Yingluck To Face Impeachment Concerning The Reissue Of Thaksin's Passport

[phiphidon]

The underlining point to all this reissuing a Thai passport to Thaksin is quite simple. Thaksin is wanted for corruption and was given a 2 year jail sentence. A pardon for this crime was asked for and deemed inappropriate, so the newly elected government with 2 thirds of the population voting for them reissued a Thai passport for Thaksin. The Pueau Thai party is Thaksins party so the question is how can the democrat party headed by Abhasit regain power? By stopping Thaksin returning to Thailand any way they can. The sad truth is why do Puea Thai need Thaksin? Surely there are other leaders who can inspire the nation. Also didn't the democrats say during their goverment that they would be more respectful of the opposition party if they could distance themselves away from the Thaksin clan.

2/3 of the population did NOT vote for them.

1 / 9.75th of the population voted for them.

1/ 5.25 of their voting electorate voted for them.

By quirks of the electoral system, that the manipulated well, they had a large party list. And so they have 15 more seats. But if all malfeasance's and legal charges were were fairly brought to FAIR impeachment and trial, their margin would evaporate like mist.

What "malfeasance's and legal charges "? You have details?

[ttelise]

TAWP:

Confused? You are blinded by your biasness and belief system. The Thai system is actually quiet a sad travesty since 2006 and especially since the PAD craziness in 2008 started a never ending cycle. There simply will be no stabity until changes are made elsewhere in the system other than efforts to forcefully remove what ever party da jour happens to be in power. The fault of all parties and everyone who participates, not just PAD, red shirts or etc. No lessons will be learned or things changed as long as attitudes like yours pervade. Okay with me, I left and got my money after PAD took over Phuket airport like a bunch of wild monkeys. I like Thailand and hope things will one day stabilize. Until then, Bali is my haven for fun and gets my money and a lot of other US travelers are foregoing Thailand since the BS in 2008. Thais are just hurting their own economy with attitudes such as yours. Better surfing in Bali anyway.

Edited December 31, 2011 by ttelise

[TAWP]

ttelise>> You might look into quoting the post you are replying to if it isn't right before yours, since now it just doesn't make sense.

So you think everything was cherry before 2006 and now live in Bali. Good for you.

[tlansford]

So let us go to the fact: http://www.history.a.../faq/oaths.html

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

The Constitution is first priority, following orders is second, as long as those orders don't conflict with the Constitution.

And clearly the oath is to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (But I would say that the armed forces in the US have been somewhat sloppy with this.)

so the oath has been changed. In this case, I don't see when it happened, but probably since 9/11. It had said "enemies whatsoever".

As your point was to find a way to claim that the military in the USA should oust a dictator, you are still, excuse me, completely off base. The military is under the command of the president (in the constitution). Also, America has a very long and steadfast tradition that the military does not get deployed domestically. This happens only on very rare and exceptional conditions, and the American people are very suspicious of any use of the military internally. 9/11 has been used to justify some rare internal deployments, and that is a relatively new development.

No, the American military will not be used to oust a president. For that we have other mechanisms to use. Which is exactly the point. As long as Thailand has a "military shortcut" in their politics, then the political process will not be allowed to deal with abuses of the system / politicians.

US National Guard seem to be called out quite regularly - my memory stretches back as far as Kent State. Are you claiming that they are not part of the military?

FYI information under the Westminster system, MPs are expected to vote the party line unless a conscience vote is declared. failure to do so will inevitably lead to loss of party endorsement, and in most cases loss of seat at the next election. Independants rarely fare well and have little chance of having their bills passed unless they hold the balance of power and do sweetheart deals.

BTW in a prior post you claim to be familiar with the German political system, yet a few days back you were claiming the chancellor was the head of state.

In Germany, the president is essentially a ceremonial post, yes. And I am familiar with the German system. No I did not say that the chancellor was the German head-of-state. Nice try though...

No, the National Guard is not part of the military in the sense you imply. The National Guard is under control of the States, which is why you see the National Guard deployed domestically, especially for natural disasters, etc, and is called out by the governor (as in the case of Kent State, for example).

And no one wants to come back to the original inane point that it would be the duty of the US military to oust the president ? Geez, wonder why that is...

Happy 2555 all.

