of record here in Thailand, I have got to be honest, I don't think there's a lot of “there” there as we would say in sort of an American vernacular, it's kind of a Nothing Burger most assuredly. Again, Judges visiting their counterparts in other countries, not a big deal. 

Meanwhile, at the end of the day just the way this was presented, I immediately thought of that scene from Wag the Dog. "Well what about the B-3?" It's got nothing to do with the B-3 program; that immediate denial in order to sort of hook a hook a fish if you will, to sort of hook a journalist, that was what immediately came to the forefront of my mind and that caused me to start going down this rabbit hole as to what's really going on here. Now, again I am not drawing any conclusions for the moment about anything or anyone, but again I don't really see why exactly this narrative has been presented and for what purpose.