 Welcome. This is both my hosting my first seminar. I chairing my first seminar since becoming director for the center of Southeast Asian studies and so as University of London on Professor Michael churn. We, but it's awesome experiment, because we're trying. This is one of the first times to hold our seminars, hold our seminars earlier in the day so they match up with time zones in Southeast Asia. We won't do all of our seminars like that but we're going to try for the next couple to reach out to a Southeast Asian audience so it should be evening time and various across the region, whether it's 678 so on. And hopefully we'll be able to reach more people in that way. Today, our topic is, we're going to have two speakers on Thailand on dealing with Thailand from long lasting cool to another short lived or another short lived election. I, the, we're going to just, they're going to discuss the political situation in Thailand. The coup in 2014 subsequent transfer to a military back civilian regime, and the anticipated general election. They'll discuss among other things the constitutional issues regarding the Senate structure, and put in place following the coup of 2014, the latest key decisions by the constitutional court, which allow the former army general turn Prime Minister. Chanolcha to remain de facto in power for more than eight years, and possible shifts in the country's power dynamics. Our first speaker is bear pot party along, who teaches classes on Thai constitution and politics at so as since joining the school of law as a visiting scholar 2015 bear pot coordinates the rule of law and Thailand project hosted by the center for law in Asia at so as in previously served as special counsel to the deputy prime minister of Thailand. And I also have to add I believe that the center for lawn Asia is also co sponsoring this. So it's not just a center for Southeast Asian studies. Our other speaker will be a private Rosanna proof, who's a senior staff writer at Cal so English, one of Thailand's main English language online news outlets, profit is a highly experienced and outspoken journalist with expertise covering in social and social issues of Thailand, and probably joining us remotely through zoom so our first speaker will be here in the room. Our second speaker will be remotely through through this zoom function. So I'd like to invite very pot to to speak first thank you very much. Thank you very much, Professor Shawnee and very much very long. This is actually as well my first return to the actual physical setting so as I've been teaching so as for almost eight years now and over the past few years with the corporate lockdown is very very strange to have to teach us and look at the screens to try to see the eyes of the students. So I'm very glad that at least today, although we have the webinar functions we still have some students joining us today and hopefully those who cannot join us today will be able to watch this recording. So let me start with the going through the legal landscape that we have been dealing with in Thailand over the past 10 to 20 years. I still remember quite vividly how the first cool in my lifetime the cool of 2006 I was a law student at university and was so angry so upset and I wrote a lengthy email to my to my fellow student friends how could this happen and and we thought things would have changed. Unfortunately, it changed but not in a better way. So let's start and have a quick review a quick recap. So we came quite a long way. Since our first written constitution in 1932, some people could argue this is actually the first cool, the first changing of the political and legal regime in Thailand from absolute monarchy to a starting point of what we try to achieve as a constitutional monarchy whether that change, of course is up to debate. But since then and the next slide is the favorite slide that usually raise the eyebrows among the students when I teach class on Thai Constitution and Thai politics, because if you look on the screen for following the Siamese revolution, or some people may argue the first cool to change from the absolute monarchy into modern day democracy or aspire democracy. We are looking at a long list of military coups or sometimes the co active co opted coups by civilians and not just that we also have failed attempts, the attempts that did not realize so this is quite a staggering a world record. I'm not sure if somebody has been keeping the record for Thailand and I usually asked that the students that each time we had a cool that leads to a new paper that we call Constitution should we call this a constitution because it actually should be some something that constitutes a stable political and legal regime, or whether this is something that I would call a cool situation to constitute something through coos. And it keeps changing back and forth. So this is the political reality that we are dealing with today. And, and as it happened, I was so angry as a law student studying law at Chulalongkwon University, back in 2000, 2006, and many years later practicing as a lawyer and also advisor to government. And I remember vividly again on the 22nd of May 2014 when my article was published on the front page, newspaper of tyrant and mother should newspaper, suddenly in the same afternoon, the prime minister at the acting ministers and the key cabinet members were basically taken into custody after being invited to attend a meeting with the famous slash infamous general for a U.T. and Oshawa state to cool and pardon the pun but I shows the guardian as the the screenshot of this particular newspaper because today you ask many time political operatives, or even tie voters or even some scholars, they might look at this not as a military group that was for a regime of government or regime of democracy but as an action by a guardian of democracy, someone who comes into cleanse the system to to make sure that the corrupted politicians cannot basically take away all the money in the coffers in the people's coffers. And that remains unfortunately a classic argument until today. And what we see throughout these long history of repeated crews are very interesting dynamic, the increasing dynamics of the legal and political and economic powerhouses in Thailand, trying to create some kind of hybrid regime or some kind of co opting or co action, or if I would be less charitable a solution of a system as you can see from the important landmark of the 1997 Constitution, we had what we call what what many scholars called the people's charter, the first time we have the fully, more or less fully representative for example, that the Senate is the first time that was the Senate was being fully elected, then came the coup in 2006 that produced the 2007 Constitution, and we thought that this would have ways to