May 25, 69, following the previous post.

When asked how he would take legal action against Nutpong, Mr. Pisit said that we would consider legal issues based mainly on the legal framework of the Constitution and would like Nutpong to express his intention to apologize. We think that any uninformed allusions can cause disgrace. The law is already defamatory.

When asked how Nutpong's reference to the blue regime was unclear, the senator interpreted it, Mr. Pisit said that the silver color on the tricolor was the flag, so the senator came to protect and live within the constitutional framework that we have a duty to maintain the monarchy.

The reporter asked whether the case that Mr. Nutpong did not apologize in the time frame would affect the vote to amend the Constitution of the People's Party. Mr. Pisit said that it was not possible for the senator to act for the benefit of the country and the people. However, in proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the People's Party, he would like to ask Mr. Nutpong if there was a real intention to amend it, because according to the terms of Article 256, it was clear that the senator had to vote in favor of one third, but every time he found that Nutpong had always attacked the senator. How to see it, he does not know, but whether an attack is correct, if he wants to solve it, he must make a statement, or should not slander the senator.

When asked if the case of Nutpong, who made the statement, was against the senator's decision to cooperate or not cooperate, Mr. Pisit said, "There is no point in cooperating, because the senator is a legislator like the congressman, so what has been done, the people of the country have been happy to do everything."

When asked how much of the 21.6 million votes in favour of the new constitution will be heard, Mr. Pisit said that the issue of the referendum needs to be done twice more, the second of which depends on the framework of the constitution that the Constituent Assembly (the Constituent Assembly) amends, so it is better to stay on the stage of the next term without wanting to answer now.

When asked how to consider the draft amendment to the Constitution in Parliament, Mr. Pisit said that the version of the Proud Thai Party has now been submitted, it is not yet known how to consider it. Meanwhile, as for the Proud Thai Party, it proposed an amendment to the Constitution, Article 256, which was found to have reduced the voice of the senator against the approval of the Constitution to one-fourth, it is personally affirmed in the same terms, that is, it must not amend Category 1, Section 2, including all clauses relating to the royal authority.

When asked to reiterate the possibility of voting for a draft amendment to the Constitution of the People's Party that submitted the contents of the original version that the senator had accepted the principle, Mr. Pisit said that the draft had fallen. If proposed, he had to consider on the first floor whether to accept the part to refer to the old one, it could not be done because it had fallen, so he could not ask for the future.

When asked about the explanation for the society in which the senator voted in the way of the Proud Thai Party, Mr. Pisit said that the judgment of the vote is only in agreement with the disagreement of the vote of the law or the state of the government, it is not possible to refer to which political party depends on the judgment of the judgment and the interests of the people.