12 May 69

The Deputy Prime Minister of Legal Affairs mentioned the case in which the opposition prepared to file a Constitutional Court interpreting the issuance of a $400 billion loan will affect the solution of the problems of the people, whether the issuance of each decree must be thought carefully by the government, because if the court decides that it does not pass, it will apply from the beginning, and there will be problems with what it does, so what the government will do must ensure that it really maintains the economic stability of the country.

And there is a real urgent need to implement such a decree, and the government is confident that, according to the Treasury, the Budget Bureau and related agencies, and by looking at all the money available, it is not enough and does not know what will happen in the days ahead, which the war is unlikely to end, which is considered a major issue.

Mr. Klang said that the law is in effect, the project will move forward, not stick to anything unless the court tells it to wait. At the same time, the government will submit the law to the council for it to proceed and approve, and it is now believed that the council will have to wait until the court decides within 60 days.

When asked why the government sees this as unconstitutional, Mr. King said that he would explain and the Constitution at the end of the decree, it seems that the loan is divided into two, but the two funds can be alternately rocked. What the government does is do two things at the same time: 1. Remedies, 2. Energy transition, which is considered to be the same thing, inseparable, and must be done at the same time to help the people, both mechanisms and systems to do, including improving the quality of the people, so the two purposes are parallel, so spending money is not separated, but according to the purpose.

When asked if the opposition saw it as a matter of urgent need to stumble against the constitution, Klang said that there were many versions of the constitution, for example, the 1997 constitution to examine only the economic security and stability of the country without looking at the reasons for urgent need, and during that time the loan was issued in the era of the government, the defense, and the Thaksin Shinawatra government, at which time the issue of urgent need was questioned.

Then there was a change in the 2007 Constitution, rewriting the past by examining two conditions, 1. Is it possible to maintain economic stability, 2. Is it urgently necessary that the Abhishek government used to recover, first successfully recovered, and again withdrawn because it was attached to urgent needs?

Including the Yingluck Shinawatra government's successful recovery during the Great Flood, the second to recover 2 trillion to invest in the development of the country's transportation infrastructure for the long term of seven years, there was a problem of whether there was an urgent need to do dirt roads throughout the country first, until there was a political problem again.

And then the 2017 Constitution went back to the 1997 Constitution's original principle of checking economic security, and the urgent need was for the government to know best, because the Treasury is like a housewife with a wallet, so the money is lacking, the housekeeper knows.

So if you look at Article 172, the first paragraph of the Constitution, that it meets the purpose of the economic security of the country, that it does not look at the urgent need, then you are confident that the Court will look at the framework and purpose of the first paragraph of the Constitution 172 as to whether it meets economic security.

As for the urgent need, if not urgent, the government would not do it, because it is a bypass of the Council, because its consequences are serious. If the law is not passed, the government will be responsible for the resignation, which is usually held accountable by the Cabinet.

When asked if the law saw no problem, Mr. King confirmed that he saw it.

When asked if the opposition saw it as a blank check, the deputy prime minister of law asked the media if it was a blank check again before saying, "Where is the blank check? Where does anyone give you a blank check? No, there is no blank check in the world. I insist there is no blank check. It is a discourse. I think it should not be used to hit your life with a blank check. In prison, the government will not do it."

The details of the project will go through a moderation committee chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury.

When asked if petitioning the court should be called a work issue and not meet the purpose, Mr. Klang said, "Should something look on the cover and achieve the purpose we intended?"