some kind of compromise that could allow Thailand to progress towards a more liberal democracies, according to those who proposed the of course the 2007 version that says we need to slow down Thailand is not ready for full flesh democracy. And unfortunately that turned out to be quite a propaganda because in 2014, the latest school in 2014 produced another document, the so called 2017 Constitution. And if you look closer at these three versions, many things to cover but in my 15 minutes introduction I think it's fair to say that we can just focus on one issue as an example, as a taster of these three versions if you look at the discussion, you can see the people's charter, not only we created a whole bunch of provisions on the rights and liberties for the first time, we also introduced the fully elected Senate that became very controversial in the following years, but then again in 2007. The promoters the instigators of the coup 2006 that's too much. It leads to a flagrant corruption because we have the elected Senate the elected representatives and they all collude against the national interest so that's why when a mixed system was introduced we had a mixed Senate, basically half appointed half elected, and it turned out to be quite a problematic situation because you can imagine sitting in the Senate together you have half of the members who considers themselves to be elected members and the other half will consider themselves to be a very special group of people who are carefully selected and they didn't seem to be able to work together. And that led us to the 2017 version with the unelected Senate in place and you can see the color coding the green color being that okay we're going to go ahead with democracy with the representation then came the 2007 version with the yellow sign perhaps we have to slow down and we are stopping on this pathway towards the liberal constitutional democracy with the unelected Senate among other key issues. And just to have a very quick look on these structures you can see that not only are they half elected, no sorry, fully appointed there are so special quotas for the military establishment, six positions in the Senate, the permanent secretary of the Royal Thai Armed Forces, the Navy, the Air Force and the police, handpicked through carefully designed systems that allows the two instigators and the general prelude to make sure that at least the upper house the Senate is very much a friendly political institution, and it turns out to be the case, he was indeed selected as the Prime Minister by the party that backs him from the Senate. And what is quite interesting and should be noted, and I think is quite up to date as well is the role of the Senate, the role of the Senate has been particularly designed as the transitional Senate, the traditional Senate powers to review laws or to consider legislations but also critical roles in ensuring that general prelude or whoever the regime backs can stay in power and you can see the documents inscribed by the Secretary of the Senate that I highlight on the screen here, if you can see on the PowerPoint, that the Senate under the transitory provisions have the crucial role to drive the national reform, and also to participate in the selection or the so-called approval of the person who becomes the Prime Minister. What is notable about this transitional period is that it's going to end quite soon because the current version of the so-called constitution or what I would call the coup situation of the 2017 provides period of five years, and this period of five years actually starts from 2019 when the senators were actually formally enters into office so we are now at 2022, so it's only a matter of two years, very short period, until we discover what's going to be the political and legal landscape that the senators who backed general prelude to become the current so-called Prime Minister, what will happen to this transitional Senate, and I'm not at all surprised to see that all the politicians are now forming their parties and trying to form alliances because they know as one newspaper call is the dance begin, they are starting to try to find who to dance with to form the next coalition to be the power that backs the Prime Minister because it might not be a straightforward process like during the first five years. And let me just touch very briefly on the latest decision by the constitutional court, the so-called constitutional court that decides the fate of the Thai Prime Ministers and you can see on the screen. But the gentleman, of course, you can see general prelude there on the left side of your PowerPoint screen, but on the far right hand side, the gentleman pointing the finger and many political observers would really miss him for his wits and his charm. Thank you very much. I'm Mr. Samak Sunthorowit. He was removed from office while serving the office of Prime Minister for the infamous cause of going on TV to book a television book or a show. Mr. Chinawatra, we all know him, the former Prime Minister, the only Prime Minister in Thai political history, elected to serve his full term, also faced a remarkable case since the early stage of his Prime Minister ship, the so-called Paddy Sukhwun or the asset assimilation case that has to look whether he fully and correctly reported his holdings in private companies in commercial activities. Mr. Chinawatra, as a successful business person, he of course transfers certain chairs to certain family members, certain housekeepers and remarkably, if you remember that case came down to a split of just one single vote in the constitutional court, but this is very, very transitioning from 1997 version onwards. So that was back in the year 2000. And of course he survived by nearly one vote. So he actually was found in favor by the constitution court. Maybe Prime Minister Ying Lak-Chinawatra didn't survive and the cause for removing her from office was staggeringly dubious. Basically, she was found to be acting unconstitutionally by removing one of her advisors from office. And the advisor was appointed by the previous political for the previous political administration, which is something that we would find a bit difficult to explain how would you expect a Prime Minister in office, not to be able to reshuffle or to move around the key advisors who he or he might have trust, more or less, as he he or she carries on the functions. And the latest episode concerns General Pryutian Osha, which comes down to a basic interpretation of how do we count the eight year term limit for him. And all of these comes down to the interpretations of the constitutional text, but also other legal considerations as well. And my apologies this document is decision by the constitutional court was released just a few weeks ago without the English formal