26 May 69
"Proud Thailand" passed a resolution not to vote to send "people" to DSI Jang. The post himself wished to take over the investigation. The pendant asked to go. Do not be a burden. The council voted, did not carry, but did not want to cut off the voice of any party, pointed out, did not go today. A month after the close of the meeting, it must go.
On May 26, 69, at the Proud Thai Party, Miss Nan Boon Daughter Somchai, a spokesman for the Proud Thai Party, announced the results of the Proud Thai Party, the case of the Special Investigation Department, or DSI, making a letter for herself, Mr. Naksa Naksa. Songkhla, the Dharma Party, to investigate the online gambling web case in which the House of Representatives contained an urgent agenda, asked the House of Representatives on May 28 that it was initially aware that it intended to give evidence, as DSI had released a book in which the Proud Thai Party saw that if going to give evidence, it could go tomorrow morning so as not to burden the House.
But the principle of caring for members of the House of Representatives in the open session, because in the past, the principle of protecting members in the past, because of the voice of the House of Commons, has the voice of both parties, whether government or opposition, to protect from the use of power, diminishes the voice of one party. That principle has been used from the past to the present.
The Proud Thai Party has discussed whether to apply the existing principles, but it has to wait and see if it will request it, but compared to the previous council meeting, where it was approved for a congressman to come to justice, but in the end, the council did not consider it because the congressman gave himself up, so the House of Representatives hopes that it will not have to vote if the congressman agrees as intended.
But if the resolution is reached, in fact, another month and a half will be the closing time of the meeting, tomorrow or another month, and you will have to give evidence as requested by the DSI. Therefore, the terms of the period can be seen as a matter of judgment, but of invitation to investigate. Otherwise, it will be seen whether the authority is bullying the opposition to have a reduced voice, which is in fact not a matter of agency, because the Proud Thai Party does not wish to have the voice of any party reduced by the vote of the MP together.
When asked if the vote is reached, the Proud Thai Party will vote to send Nan Phatthai, Miss Nan Boondaughter said that it must be up to Nan Phatthai herself. If going to give evidence in person and bring it to the Council, this is over. There is no vote required. But if there is to be a discussion at a council meeting, it must be seen how Nan Phatthai has his opinion on the issue. But in principle, we are the ruling party. We do not want to cut off the voice of either side by such means.
Miss Nan Boonydaughter stated that after the close of the House of Commons, he had to testify anyway, unable to escape what would happen, reiterating that the MP's privilege was not to be a four-year congressman, but to cover only the duration of the meeting, because he had to protect the voice of the legislature, not to allow one of the parties to reduce their voice to make himself a majority and win.
When asked if, on the other hand, the Proud Thai Party holds or defends Nan Phatthai, Ms. Nan Bun Daughter, reiterates that we do not view safe or carry anyone or try to help anyone, it must be explained clearly because many people are confused about the exclusive, but the exclusive is only available during the opening of the Council. When we consider the law and offer a meeting for only 4 months, when the meeting is closed, if there is a matter to be broken, then we must go, and the exclusive is not available during the closing session.
