Transcript of the above video: 

Boy it would seem, what do Cannabis, OECD, Thai Law have in common? And then on top of it, what do any of them have to do with Decrees or Ministerial Directives? Well there's been a lot of - let me just get started here. I made a video about OECD recently and I talked about how I have a real problem with it; it should be an election year issue. The Bangkok Post has talked about it as if it's a foregone conclusion but there hasn't been promulgated law on it. Then I saw a comment on the YouTube channel. Quoting directly: "Thailand has adopted the OECD's Global Minimum Tax Framework through the Emergency Decree on Top-Up Tax B.E. 2567.." - Note the titles here. Emergency Decree - Quoting further: "..published in the Government Gazette on December 26, 2024, this legislation implements a 15% Global Minimum Effective Tax rate for large multinational enterprise groups." Well let me just get into this. 

There is a difference between these Decrees, Ministerial Directives versus promulgated Law, and that is what I am talking about here. The United States - I've discussed this in other videos - Trump's Executive Order where he specifically called out the fact that OECD and all this Global Minimum Tax nonsense violates United States' National Sovereignty. I would say the exact same analysis applies here to Thailand. As Mr. Trump pointed out it creates extra-territorial jurisdiction in the United States and it creates the opportunity for foreign nationals to interfere in American sovereignty with regard to tax policy. He specifically noted that it is a threat to National Sovereignty in his Executive Order rescinding all of the prior action regarding this whole, in my opinion this is basically a big scam. Yellen tried to push this Global Minimum nonsense back within the first two years of Biden's term before clearly Biden went completely around the bend and was non-compos mentis in much of any way. It seemed to lose a lot of momentum in the States but there they were continuing to pay lip service right up to the end of the term, when Trump just completely reversed it. And why did he reverse it? Because it threatened National Sovereignty, on its face. Anybody that looks at this, there's no doubt about that. It's a supranational body telling nation states what they should be doing with regard to their Tax Policy. That's what it is, so the point being, with regard to Thai law is to create the analogy here, albeit not an apples to apples one. I have made videos in the past, and I have actually talked about this when I used to be a lecturer at Bangkok University that I'm not a fan of Executive Orders. Executive Orders are not designed to operate in place of law. The President doesn't operate by Decree in America, that's not how it works. That said, Executive Orders shape how the Executive Complex if you will, the bureaucracy of the United States, views different things. And Trump, in my opinion very wisely, made an affirmative Executive Order ending all further action regarding the possible, “possible promulgation of law” on OECD. This Emergency Decree is similar to what occurred in the Biden Administration insofar as they created an Executive Order that said, "hey, we need to take all necessary steps, something to this effect, to get ourselves into alignment because we are preparing for this OECD thing to become law. It's a very circular set of reasoning; it's very disingenuous. I would argue it's legal sophistry at its best insofar as it basically says, "hey we're going to make this law, so let's do all the things as if we had already made it, so that when we make it, we won't have a big, difficult transition. That's the line of thinking, but it's bootstrapping insofar as you didn't pass the Law. Due process stipulates - in either Thailand or America for that matter - Doctrine of Codification here in Thailand, basic notions of due process under the US Constitution - you want to make a law, make a Law. You don't get to do it through the back door by saying we're making an Executive Order in furtherance of a possible law that we may pass in the future. That's what's going on here, and that's what Trump nixed completely when he came in with his Executive Order, and because we don't have promulgated law here in Thailand and they are still working on it, as the Bangkok Post have themselves pointed out, where they have said in a prior video I brought this up, that it hasn't been passed yet. They have been presenting it as a foregone conclusion, because that's part of this whole operation. They send out the media apparatus to pretend like "oh this has already happened." Meanwhile they have this sort of colour of law Decree or Executive Order depending on how the system where you are talking about works, where they say, "oh, we need to do all this stuff because we are planning to pass the law", and then while everybody is just standing there going, "well, this is already the system", then they pass the law. They haven't passed anything on this. In all of this, they have been trying to sidestep legislative due process both in the United States and clearly here in Thailand. This is why I think that this issue should be at the forefront of everyone's minds going into the upcoming elections here, in what appears to be quarter one of 2026, if Mr. Anutin holds to his agreements under the Memorandum of Agreement with People's Party which everyone here is presuming is probably going to happen; by any metric I think, we end up with an election next year. So I'm going to continue to beat the drum on this because it's really bad for Thailand and they are using all kinds of colour of law chicanery to make it seem like it's already happened, or that we need to be doing this because there is already some kind of legal basis for it, when in reality it's pretty attenuated legal thinking that gets them to that place.