English translation basically what the court did, and I commend the court for this as a lawyer, the court engaged in a rational textual analysis and try to come up with the explanation why the eight year period could not count from day one when General Pryut came into power. We basically rely on the text, and the principle, the principle that is not written but is a legal generally accepted legal principle that there needs to be continuity. There needs to be legal certainty, but also the overriding principle in this particular case has to do with the fact that the court cannot go over the textual limit, according to the term when the actual Constitution came into force. So basically the court used the period when the actual text of the Constitution came into force the current text of the Constitution, as the starting point to look where how to count the eight year period. And so the general Pryut in St. Jakub before the Constitution came into into force when before the current constitution was promulgated and so the court basically says the overriding principle of law. That's not allowed the court to go back in time beyond the power prescribed to the court in this particular document. So, the time that Pryut served before the Constitution came into force could not be included in the counting of eight years. And I must admit, as a legal scholar who favors restriction of powers of the judicial functions, this in a parallel universe would make sense. It would make sense if we don't have to deal with the political coups. It would make sense for the court to restrain itself and resort to the separations of powers, the restrictive role of judiciary, not to interfere into the realms of the constitutional limits and the power of the executives, because by removing the primalism from the court is the court is actually exercising a very strong dose of judicial power. But that was not discussed at all what what was basically discussed was to look at the text, and one of the many principles involved in this particular case, whereas the actual key consideration the separations of powers what was not mentioned the separation of functions how the court should control in trying to ensure the proper functions of executive was not mentioned. And most importantly, in my humble opinion, the court basically ignores the total the total cost of the spirit or the intention of the eight year period that bars a single person from serving a long term prime ministership exists for a particular spirit particular reason and that is to limit the powers to ensure that no one person can stay in power for such a long time to exercise the high power office that might impact the political and legal structure. This unfortunately was something that is not discussed at all in this particular reasoning of this particular decision. And therefore, again, it leaves me with great concern that there is a question on the sanctity of this decision again because of the reasoning, although looks nice from from these two pages. It's very much incomplete in my opinion, and it raised a question of the consistency as well, because when you look back through the history of the court, the court has been very expansive very liberal in trying to expand his judicial scope of power to not just by cooking on TV using dictionary to interpret that that the terms of the Constitution to shoot to not to be afraid that the Prime Minister you could not reshuffle or move around her advisor so we have seen a clear pattern where the Constitution in the court in Thailand has been very liberal very pro judicial in exercising his power and it leaves a big question why in this particular case it seems to be very restrictive in its own power. But the cookery show Mr. Samaksun Torawit was removed, and it came, it came down to the word employee whether he was employed, or whether he acted in his own free time without receiving any payments. But it was also very liberal in trying to expand the scope of his power through other means, the foreign foreign policy scope is also another another example when the court added a term, you know, of may may change or not that's not changed to limit the power of the foreign minister in signing documents which the promise that argues is not considered a treaty, or even in the economic realm and this is very interesting because now we are facing economic crisis looming. The court was not at all afraid to engage in economic analysis of his own. And even though there is no constitutional basis to allow the court to act as the financial expert or act as the as the minister of finance to decide which kind of train high speed rail train project should be built or not what kind of that's what kind of tax policy should be implemented. The court has been very liberal very, very expansive in his interpretation of power so it raises a clear question why in case of general for you, the court was so conservative in trying to limit its scope of power when it comes to the eight year period. A very remarkable case has to do with the case concerning the amendment of the Constitution, and this goes back to the year 2013. And again, this is something that I suspect will come up again as the current Senate will be running out of this term in two years time, and there are current proposals to try to come up with the amendment of the current amendment again of the current But look at this reasoning by the constitutional court in 2013. The issue back then was whether we should change the Senate which is half elected half appointed at the time to become a fully elected a fully representative body. And I always find it amusing if not sad to have to read through this quote from the court to the students in the class, because let's look at the screen now and let me read it for the sanity of legal reasoning. The court found that the amendment could not proceed. Why the court ruled that such amendment to make the Senate fully elected would make the qualifications for senator to similar to qualifications for members of the House of Parliament. And we'll allow those who control the parliament to also control the Senate, making the Senate which is supposed to be an independent body, one that political sector political sector may be able to fully control. What the court was trying to say is that we cannot allow a fully elected House of Representatives and a fully elected House of Senate because then the people will elect the same groups of people and they will end up doing the same thing. And whether that is political philosophy or political arrogance is something that we can discuss another time but I suspect this kind of line of thinking will come up again and again as we have to go through the constitutional amendments. The reasoning is shown through various examples. During the coup period there was attempts