23 May 69

"Teng" reiterated the party's position, not extending the power of independent organizations after "liberal" asking for the voice of the congressman to send the court, the ethics exam president, "Tintin," pointing out "the people." Never use this channel to judge politicians, believe that the opposition coalition can still work together, and in the case of the DSI excuses the "people," the council should not protect the wrongdoers.

On Nov. 23, 69, in the Nongkam BMA, the leader of the People's Party mentioned a case in which the leader of the Thai Liberal Party, Gen. Python Teemievesh, cut off the People's Party, who did not support the voice of the MP, to file an ethics exam on the Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, in the case of him, and questioned whether there was a depth behind the scenes, and Nathpong said that he was willing to talk honestly to all parties, especially the opposition party, and that Gen. Liberal Pivat was well-intentioned to investigate the matter and expressed the intention of the People's Party to sign it, which he had said, and sent representatives to talk many times that the People's Party did not want to investigate and was ready to fully monitor the government, but was careful to use mechanisms such as the Constitutional Court that might extend the power of the Constitutional Court.

Mr. Nutpong said that before the "ethics" petition, politicians, the People's Party had the position that it had never used a channel in this way to make the Constitutional Court order elected politicians unethical because it viewed ethics, that each party had to examine each other, not the law, but if it was the law, they wanted to use the court to make this decision.

When asked if the post indicated the depth behind each other and whether they can work together, Nutthong said that they can work with everyone, do not want to accuse each other in front of the media, because they are opposition parties together, can talk to each other, listen to reason and reason together.

Nutpong also mentioned the case in which DSI requested a letter of submission from the House of Representatives, Nakhon Songkhla Congressman, which was to be brought to the House of Commons for an opinion that it must be viewed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it is obvious that the person who committed the offence should not have defended the Council. It was previously excused during the session or approved at the meeting as a mechanism to prevent political bullying. But if the person committed the offence, there is no reason for the Council to defend it.

When asked how many people consider that the president may not be in the country, Nutthong said that it is the job of the justice system to act as honestly as possible.