Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we're discussing well the Interior Minister seems to be up to some things again. He seems to be a pretty busy guy, but recently it seems he's calling for Parliamentary Debate on the maritime boundary issue associated with the possibility of offshore drilling for natural resources here in the Gulf of Thailand, and there seems to be some dispute between Cambodia and Thailand. I've done a video recently on this, talking about this but I thought it was worth following up.

I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Bhumjaithai backs sea dispute debate. Quoting directly: "The Bhumjaithai Party is supporting Phue Thai list MP Noppadon Patama's proposal to hold a general debate over the 2001 Thailand-Cambodia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on joint development in the Gulf of Thailand." As we discussed in got prior videos, Noppadon is actually one of the more brilliant legal minds I am aware of here in Thailand. He knows his stuff pretty well. Anutin seems to be on board with the notion of at least sort of fleshing out this whole issue. Quoting further: "Deputy Prime Minister, Interior Minister and Bhumjaithai party leader Anutin Charnvirakul was responding to the proposal by Mr. Noppadon under Section 152 of the Constitution to allow MPs and senators to discuss the MoU during the upcoming Parliamentary session to prevent political protests." 

Yeah, look this is something I talked about, about a year ago with regards to, well nine months ago or so, with regard to the whole Cannabis, recreational versus non-recreational, and all of that nonsense. Candidly, one big thing I took away from that is and I'm really kind of looking at the media on this one too, why isn't the media encouraging Parliamentary Debate. Every time I sort of see it brought up it's like, "well we don't want to do that." Yeah, I want to do that; I want Parliament debating; I want the people who are getting a salary to sit around in that particular room to do something for it. I don't know what these issues are. Neither do I think most Thai people really fully understand the nuances of it. That's the point of a Parliamentary debate, so we can see all of that stuff. And as noted, there's specific Constitutional provision here in Thailand to allow for that, so why don't we do that? And it's notable that it may forestall protests which we don't particularly need, and if we can sort of resolve differences, or come to clarification via the Parliamentary process, isn't that what we should be doing? Quoting further: "Mr. Anutin said such discussions are within the rights of Parliamentarians to call and are guided by facts and intentions." Yeah, well put. Quoting further: "He said the Government under his Majesty the King will never concede national benefits or territory to others for financial gains, so the public should rest easy." Yeah, we were talking about this in a prior video. There's the Terra Ferma of the island of Koh Kut and then there's all of this Maritime boundary stuff going on simultaneously. There seems to be conflation between issues surrounding, "oh is Koh Kut going to be lost to Thailand?" That I don't even think it's on the table; it's like the most remotest thing from happening. That said, I understand the concern, but this has to do with Maritime boundaries, it's my understanding. Quoting further, quote: "I'm confident none of that will happen as it is has never happened before," said the Minister. When asked about the necessity of a House Debate, he said it was up to Parliament members to decide, adding the Government is prepared to clarify any issues which arise during the proceeding." Yes, exactly as it should work. That seems like due legislative process to me. I mean I think that's a good idea no matter how you look at it. Quoting further: "Meanwhile, Prime Minister's Office Minister Chousak Sirinil said such a debate is redundant as several discussions on the matter have been held already since the saga went public." What does that even mean? So, some people talked about it on social media, that's a replacement for Parliamentary Debate? That's nonsense. Meanwhile, this is a Memorandum of Understanding most people forget, because it's like 25 years old. In any event, let me get back, quoting further: "He, (and he being Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Phumtham Wechayachai and it's notable - I did a video on this before - this person at some point was a Communist apparently, so I don't know, take it for what that's worth.) In any event, "He said the Government is in the process of forming the Joint Technical Committee between Thailand and Cambodia, adding that after the committee has been formed, negotiations will be held under various legal frameworks including International Maritime Laws." 

Well, that's all great. Where does Thai Parliament get to check in on this? Where do the people get to have their representatives chime in on this whole thing and debate it? Half the people are dismissing it out of hand and saying, "oh we don't need a Parliamentary debate, the other half, another faction, whatever you want to call it seems to be saying, "oh no, we're already done, let's steamroll ahead." I'm tired of this. Can you just sit down in Parliament, or stand up or whatever, and debate it out and figure out what's best for the country rather than everybody wandering around with their own agendas? Whatever those may be, self-serving or otherwise. Is it too much to ask to use the Parliament? We pay for it with tax dollars, could you use it please? Quoting further: "In addition, he said Cambodia acknowledges Thailand's clear sovereignty over Koh Kut Island.." - well I would hope so. It has been sitting there enshrined in Treaty since, what? 1907, or whatever it is. Quoting further: "..in Trat province, and dismissed concerns regarding opposition pressure in the neighbouring country to claim Koh Kut as its own, saying divergent views in democracies are normal." First off, neither nation at issue here is a democracy, so what are you talking about? They're both Constitutional Monarchies, Cambodia and Thailand, so that's one. Secondly, divergent views! Look there aren’t divergent; I don't care what other people's views are, the Treaties are clear, the island is Thai; that is what it is. Now Maritime disputes being what they are, fine.

I have got to be honest with you, I think it seems like a prudent middle path to just put this in front of Parliament, and for people dismissing it, "oh we've had conversations.” What does that mean? That's nonsense. Meanwhile everybody that's, "let's just steamroll ahead with it." No! Let's have Parliament hear this thing out. I think that's probably the best course of action.