to include these kind of very broad and unclear language that to prevent populism administration. And this is written in the interim constitution, and I suspect that this is something that will come up again as we have to deal with, with the, the situation on on the constitutional crisis, the looming crisis with the Senate term ending. And I would just pose a quick questions, how do we understand or analyze these relationships or these developments in Thai political history the comparison is type little, the political history. And I would argue that this is the guardian against corruption. This is necessary intervention to safeguard the interests of the nation. That's why we can allow these elected politicians to stay in power for a couple of years and when things get out of hand when they become to corrupt the military has to step in, whether that is true we can of course debate at length, or whether this is some kind of guided or supervised democracy to allow Thailand to grow. Once it becomes ready because the 1997 version of the constitution was too soon too early, or whether this is a function of deep status I might argue that there is a hidden system within Thailand the elected government is just the puppet on the show, or there is something more elaborate and I would call it a regime harmonization station if I'm going to be charitable, or is it a co action of pollution, and when I say regime collusion harmonization, it is not only about the military. It involves the interpretations of the constitutions by the courts, it involves the political and legal actors economic actors, including those experts who help these co instructors to ensure that they can design these elaborate systems to stay in place and it would not be enough to try to target general prelude, or the military it would also we need also to include actors in the media in universities in the banks in the private sectors who benefit from these intervention and co opted or colluded with the regime in trying to sustain the system. So it comes back again to the central question what's going to happen after the current senate term ends in 2024 in just two years time, are we going to have to see some kind of elaborate system in place that we might have another version of mixed senate, are we going to go back to a fully elected senate that doesn't have any power, or are we going to end up with not having a senate at all. And the question will become clearer as we moves toward the design of the system after the current situation ends. And just a quick recap of what has happened over the past few years there's been attempts by mostly pro democracy activist and anti regime anti military regime political parties to come up with the attempt to submit the bill to amend the constitution that attempt back in June 2021 last year was denied, but if you look at the latest headlines from today, just a few weeks ago, there seems to be a growing growing call for the new constitution again, a new constitution, hopefully not but a new so called people's constitution again, senators, of course are not happy because one of the key contention is to remove the power of the senators to appoint the PM. And they might just want to serve that until the end of 2024. The good news is, just a few weeks ago, if you look at this tie headline from I law, which is a good source of information as well for anyone interested in in legal political studies, I law on his headline says the proposal to propose a new constitutional amendment has now passed the reading in the initial reading in the lower house but it requires the approval of the upper house to the Senate. But you have to ask yourself if the amendment itself is to remove the Senate and some power is to remove the functions of those appointed senators. What would the senators say and I think they're discussing that particular question this week and would be very interesting for us to follow through. What I find interesting is that there seems to be a growing agreement among the, at least the political actors on the ground that things need to change because the senators who have been under the control or influence of the military military regime, simply does seem to function in the interest of the political parties, even though those parties might initially back such regime. And I'm just going to finish with some political observations on what has happened. But before I do that, let me go through a quick recap of the current state of the 2017 version or what I call the seven sins of the current 2017 version. We have a less representative parliament, of course, the Senate is not representative of all that they are not linked to the to the to the electrodes at large we have a weakened electoral executive and this is an important point. We have not seen the real problem yet because so far, since the 2017 crucifixion or constitution came into force, it's only general prelude and his peers who has run the executive branch, but imagine if we have an executive branch that is not seeing eye to eye with the Senate, that is not seeing eye to eye with the opposition parties then we will start to see the powerful weapons hidden in the text of the Constitution coming out. And of course, those are number three powerful and elected bodies with more powers, and the hidden traps of ambiguity if you are a lawyer reading through the elaborate textual designs of the 2017 is longer, more complicated and includes even more ambiguous terms, very broad aspirational terms that might cave ways for the court, for example to step in and say the government cannot do this the government has to resign because of that their restrictions on rights and liberties due to state security, and of course a very broad ethical standards which have not been applied, because general prelude has been in in in in in power since day one so there's no really a question by the people who were appointed to raise these questions, but things could change if we have, let's say, a government who's seeing eye to eye with these unelected bodies. The same number five would be the transitional guarantee to guarantee like for example the Senate, and to guarantee that there is a continuity from the coup regime to a so called military back civilian regime. Finally, the same number six is the impunity. We still continue the sad tradition of impugning those who stage the coups who broke the law who committed the crime to go on freely and even become the next prime minister and the last final sin which again is something we are dealing with right now is the difficulty of amending this text, the difficulty that makes this constitution very difficult to amend you have to pass through several hurdles, and now we are starting from a very, very difficult stage where we have to ask the people whether they want to amend