Transcript of the above video: 

I am going to reserve the content of this video to speak purely in less hyperbolic terms, albeit I think some of the hyperbole I use surrounding this topic is warranted, and actually it's the correct term of art if you look at the legal vernacular regarding tax, tax policy etc. in an American context and I think that there are serious analogies to now. That being said, I don't want to get into all of that in this video; I've done many other videos regarding that. The point of this video is I'm genuinely asking the question, for those who are unaware, I am an American Attorney; I'm a naturalized Thai. Here in Thailand, I'm a layman. I'm curious, because in the United States, for example the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions. We've discussed this in other videos a few times when we talked about Comparative Law. But long story short, it's like one of the first days in Constitutional Law class in law school is talking about standing and advisory opinions and why the Court doesn't do advisory three opinions and all of that. The Court's reasoning is what it is. After being here in Thailand in a while, I actually kind of see the benefit on a certain level of advisory opinions, but I can also see in the Constitutional Republic System that we have in the United States, I see why the Court says, "yeah we're not going to do that", because our mechanisms are such, one) it's not really needed, and they don't think it's appropriate and I kind of agree under the circumstances in the US context. Over here in Thailand where we are talking about the Thai Courts, yes, it is my understanding that advisory opinions or what we would call “advisory opinions” in an American legal vernacular, are sometimes warranted and are sometimes promulgated by the Court. 

So my question is, I have discussed this in another video I am making contemporaneously with this one, I'll let folks sort of see that for what it is, it's a video about Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday and the reckoning regarding all of this. But long story short, again to kind of keep this dryer in this video, getting to the issue of whether or not, not whether or not, it looks to me like it's pretty clear but again I think we need a Constitutional Court ruling over whether or not OECD constitutes a clear and present danger to the sovereignty of Thailand. What am I talking about here? Well let's go over here. This is actually a Thai Government website, www3.ago.go.th. You will come to, and these are sections of the Thai Criminal Code. If you come over under Chapter 3, Section 119, "Whoever, does any act with intent to cause the country, or any part thereof, to descend under the sovereignty of any foreign State or to deteriorate the independence of the State" - that's even more interesting. "deteriorate the independence of the State" - "shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life." And again, I mean and that's the max punishment but the question posed here, this OECD stuff looks like a direct threat to Thai sovereignty. And why do I say that? 

Well let's go over here to an Executive Order from President Trump in the United States: 

Memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury

The United States Trade Representative 

The Permanent Representative of the United States to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - (that is the OECD).

Quoting directly: "The OECD Global Tax Deal" - remember that under Srettha? "Global Tax", "Global Minimum Tax" - "The OECD Global Tax Deal supported under the prior Administration not only allows extra territorial jurisdiction," - again let's go back to Section 119 where it says: "deteriorate the independence of the state". Quoting further: "Over American Income but also limits our Nation's ability to enact tax policies that serve the interest of the American businesses and workers." Again, the same can be said for Thailand. This doesn't, I mean what he's saying pertaining to the United States, can just as easily apply to Thailand. "Because of the Global Tax Deal and other discriminatory foreign tax practices, American companies may face retaliatory international tax regimes if the United States does not comply with foreign tax policy objectives." So what he is saying is that by adhering to this - in the case of the United States or any member actor like Thailand - would be and I quote: "Or could face retaliatory international tax regimes if the United States does not comply with foreign tax policy objective." Could not Thailand replace the words "United States" in that sentence? I'm asking the question genuinely. Then quoting further, and I mean this just goes straight to the point: "This memorandum recaptures our Nation's sovereignty and economic competitiveness by clarifying that the Global Tax Deal has no force or effect in the United States." And that word "clarify" is what I think is pertinent perhaps to the Thai Court system.

Can we get clarification over whether or not this is okay? Because it looks to me like it very much is not, and it very much could be a threat to Thailand and to the tax regime of Thailand. And frankly, there are scenarios I could see where if this was to play out and go down over a long period of time, we're in a position where foreign tax authorities are effectively, through this sort of indirect offsetting kind of relationship where they are offsetting different liabilities from one regime to another, we could end up being dictated to by some Foreign Tax Authority as to how much tax can be levied here in Thailand. Again, is this what we want for Thailand? And again, I pose the question as a layman here in Thailand, "Is this legal?"