Transcript of the above video: 

In doing some updates on what is going on with respect to the political situation here in Thailand, it is getting pretty wild I have got to say. I think the lead up to this upcoming August 29 verdict in the case involving the now suspended Prime Minister, I think it's going to be quite eventful in the lead up to that.  Let's just jump in here. I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Phue Thai shoots down Prayut rumour. So if you recall, we discussed in a prior video, there was a poll that went up regarding everybody that is on the Prime Ministerial slate, there's a slate of available possible PMs. The current Prime Minister, albeit suspended Prime Minister, who is not Phumtham Wechayachai, he is the acting PM right now which is its own kind of nebulous thing at the moment. That being said, Paetongtarn Shinawatra is still Prime Minister albeit suspended pending finally adjudication by the Constitutional Court regarding the appropriateness of her phone call to Mr. Hun Sen on the other side of the border over there in Cambodia; and we have gotten into that in pretty good detail in a lot of prior videos. 

That being said, again article is titled: Phue Thai shoots down Prayut rumour. The reason for bringing up the poll was in that poll, oddly enough and I would have never seen this coming if you would have asked me to get back in the summer of 2023, but yeah it looked like Prayut was kind of at the top of the list amongst the possible slated individuals for the possibility of Prime Minister, and again that's something. I don't think anybody who watches this stuff thought that that was something they would have expected, but yeah he polled quite well and it looks like there has been some talk about him possibly coming back. That said, this is being shot down. And at this point, and hence the title of the video, I have to ask where we are at in the spin cycle of, I quoted Wag the Dog recently, there is just a lot of media sort of shenanigans, maybe chicanery is the right word, going on right now in terms of political operators, spokespeople talking to the media and saying "oh well this didn't happen", and you have to wonder why folks are saying the things that they are saying. Are they trying to spin up a narrative, are they trying to float an idea to see if it gains any traction, and it's hard to say. 

That said, quoting directly: "The governing Phue Thai Party" - which let's be clear, they are not the governing party alone; they are in a coalition. I currently call it the "Rump Coalition" ever since Bhumjaithai left the Coalition with the advent of the revelation of this recent phone call and the controversy surrounding that. That said quoting directly: "The governing Phue Thai Party has dismissed speculation it is preparing to nominate General Prayut Chan-o-Cha, a coup leader and former Prime Minister, as a candidate for premier in the next election." Why are we even talking about that? The next election, if it would happen, presuming there is not a dissolution, isn't until 2027. That said, quoting further: "Party Secretary-General Sorawong Thienthong also ruled out reuniting with the Bhumjaithai Party, its former coalition partner, which recently broke away to join the opposition." This is where I start to question the veracity of all of this and what are the motives behind floating these notions? Because as discussed in prior videos, Anutin himself, the current sort of head of the Bhumjaithai Party, has said that they were not interested in rejoining, so one. That was sort of spun as well we Phue Thai don't want them kind of thing. When in reality Bhumjaithai has already come out, and if you need any evidence for making that inference, they left the Coalition in the first place. They were part of the governing Coalition and they left it so I mean this notion of Phue Thai is somehow rejecting that seems a little strange, although the way Thai politics worse they could come back together, but, "me thinks the lady doth protest too much a little bit" in this context which then brings up whether this whole idea of Prayut being nominated was even a real thing, or are they just floating the idea or just trying to muddy the waters and create opacity. I don't know. That said, quoting further: "Mr. Sorawong, who is also the Tourism and Sports Minister on Tuesday called the speculation "fake news" and stressed it did not originate from the Party." Well okay, whatever that means. "Asked whether contingency plans have been drawn up if the Court were to order Ms. Paetongtarn removed from office, Mr. Sorawong said no alternatives were being discussed." Except Prayut! Why bring that up? Why did this even come up? 

As I discussed in a prior video talking about Wag the Dog, there is this technique of, "oh well, it has nothing to do with the B-3 Bomber", well there is no B-3 Bomber. That's what I am saying, there is no B-3 Bomber. You can create these kind of narratives out of whole cloth by doing this kind of doublespeak of denying that you want people maybe to pick up on. That is basically the crux of the technique. As I recall, the notion of, years ago I remember listening, or reading an article I think, I think it was from US News and World Report in the late '90s where they talked about how Michael Jackson got the name "the King of Pop" and it was because his publicist sent out a fax to all the major news organizations saying Michael Jackson will no longer be known as the King of Pop even though theretofore that wasn't really what anybody called him. So again that's the crux of the technique, okay.