the constitution if they want to they need to get the approval from the Senate from the cabinet to to to get involved. So that's a long road ahead from from from the traps and the designs that makes it very difficult to amend. So just to finish on the political realities on the ground, you can see that through these political designs. If you look at the electoral outcomes between 2011 and 2019, you can see it's not really changing anything except to bring in that the 2017 electoral design brings in smaller parties to take away votes from certain provinces from certain particular groups. And you can see on the right hand side these smaller parties are the ones who get together to support particular factions of the of the government or the opposition but at the end of the day, the key strong those in the north in the northeast the red colors being cut high, or in the south or some areas closer to Central Bank for the Democrat Party, interesting enough Democrats have lost the ability to capture the support of the Bangkok metropolitan area so you cannot change political reality through the through the law you cannot, you may be able to alter his pathway but not the outcome. What happens next we have these key strong man general for you, the de facto and I put the question mark because there seems to be rumors whether he wants to join a new party, not the Palang Prasad Party, but the two key allies Democrat Party are also thinking what's going to happen in two years time when they no longer has the comfortable support of the Senate. What happens to me, can I run as a small party candidate and and engage in political dancing political negotiations. We also see a complete change of tactics from the party to changing the leadership. You can see the lady here. Who was one time that the leadership of the party now she left the party and form a new party. It's interesting to see the headline here because back in August 2020 so that's two years ago. There was a question whether her fraction would be the fraction that gets to choose a candidate for the for the bank of mayoral election because to direct traditionally has been the strong, the strong hold for for Piatai bank and I changed his tactic. It did not formally named couldn't chat chat as the candidate on the on behalf of Piatai but basically de facto support chat chat and this is an interesting dynamic but Piatai is trying to capture the bank of audience chat chat in the past have been involved in the administration. He has complicated enough distance himself to a certain limit to allow himself to be seen as a more or less independent from Piatai party, whether that leaves to be the case and whether the fact that he has now control control increases popularity without relying on so much on Piatai, whether that would upset the Piatai party something that is very exciting and left to be seen. The interesting development has to do with the smaller party that form as the future forward and disbanded and certain members then form the move forward party and my my my my general observation is that we have to ask what happens if we don't have these two parties today. And of course, progressive, progressive issues might not be discussed as so much widely as they're doing, but by the same token on the opposite side of the point. Perhaps there are reasons for the military back regime to want to keep such small small parties. Because they have to fight for the votes in the upcoming general election with the Piatai party or any fraction that is running a campaign against the regime the military back regime. So, it's very complicated in nature and whether they survived any court cases might be for that particular particular reasoning. We can discuss this further if anyone's interested to chime in. And the last, the last photo I think has to do with this particular interesting photo you see three persons here you see Mr. The famous infamous former prime minister and his daughter, and also another businessman property developer of sensory. Ceta to reason who only the younger, the youngest daughter of taxi and Ceta rumored to be one of the two main candidates to become the next prime minister and my concluding thought is this. If we are complaining or discussing ways to to to try to restore democracy. One way is of course to address the direct problem, the cool the courts, the regime, the problems of the law and politics, but at the same time I think the political sides that aims to achieve democracy has to demonstrate is capacity to be democratic as well. It would be very interesting to see whether Piatai, Mr toxin and the leadership in the party would be able to demonstrate that there is some democratic culture being developed or being demonstrated through these leadership process. If you look at the process in England in the UK to become the leader conservative party you can't just be the daughter of someone you you can't even in the United States America. If you both choose the son of the former president, his brother is a governor of state of important state. They need to go through process contention a contest, a hosting meeting members of the party, get the proper votes into account. And it would be very nice, at least to see the dynamic dynamic speed demonstrated through Piatai, as we prepare for the next big battle, which might come earlier than two years. I think it might stay in place for two more years but I think the next two years will be very interesting to see how they shape and plan to demonstrate that this is no longer a family party or party under one person, but of course the people who like to show and this is from the other way which is not a friendly media when it comes to Piatai party but again, it's a tactical headlining. It says Piatai's prime minister is being appointed by Mr toxin so that's the narrative that is being formed, it is up to Piatai party to demonstrate a counter argument that they can demonstrate some kind of democratic values within the party. And that's something that I will will will continue to observe with great interest. And now I turn back to the professor tiny. Thank you very much. We'll say questions and comments for the undefined speakers. So our second speaker is Mr probably should be set up to join us now remotely. He's not able to join. He is remotely so I guess we will go right to questions them. The, if I could ask his chair, one of the first collector of the first question. When you listed the general features of the 2017 Constitution. It struck me that a lot of these are the same general features or could be seen as the same general features of the 2008 Constitution and Myanmar money in 2010. Certainly, the situation in Myanmar is a front burner and there's a relationship between men online and pray you this senior mentor. I'm wondering which to the degree to which you can look at this in a silo within Thailand's context itself or the degree to which they're looking at each other as they undergo these things at least in terms of answering response to 2021. And I'm wondering the, what kind of limits is it set to what pre you can do, would per you be doing this reacting the same way right now. If it had not been for the coup. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. In 2014, when there were rumors of the coup, I had the opportunity to visit the United States of America to meet certain members of Congress to meet some certain members in the US administration and that's exactly the point I raised. And I said, you have to look at ASEAN as an interconnected region you have to look at the political culture in ASEAN as one that influence the other whether that might be a small or big influence. If the United States of America and I'm talking the context of communicating with a superpower, if the United States of America or even the EU or England is happy to continue to trade military contracts with these governments or regimes in in ASEAN, and you start to see what used to be once the beacon of democracy, hope during the, at least the fight against communism, according to the US version of narrative. You have to start to question that it could turn the other way around, because the US precisely try to engage into the dynamics of political dynamics in the region for its own interests of course no doubt. Because it believes that having Thailand as one of these key allies in fighting against the communism rising back then would serve its interest and I would argue it also works the other way around. If you allow these regimes to flourish, they will look at each other and say, well, Thailand still the Thai general still be able to sign documents and buy weapons so why can't we. So, but I'm not an expert on me and I but I would say it raised a very problematic dynamics. Another key issue I would say is Thailand no longer enjoys the benefit that she enjoys 30 to 50 years ago. When you look at Thailand before 1997 crisis, we are the best darling of the region, the prettiest women in the room, when you are a foreign investor coming to Southeast Asia, you want to be in Bangkok, Singapore wasn't as advanced as today. Vietnam wasn't even on the map or discussion, but now the situation totally changed. I like it no longer the only prettiest lady or the handsome gentleman in the room, we might get in, be getting a bit, you know, less attractive in fact. So, aside from the political and legal issues, when you look at the economic investment opportunities that should create even more obstacles for such regimes to continue in the way that it has Thank you. I would like to take any comments from questions from the room that there are. Yeah, please go ahead. I didn't hear you mentioned much about people. And whether the high people in high population, or subgroups their own play any continuing significant role in the political evolution of Thai state and Italian institutions. Those of us looking to be outside a moment, having roots and knowledge of Thailand and storyline. So the last time we saw the population significant scale of stand up and seemingly say something about what they wanted was probably the demonstrations for removal of her in luck. And you had massive demonstrations almost sustained over weeks, I think even months. Since then we've had a few short way I would say it's seemingly short lived demonstrations for this event or democracy. But they didn't seem to be sustained though. I'm just curious about your perspective on what role. Population for and popular groupings may have played on constitutional development. Thank you very much because of microphone is it just like to recap the question whether the political realities on the ground, given that you saw a large scale protest during being like last days, but that there seems to be protests continuing under you, but not in the same scale. And I point you to this slide. And I think it will be very interesting to study in the open. In my observation, I don't think. After touching water became promise that I don't think the political landscape has changed in terms of the quantity. If you look at the northeast the north, the south. And if you ask the people who voted for taxing back then they will still continue to vote for her tie party or whatever candidates that put forward the change comes in the small particular specific provinces that might have had their own elections. So a small smaller party might be able to gain votes in certain particular provinces due to facial relationships. But if you look at the whole, I think that the mentality the understanding the aspirations have not changed me because let's not forget that is Mr. He's policy who has been regarded as the populace or the pro-democratic promise there. What is interesting is in the back off the change has been developing more physically in back off. And this comes to the latest result with Mr. who gave a huge, huge landslide victory in back off, because the generational changes more in the younger people seems to remember at least I remember when it was a law student back in 2006 getting so upset with the crew back then. I think there's a change there and the traditional stronghold for the anti cuffs in stronghold the pro-democratic party has changed. And now coming to the process again, it comes back to the issue that I call harmonization or to be less charitable collusion, because when you know I was in power during her last days. I was one of the advisors of the government and I, and I looked at the attempt of the government to go to the court. They have the court to the civil court to order the protesters to go home, so that they should be no violent because the police couldn't manage control them so she went to the court because they know the court is not going to order the protesters to go home. She tried to declare certain emergency legal actions. The court didn't seem to agree with that. And therefore it became so ironic that the court said you cannot control these protesters up to the point that the military cannot say because you cannot control the protesters the military have to stay cool. So it's a very sad irony for that. When it comes to the regime, of course we see on the news the protesters of pro-democracy the younger protesters, they've been arrested, they've been dragged out of the streets. So the situation, the collusion co-opt co-opt co-action by the legal regime, the courts and the interpretations of these protest demonstration rights and liberties are very much in play. And I think that is one of the reasons why you can see the change in the voters preference in Bangkok because these protests are very much visible in the minds of the younger