That said, quoting further: "The legislation ..," and again it's not legislation in the true sense of the term, and this is where other issues most notably pertaining to Thai Law come into play. In this past Constitution that we have had heretofore for a number of years here in Thailand, they have this sort of mixed, it looks like kind of like an Executive Order, kind of like a Cabinet Decree. Again there is no exact analogy here because it's very Thai but there's passing laws through Parliament and Jatuporn brought this up some time ago - I'll get into the analysis on that here in a moment - but understand the differences where the Cabinet can kind of do things under an Executive Order type rubric or Parliament, but where they know that they don't really have a lot of Parliamentary support, they just try to pull this "because we say so" stuff. And you need to understand; it doesn't really have the same force and effect of law in my opinion or at least it doesn't have the legitimacy in a Civil Law sense under the Doctrine of Codification as does promulgated Law. So when they call this legislation, I find that a bit disingenuous. That being said, quoting further: "… implements a 15% Global Minimum Effective Tax Rate for large multinational enterprise groups. The Emergency Decree took effect on January 1, 2025." Again, Emergency Decree on its own? Based on what law are you massively changing our privacy rights with respect to banking, our ability to just be free Thais and do business the way we feel like it? Under what law that was promulgated through Parliament, that thereby adheres to the Doctrine of Codification, are these rules being based upon? Or is this bootstrapping and just saying, "Well we're thinking of passing the law, therefore do it anyway?" Quoting further, and this is where the rubber hits the road: "The Emergency Decree was enacted through expedited procedures to implement "Pillar Two" - Again, "expedited procedures". Again there are these differences and Jatuporn brought this up some time back, and I'll get to that in a moment where they can do certain things by Decree, but it's not the same thing as an actual Law here. And that's an important point to point out, because I don't think anybody wanted this. Nobody voted for this and was asking for this coming into 2023. Quoting further: "… of the OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Sharing System 2.0 projects Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules." I've talked about all this stuff in other videos. This swift implementation ensures Thailand can collect relevant tax revenues and prevents potential revenue losses from MNEs that might otherwise shift profits to jurisdictions with lower tax rates or to countries that have already implemented similar top-up tax legislation." - And? does that mean, just because you want to get to people's money fast, you just get to ignore Parliament, Parliamentary procedure? It's nonsense thinking and Jatuporn - I'll get into this further. That said, quoting further, and this gets into Jatuporn's analysis on this. He's talked about this in the past. 

This is an old article. It doesn't exactly pertain substantively to now but procedurally it does. Quoting directly from an article, Bangkok Post bangkokpost.com, Casino plan could lead to Pheu Thai's downfall. Quoting directly: "Former red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan said anti-government groups are opposed to the legalisation of gambling and feel compelled to step up their campaign after Prime Minister's Office Minister Chousak Sirinil insisted the Bill was an urgent issue. The Bill has been linked to online gambling, which raises concerns the activity could be legalized through a Decree or Ministerial Directive, Mr. Jatuporn said." Yeah, after you pass the law. You don't get to do it beforehand. Quoting further: "The change made regarding gamblers' minimum savings requirement has also raised alarm. Mr. Jatuporn was referring to a requirement that would require Thais to have at least 50 million baht in their savings accounts for at least 6 months before being allowed to enter a casino-entertainment complex." Again, they were trying to make Laws, trying to restrict things but you can't do it through just Decrees without the law; you need the Law part of it. 

That said, going over here, I'll put this up on screen. There was actually a specific English language phrase that Jatuporn used, and I couldn't find it, that I remembered from the whole condo quota controversy, when he came out and was talking about that and he was talking about how at the time the then Government led by the Pheu Thai Party, should have been using these sort of Cabinet Executive Decree mechanisms akin to Executive Orders, rather than trying to push it through Parliamentary procedure, and he had a point tactically, but my point is they are not the same thing, and I just wanted to point this out. We're putting this on screen. This is from Google AI when I went to go look this up and it kind of did a good job of summarising it concisely. Quoting directly: "Thai political activist Jatuporn Prompan is a prominent critic of the current Government, particularly concerning the use of Cabinet Orders and specific policies, which he argues are being pursued without proper legal backing or as a way to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny and establish laws." Yes, that's the thing, and that is where Cannabis and OECD come together. There has been all this attempt, and it has been very illegitimate in my opinion, all of this attempt to do all this, "hey because we say so, you now have to do XYZ regarding Cannabis." Why? Based on what promulgated law? 

