Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing Thai Casino legislation, and apparently Thai Casino legislation isn't for legalization of gambling. Wait, what? What are we talking about? Let's get into it. Also, the reason for the thumbnail comes down to the title of the article more than the substance of what we are going to get into in terms of analysis. 

The title of the article from Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com is: BJT's Coalition loyalty queried. So BJT is Bhumjaithai Party here in Thailand. They're the junior partner if you will if, "junior", I mean insofar as their numbers within the Coalition are not as high as the Pheu Thai faction but for anybody that sort of knows the history of Thai politics and things, Bhumjaithai is very much a "Mover and Shaker" within the Parliament in terms of a Party so that's something to bear in mind. And they have been part of I believe all the Coalition Governments that we have seen come into effect since going back into what 2015-16 - somewhere in there - we've seen them as part of the coalition government. The reason for the thumbnail goes to a movie that I'm a huge fan of, Charlie Wilson’s War, and one of the greatest, one of Philip Seymour Hoffman, the late Philip Seymour Hoffman's best performances in my opinion although it edges out other amazingly great performances by Mr. Hoffman who is an amazing actor, was an amazing actor, but he's playing a guy named Gust Avrakotos. I actually read the book, Charlie Wilson’s War and I've always found Gust - and that is Gust with a T - a very fascinating sort of human and when I just saw that headline and I saw loyalty, I immediately thought of this scene from Charlie Wilson's War, so that's the reason for the thumb. 

That said, quoting directly, Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: BJT's Coalition loyalty queried. Quoting directly: "Key figures in the Pheu Thai Party have called on the Bhumjaithai Party to step away from the Coalition following remarks by the latter's Secretary-General Chaichanok Chidchob, opposing the Government's entertainment complex Bill in Parliament." That is a really odd request considering in the fact Bhumjaithai Thai just voted lockstep with the Coalition in the no confidence vote for Paetongtarn Shinawatra in her favour just recently. I mean it's been within a fortnight of the time of this video. So on the one level it's like, really you are calling loyalty into question now? Especially right after a clear indication of loyalty. That seems a little odd. That said, quoting further: "Those pressuring the Anutin Charnvirakul-led party include Defence Minister Phumtham Wechayachai and list-MP Adisorn Piengkes. Mr. Phumtham warned against politicizing the Bill or misrepresenting it as merely a way of legalizing gambling." I am reading that again. "Mr. Phumtham warned against politicizing the Bill or misrepresenting it as merely a way of legalizing gambling." 

Well let's start with that. Politicizing the Bill is exactly Parliament's purpose; that's why we have that Institution. So, we can see what laws are coming down the pike. That's the purpose of Parliament, to politicize Bills. Okay, now moving on. "Misrepresenting it as merely a way of legalizing gambling." Isn't the purpose of the Bill to legalize gambling? So, the Bill's purpose isn't the Bill's purpose? And who's politicizing what here, because only a politician could come up with this kind of circular, it's not even circular because it doesn't reconnect. What are we talking about here? Quoting further: "He said the proposed legislation aims to set up comprehensive entertainment complexes to attract foreign tourists, not promote gambling." But they'll include a casino, and in casinos they gamble, and right now gambling is not legal, and the new Bill would change that and make it legal.

So, in any event, we have this possible Bill which should not be politicized even though it's going through the political legislative process, and it's not for gambling even though it legalizes casinos where gambling takes place! Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And I don't understand why Bhumjaithai Thai who legitimately are questioning whether or not we need this - and look again, I've been positive on this; I am very down the middle. I can see the benefits of legalization here, I can also see where this could lead to all kinds of societal degradation as a result of legalizing this stuff. Then on top of it to frame all of this under a loyalty rubric within the Coalition, especially coming days after, literal days after a lockstep vote by the junior Bhumjaithai Party in favour of the Prime Minister, loyalty is questioned in this context? It just seems a little bit silly to me especially in the context of hey, especially the last dozen years or so here in Thailand, if there was any hand that was holding any line I would say Bhumjaithai generally tended to be at least one of those hands. So to talk about this within this kind of rubric, and to then say that the Gambling Bill isn't for gambling, and that it shouldn't be politicized even though that's the sole point of the legislative political process, seems nonsensical to me. That being said, we will certainly be keeping you updated on this channel as the situation evolves.