generation. And I think that is something that the move forward party, the gal fly is trying to engage with. At the same time, put a tie party ends up playing two hands. Are we going to be seen as a more progressive pro-democratic version of the representation of the people? Or are we going to use gal fly as the shield? If you want to talk about sensitive issues that is too progressive a pilot, go to gal fly, don't blame on us because we have now gal fly as the shield and we just continue to do the economic war war on drugs policy for example. And these dynamics will have to become more clearer and more in focus once we have to go on stage and the candidates get to debate. It will be very interesting to hear their thoughts regarding your questions in the next few years. I just want to ask, what do you think the possibilities are for a potential, another coup say in 2024 if there's some sort of political deadlock when this transitional period ends? Do you think that could be possible in episode? What would the implications be all that? Yes, look at the screen. And the answer is pretty obvious. If you ask me, when I was a law student in 2006, then I was still upset because we thought we would have no more coups in 2006 we had. And when I became a lawyer in 2014, the same thought comes to mind. It's not out of possibility of course. What is going to be interesting is, and I think Professor Varney can further add on this. We have to ask ourselves, why do the people who stage the latest coup, why do they put a period of five years for the Senate? Why don't they say, thank you. Why five years? Do they have some kind of internal moral dilemma that's okay we can't stage the vis-a-vis the charade for too long. This is the point where, this is again back in 2014 before I left Ireland and I pointed to the pseudo-legitimacy. They want to create this pseudo-legitimacy. They aren't acting the way that it wouldn't be a barbaric or like a failed state. They need to have, okay, this is the Prime Minister, this is the Senate. We have only a transition period of five years, but of course the constitution itself is defined the way, the same way for smaller parties to come before. And once the regime gets the control and the pollution by several actors, they might not even need the fully elected Senate to stage a practical coup. In a sense that Ginglach, there wasn't a coup before she was removed from office, but because she was removed from office and she was fighting for another election, that's when the coup came in. If the next Prime Minister, whether it's from Kuwait or whatever party, if they decide to play a soft role, and in my opinion I think Ginglach was so soft. So, so soft and accommodating to it with the processes, with the measures of leadership. If that's soft enough, then we might have to go back to the older days, pre-1997, when we have small parties, the Prime Minister is changing. There wasn't needed to be a coup every once in a while, but the Prime Minister couldn't stay in power and we don't move anywhere. And that could be another sad and tragic law of the day. In terms of the underlined train not changing since, well, since the Regions, the old shirts, and that train is still there and having the murals, smaller parties breaking up the general public is in favor of what we're hearing over the long period. Long nails, when I said unlike, unlike Myanmar, Thailand has another source of legitimation of the Constitution, which we are talking about. I would separate not like to talk about that, but there are, there is an additional institution to legitimate the Constitution. Yes, so, so this is a difficulty, and also an opportunity, because we know that they who have written in the Constitution that they have to say in the transition role for 10 years. But what would happen if it becomes 10 year period, the process might get even stronger, the people in the street might get even more upset, the presence of legitimacy or what I call pseudo legitimacy might come into question even further. So it's a game, it's a dance, it's like, you know, who's going to dance and who's going to, who are you going to dance with. So, the, the, the issue of tango, so we're going to see, you know, how, how mixed and matched, but that isn't it's difficult, but it's also an opportunity and that's why, and let me come back to this last photo that I put on the slide. That's why I really hope that there is some kind of dynamics to be shown from good high party. If it ends up being okay. It's a tough thing, your daughter and someone that perhaps shared your vision but also shared certain connections with certain parties that can help stabilize the government. If that becomes a narrative, then it's going to be quite an easy part for the opposition or the military to say, okay, this is the whole taxing regime story all over again. But if there is a new pathway that could I can demonstrate that could present another chapter and other new interesting development in politics. So I'm a bit excited, I think it's my first time actually I have a lot of questions. Anyway, I have two questions. First, going to be about judicial mechanisms that are the case of, you know, or their continuity of values. I need a shift, like how can you, and it is changing concept of the liberal judicial classes. And for the second question, it's about the upcoming direction. So the upcoming generation, do you think it's going to be another monthly instrument? So let us take the first questions on general for you. He's the one who's in charge because of his personality more than anything else in my opinion, is the personality that can distract the society at large from what is going on in the end. When you have questions about policies, questions about economic prices, you just child with reporters and that becomes the news. And it has worked to an extent. It is a private that would try to explain things you might not have to have to buy but for so long and of course, being a person who stays true is the practical factor as well. But I think the people are getting, getting up to the tricks, shouting and meaning in a strange funny or disgraceful way that's not that no longer that's enough to distract the problem. And so that's why we see certain disagreements and certain fractions trying to compete for the prime minister ship. It goes back to the same point, but what would put that you wouldn't have used the same formula, a personal popularity, or are they going to use personal popularity based on a more democratic, more open process. And who would end up being the prime minister one day, but if she comes through a very open, very democratic process within the party that allows people to participate that can add value to that. But if she ends up being the daughter of vaccine for that daughter status only