I don't know if that's the utilized here or this is genuine; hard to say. As the title suggests, we are in the whirlpool of the spin cycle right now and it looks to me, this is just my personal opinion and I will get into further analysis of this here in a moment, but it looks to me like there is some desperation going on. I am not saying anybody knows exactly what is going to happen. It is interesting that there has been put forward these denials of any kind of deal having been struck with the Constitutional Court which I find one, it impugns the Integrity of the Court, I don't think it's right to make those kind of even denial, inverted assertion, denial based inverted assertions if you want to call it that, and it was sort of based on this notion that the Court had gone to India for an inter-Court meeting basically. I mean we call them Judicial Conferences in the United States; it is a common thing. I don't know why that was used as some kind of notion that some secret meeting had taken place or something. That said, I am not privy to all information out there, but the whole thing just seemed to me to be spinning a bunch of possible narrative up out of nothing. And again, I question the propriety of calling into question the Court’s integrity under these circumstances. That being said, and again the whole technique was as I mentioned in the B-3 Bomber video, it was all predicated on denying it. So that said, quoting further: "He confirmed that Ms. Paetongtarn would attend the Court hearing on Thursday which coincides with her 39th birthday. He also brushed aside speculation that the Court may vote 5-4 in her favour, saying no one could influence the Judges." Well again I am starting to wonder, is this some sort of spin technique, and I am wondering if they are trying to spend prior discussion of the fact that 4 Judges in a prior request for an extension of her defense which was ultimately granted, went against the idea for having her defense extended; 4 judges said no. What they said no to and what one must be aware of to understand the full context of this is they were saying no to the notion of extending her deadline to submit her defense. That was all they were saying they were against. That really isn't overly reflective of the possible and I state again, possible complexion of any final ruling from that body, it was only 4 against her being able to extend her defense deadline. As discussed in other videos, this case was taken up by unanimous decision of the Court in a 9-0 ruling to take up the case. They then suspended her on a 7 – 2 ruling as discussed in prior videos. And I think it is noteworthy to point out that even though Mr. Srettha Thavisin who was previously removed by the Constitutional Court going back about 18 months ago, he was removed but he was not suspended pending his removal. I think that's important to point out that the complexion of this thing it is complex, and I don't think you can sort of invertedly infer that from the four Justices who said we are not in favour of allowing for an extension of the deadline of her defense, you can’t infer that that necessarily goes to how this thing is ultimately going to play out. That said, quoting further: “Quote: "I believe in her innocence”. Quote: “Nothing can pressure the Constitutional Court. The decision will rest on facts and evidence", he said. In a related development, former Senator Somchai Sawangkarn” - and I believe if I recall correctly, this was the person who was bringing up the denial of any “secret deal” and was noting the issue of, was noting the recent judicial conference between the Constitution Court or certain Judges I guess, and Judges in India as I recall. That said, quoting further: “and lawyer Nitithorn Lamlua on Tuesday urged the Constitutional Court to broadcast the testimony of Ms. Paetongtarn and National Security Council Secretary-General Chatchai Bangchuad on Thursday. Mr. Somchai argued that the leaked conversation has had far-reaching ramifications and compounded border tensions, leading to skirmishes that caused loss of life among soldiers and civilians and strained diplomatic ties.” I find it very concerning that somebody would bring that up in that context, when if anybody has heard this phone call, I think any reasonable person could wonder whether or not it possibly contributed to what we have seen in terms of the conflagration at the border, okay. So to bring it up as a sort of "oh they need to broadcast this because of all this consternation that has occurred". Well that is kind of a circular argument because if in fact one would deem her actions to have contributed to that, she can then use the damage she caused as a reason for her demand? Is that what is being stated here? That is a pretty nonsensical argument if you break it down. I really sort of question that. And then, meanwhile yeah okay ‘far-reaching ramifications.’ Is this also being used as a setup to then say in the aftermath if this does happen in closed session, which is my understanding all of this has primarily happened without a bunch of media interference, which that's not a terrible word for it. Courts don't really like having these media circuses involved in their proceedings. But is this being set up so in the aftermath they can say “well they didn't allow any type of public transparency or something”. Is that what's happening here? I'm curious. That said, quoting further: “Quote: "This hearing should be made public. People want to hear the truth firsthand, he said." He also warned Mr. Chatchai” – okay, that notion in and of itself might seem on its face to be very compelling, but again where she has stated that it is her on the call, she has corroborated that it is her on the call; we have all heard the call. What is being added or what would be detracted based on that assertion by sort of having all this media interface? That is my question. Where we know the call, and she herself has corroborated it is her on the call, what is being added by all of that? That said, quoting further: “He also warned Mr. Chatchai to "keep his hands clean” when testifying, saying his duty was to protect National Security, not to shield Ms. Paetongtarn" Again, I don't know what is what here. It is interesting. Quoting further: "If the proceedings are televised, the public will see for themselves whether the testimony is honest, he added." Well fair enough, but the public is not making the determination here, it's the judges in the case making the determination. And to my mind, if this was a Supreme Court proceeding back in the United States, there would be no notion of, "oh the Public's input", or something like that, that's not exactly relevant. It is the nine judges that are ultimately making the decision, and so things need to be set up in accordance with facilitating what would be the best way of them making an impartial adjudication in the matter. That is what is important, at least to my mind. 