Meanwhile, this OECD stuff is the same, only they are doing it through this chicanery that they already tried in America which thankfully Trump put the kibosh on the minute he came into Office, but we are still seeing them trying to play out this old chestnut of a scam over here where they are basically trying to bootstrap us all and sort of basically gaslight us all and say "oh yeah, no, we're doing this because we're going to pass the law, so just go ahead and do it." What is that? That's just bass-ackwards. It's nonsense is what it is. It circumvents Thailand's lawful, legislative due process and it's over something that would seem to me to at least be impinging upon Thailand's sovereignty, which calls into question in my mind, does Section 119 apply to some of this stuff? I have discussed in other videos, we made prior videos especially during the past what I call the Rump Coalition Government, where there was the nuclear case that came up regarding the Digital Wallet, where they were citing the prior removal of one of the Deputy House Speakers for movement of funds around improperly and that as a result of that, there was like a nuclear case possibly to be brought with regard to the Digital Wallet because what was being done was underlying illegal; the activity might have been illegal. Again it wasn't fully adjudicated but the legal theory being, what you were doing was illegal, therefore you could be banned from politics for this. My question is with regard to OECD, aren't there implications under Section 119? This pertains to Thailand's sovereignty, or it would seem to, because analogically the US, specifically the US President, brought up the fact that this same plan being brought into America, directly attacked America's sovereignty. So can't we apply the same analysis here in Thailand and ask ourselves, "hey what are we doing here and will there be legal ramifications in the aftermath if I'm a politician who supported this"? It's a good question. Quoting further from this AI: "Jatuporn argues that the Government is relying on Cabinet Resolutions or Orders to implement major initiatives and bypass the legislative process, which he believes is a violation of the rule of law." Yeah, I tend to agree with that. Now again, where these operate akin to what are called Administrative Rules or Executive Orders in an American context where they are there to provide nuance and further interpretation and executive guidance on an already passed set of legislation, fine. Where Parliament has passed a law, now the other issuing Ministerial Decrees, Ministerial Regulations pertaining to that legislation, that's perfectly legitimate, that is how we've always done it, but they can't say, "oh we're going to pass this, therefore you need to abide by it. We're going to act as if we've already passed it because we're going to pass it." What is that scene from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure where "oh well I did steal my dad’s keys; I went back in time and got them myself." It is circular logic is my point. It's really ridiculous. That said, quoting further: "His core criticism is that such orders do not carry the same legal weight as formal legislation passed by the National Assembly and are being used to push through controversial projects for political gain." Good point, good point. I mean and I remember him talking about this some time ago and I think that the same reasoning applies with regard to issues pertaining to Cannabis, issues pertaining to OECD, just all of this nonsense where they're saying, "hey, you have to do this." Well based on what? Why do we have to abide by OECD guidance? Is there a Law promulgated through Parliament here in Thailand that says we have to do that? Quoting further: "Bypassing the law: Jatuporn asserts that using Cabinet Orders for major policy changes such as those related to land leases for foreigners or Casino developments, effectively circumvents the need for a full legislative debate and approval, thereby undermining Democratic processes." Well I think the same could be argued for Cannabis, I think the same could be argued for OECD, to name just a couple. And it's another reason why going back to this upcoming election and everything that is going on over here, this is another issue that pertains to possible Charter rewrite. Which again this came about, this ability to do this through as they say here "Cabinet Orders", this did not exist to the same level in the prior Constitution that we had here in Thailand. So, as far as it goes with respect to that particular issue, I think it's worth exploring just as a member of the electorate in a personal capacity, I think it's worth exploring the notion of maybe changing the Charter so as not to allow something that has or is treated as if it has this level of shall we say legal legitimacy as does promulgated Law through Parliament. This needs to be discussed and I think maybe during discussions of the Charter would be a good time to discuss this because again as Jatuporn points out and as it's sort of concisely summarized by Google Gemini or AI or whatever they are calling that over at Google, this does raise serious questions regarding the rule of law and Democratic process, and I think it should be looked at most acutely right at this moment, as it pertains to OECD. But again they kind of tried this same bootstrapping in the Cannabis space - I don't find it any more legitimate there - and then people say well what about when Anutin made Cannabis legal? Well oddly, he sort of inverted this whole dynamic by making it legal because by creating a liberty, it then creates the presumption that you need the Doctrine of Codification to therefore abrogate it yet again, which is exactly what happened there. So okay, Anutin effectively pulled a fast one using these dynamics, but as a general matter, as a standard routine matter, legislative due process is important in Thailand. I would like to see some further clarification on this, especially as it has to do with possible substantive changes including OECD and "membership" thereof that could have substantial detrimental implications for Thailand in the long term.