that's a completely different story. Now what's going to happen next in the election, it depends on those dynamics. So both forward party, the party faces very difficult situation, they have to fight for the team. They have to fight with the anti-progressive movement as well. But again, it's interesting isn't it, it's who you dance with and who you keep in the dancing room because without cow flight, the court is going to disband cow flight tomorrow what's going to happen with cow flight photos. I'm not really going to go, some might argue to the other party, but I shun would go to the other side. So it comes down to the political reality on the ground. And what I would mention, as a key word is the law itself cannot change outcome of political reality. It only alters the pathway only alters the time frame that it cannot change the outcome. It might take longer than what we've seen in the past, or it would take a very short period, but the law itself cannot change the outcome it only alters the pathway. I think we have a question. Yeah, we have two questions I will ask as and do it alter the person person you answer and then we'll do the second. I would like to ask about the console. This is Dr. Carlos Bernura, you know, Carl. Yes, hi, I would like to ask about the constitutional courts accepting the case against preude in the first place. What is your interpretation of this move by the court was this done in order to demonstrate the court was following due process. And in order to put preude on notice that he is not the choice of the put quote unquote establishment for the next election. Was it an instance of judicial autonomy within the established autocratic system, or was it an instance of the further politicization of the judiciary, where the court was poised to be the means for additional additional. Yes. And I thank you, Carlo. And I, I think, I think it's very difficult for me to know what's the political reasoning behind this case as a lawyer, I can only comment on what I read in the decision, but I think it's a legitimate question because precisely it goes back to the the year 2000 when Mr. Tuxin was facing that the case concerning his asset dissemination. And it's the same question whether this is political decision making rather than a legal decision making. And it's very sad that we end up in this situation where the high the highest court of the land deciding on the highest law of the land is acting in a way that is so involved in the nature in the course in the pathways of politics and it comes back to the same phrase I use the law cannot change the outcome the law only out of the pathway and to Carlos point I think basically this is altering the pathway, sounding the support, and allowing to know for you to fraction to work out the arrangements among themselves. That's of course speculation I don't know I don't have evidence for that. But if you look at the decision itself. It's very questioning. It's very questioning because it goes against the, the, the series of decisions that the court was so expansive in exercising its power and suddenly this particular case, it restricts itself to be very conservative, which I tend to like I tend to argue for separations of powers anyway, but it raises a strong series of question why, in the past, putting that reshuffle her security advisor, since the map went on TV to cook and the court was so expansive in interpreting exercise is power in this case, it became very restricted so it raises those political questions certainly. Yeah, and our second question is from profit boom. In your opinion how will type politics break away from the Senate, since it is difficult to amend the current constitution and the political landscape on the ground is basically the same, meaning poor tie party might not get the landslide landslide victory. They are seeking. Yeah, so wow. You have to ask the political masterminds because you have to ask. In September last year, just one year ago, there wasn't a strong collection of votes in the lower house to propose constitutional men. In September last year, the lower house seems to be able to gather enough votes to pass through the initial stages, and then the Senate gets to decide so something has changed. Something has changed over the past year that allows certain members of certain parties to okay in the past, I'm going to stick with very good I'm going to stick with, you know, the Senate, but it's no longer the case. I don't want to use a signal or use some political trickery. That's up to your interpretation. But I think people will start when I say people I say people who used to be with for you or the factor with for you today are starting to realize that there is another greater green across for themselves. They don't have to be stuck with this former army general who goes out and shout to reporters. They call themselves potential candidates but to go through that loophole. They need to also join hands with her tie to give the Senate as well. So again, it's a political dancing they might not be caring so much about the democracy, legitimately, but they care that to have a more flexible or more open Senate seats, it could pay part, pay pathways for themselves. If you see the case then it will be very interesting political rearrangements among the party, and you can see that the literary she will need to come up with the, with the bargaining shift as well, to try to secure the votes. But at the end of the day, and perhaps Mike you can add on this when you look at the experience of many countries around the world, the more you try to push down the political reality on the ground, it will spring up. My husband up today, it will bounce back in a violent way sadly in some countries, hopefully not for Thailand, but I certainly hope we don't get to that stage perhaps Mike. Well not much more I mean when you push things underground, all it does is just keep the, the elites oblivious to the realities on the ground and then they pay for that later when there's a weakness. Yeah, as we've seen a number. Are there any other question we don't have any other questions online are there any other questions in the room. We've actually done quite well for the, for the hour and 10 minutes we've been going. So, well, if there are no other questions I'd like to speak, thank our speakers bar about right now. Ask, ask wire, because you're a lawyer. Yes. Yeah, okay. Thank him for his talk I apologize that we didn't have the other speaker that was due to zoom will fix that in the future. And thanks, all of you for coming who have been physical attendance, and for those of you in the outside world and in Southeast Asia in the future, pretending it must be very late in the evening now. Thank you very much and I'll close to a close. Thank you Mike. Thank you everyone. Thank you.