That said, I think it is also worth noting that while all this is going on, and this is only to best of my knowledge presently being reported in the Thai news, the Interior Minister Mr. Phumtham Wechayachai who is also now acting Prime Minister, seems to have brought a proposal before the Cabinet to transfer even more people within the Interior Ministry; this again is why I say sort of Whirlpool of the Thai spin cycle. I am starting to wonder if maybe all of this hullabaloo going on with the case in the foreground, is there to kind of I don't know if it is intentional, but if it is just maybe an opportunistic play, to have that as a smoke screen to make a bunch of transfers within the infrastructure of the Interior Ministry which I have discussed in other videos. They have certain advisory and support functions when it comes to elections here in Thailand. And it is also worth noting, as I have discussed in other videos, France 24 we have cited in the past this, Wikipedia itself notes this, Mr. Phumtham was once - and I am not going to say anything about his present thinking or anything - but it is clearly on the record that he was a Communist insurgent here in Thailand back in the day. So that said though, just to do some quick bullet points and I'll throw this up from nationtv.tv, just so folks can see the Thai version. So some quick bullet points here. This meeting occurred August 19. There was a Cabinet meeting, and it is set to take effect October 1 which that is interesting because if we see major shakeups in the next few weeks, exactly whether or not that would be implemented remains to be seen. It proposes “transferring” which for anybody that knows Thailand, “transferred” to an inactive post, is almost akin to, I would call it being sidelined. You are not fired, but you are just transferred and then they put in whomever they want. So they are transferring 25 senior executives, and these are Provincial Governor's as well as Inspectors, which my question is do any of these people have anything to do with the infrastructure surrounding elections? As we discussed in a prior video, there was a major push by Mr. Phumtham when he got into the Interior Ministry which is important to point out, that one aspect of the major rift between Bhumjaithai and Phue Thai was they wanted the Interior Ministry and they basically were willing to give up a very comfortable Coalition - a Coalition I very much believed in not 90 days ago - and gave all that up and bullied out Bhumjaithai effectively. I think Bhumjaithai was pretty happy to leave in the aftermath of hearing this leaked phone call but basically bullied out Bhumjaithai and now is going in there and trying to very quickly during this “acting” Prime Minister's tenure, while the Prime Minister herself is suspended on very serious charges, he is running in there and transferring out all of these senior key people. I think it is important to note that that is going on in the background, while all of this is going on in the foreground with this overarching case. 

So at least for now, that is sort of where everything seems to stand, and I don't exactly know what all this means but it is interesting. I have got to be honest with you, what was it Lenin once said? "Sometimes there are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen". And basically, he was saying things tend to go by, time will go by and nothing much will really occur, and then you will see a bunch just occur all at once. We may be in a fortnight like that right now, the next two weeks or so as things progress. That being said, we will certainly be keeping you updated on this channel as the situation evolves.