Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing, well the fact that we now have word that the so-called no-confidence vote in the Thai Parliament has now taken place. I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: House votes down censure motion against PM. "The House voted down the opposition's censure motion against Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra during its brief session on Wednesday morning. House Speaker Wan Muhamad Nor Matha started the session at 10am when 487 House Representatives were present. The house voted against the no-confidence motion by 319 to 162 with seven abstentions. Mr. Wan announced the vote result and closed the session right away." As usual, and for those who want to know more about this, we urge you to go to the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, check out that article in detail, but it does indeed look at though this is a concluded matter at least within Parliament for now. 

As for the title of this video, I think it's relevant to point out at this point that I kind of dislike it when things are framed certain ways in the media and it could be said that, oh she “survived” a no-confidence vote, the Prime Minister. I don't think it's fair to look at it in that way under current circumstances. She came in and sort of replaced her predecessor and then there really hasn't been if you will, any kind of public feedback regarding her premiership if you will. And I think that this can be viewed as that feedback and that feedback is positive enough. The vote kind of reflects how I feel which is I'm okay with the Coalition; I don't love everything that the core Coalition party does but I can live with certain things. Frankly I like her, on a kind of a weird personal level, if I can give away an affinity, I liked her aunt frankly. Now her dad as you can see from some of my prior videos, maybe not so much, but whatever, that's just sort of how I feel about things. That being said, putting all of that aside, it is I think relevant to point out that yes she has “survived” a no-confidence motion, but I think it's better to frame this for what it is frankly. I have said this already. Moving forward effectively, the rest of this term is kind of her Parliament. So if we were looking at this from an American perspective, I don't think it's unfair to say, "Hey does she need a little honeymoon period here if you will?" Trump has kind of enjoyed that; he definitely didn’t in his first term, but he has kind of enjoyed that more in this term. Kind of helps when you have a mandate and he really, genuinely does this time, that's sure. But I think it's fair to say the same thing in this set of circumstances. Again, it is not completely analogous; it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but I do think it's fair to state that look she should be accorded a certain amount of a honeymoon period if for nothing else than going through that political ordeal.

So I'm kind of eager moving forward to see how things progress. As I have said in other videos, I hope we see a lot less volume or even a lot less in general of WEF stuff, just anything associated with the WEF, no thanks. But that said, there has been some things that have come from the core Coalition party that I have been interested to watch. They do seem open to the notion of gambling, but they don't seem like they just want to go running off the cliff on that issue; they want to bring it in in a sort of a conscientious way. I'm not necessarily of the opinion that gambling is the right thing for Thailand. That said, we're going to keep people updated on this channel as this situation evolves throughout what appears to be the rest of this Parliament.