[tlansford]

The underlining point to all this reissuing a Thai passport to Thaksin is quite simple. Thaksin is wanted for corruption and was given a 2 year jail sentence. A pardon for this crime was asked for and deemed inappropriate, so the newly elected government with 2 thirds of the population voting for them reissued a Thai passport for Thaksin. The Pueau Thai party is Thaksins party so the question is how can the democrat party headed by Abhasit regain power? By stopping Thaksin returning to Thailand any way they can. The sad truth is why do Puea Thai need Thaksin? Surely there are other leaders who can inspire the nation. Also didn't the democrats say during their goverment that they would be more respectful of the opposition party if they could distance themselves away from the Thaksin clan.

2/3 of the population did NOT vote for them.

1 / 9.75th of the population voted for them.

1/ 5.25 of their voting electorate voted for them.

By quirks of the electoral system, that the manipulated well, they had a large party list. And so they have 15 more seats. But if all malfeasance's and legal charges were were fairly brought to FAIR impeachment and trial, their margin would evaporate like mist.

Just a simple observation, ...

ALL of the numbers in the above posts are incorrect. For example, 1/5.25 of the voting electorate... PTP had 15.7 million votes, so 15.7 * 5.25 = 16 million more voters than the entire population of Thailand ;-)

And no, 15.7 million is not 2/3 of the voters, either, ... not by a long shot

[tlansford]

So let us go to the fact: http://www.history.a.../faq/oaths.html

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

The Constitution is first priority, following orders is second, as long as those orders don't conflict with the Constitution. And clearly the oath is to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. (But I would say that the armed forces in the US have been somewhat sloppy with this.)

so the oath has been changed. In this case, I don't see when it happened, but probably since 9/11. It had said "enemies whatsoever". /../

It clearly says since 1962 in the posting above (effective, adopted 1960). How old are you saying that you are, if that is 'recent'?

Changed after the communist witch hunts, OK... makes sense.

Returning to your original statement - you are saying it means the US military will depose a sitting president? Please, ....

[TAWP]

It clearly says since 1962 in the posting above (effective, adopted 1960). How old are you saying that you are, if that is 'recent'?

Changed after the communist witch hunts, OK... makes sense.

Returning to your original statement - you are saying it means the US military will depose a sitting president? Please, ....

If a president wrote an executive order that abolished state rights and put everything into the federal governments, effectively killing the separation of federal and state as mandated by the constitution, on a path to gaining absolute single power - perhaps removing the legislative power from congress as a next step, I would see it as the armed forces duty to step in. Nothing weird and clearly in their oath.

[tlansford]

It clearly says since 1962 in the posting above (effective, adopted 1960). How old are you saying that you are, if that is 'recent'?

Changed after the communist witch hunts, OK... makes sense.

Returning to your original statement - you are saying it means the US military will depose a sitting president? Please, ....

If a president wrote an executive order that abolished state rights and put everything into the federal governments, effectively killing the separation of federal and state as mandated by the constitution, on a path to gaining absolute single power - perhaps removing the legislative power from congress as a next step, I would see it as the armed forces duty to step in. Nothing weird and clearly in their oath.

"Nothing weird"

I disagree. That is extremely weird.

[Crushdepth]

A government that undermines rule of law cannot expect the law to be upheld, even in its own defence. It's that 'live by the sword' thing.

[ianf]

interesting how people look at the charge of embezzlement, yet fail to remember he did more for the lower class people of thailand than anyone in recent history. the real criminals are the people who took part in and initiated the coup.

I think not.

[geriatrickid]

Yes. So with 39 Cabinet positions, that means the PTP have 226 votes in parliament (for laws) compared to the rest being 235. So the PTP needed to form a coalition to have an "effective" government. And one other thing that they did to get more votes in parliament was for ministers that were party list MPs to resign, giving them extra votes.

No they did not need a coalition. All they needed to be sure of passing a bill was to have a plurality of votes. Considering the number of reps absent on any given vote, it is not hard to maintain the majority. Even on a contested vote, the magic number is 5 votes. This could easily be obtained with some political horsetrading.

Why are you so hung up on the number of seats? It is not unusual to have a minority vote position, yet still form the government without a coalition. A recent example was the Conservative minority government in Canada. There was no coalition formed and the Conservatives ran the government.

[TAWP]

It clearly says since 1962 in the posting above (effective, adopted 1960). How old are you saying that you are, if that is 'recent'?

Changed after the communist witch hunts, OK... makes sense.

Returning to your original statement - you are saying it means the US military will depose a sitting president? Please, ....

If a president wrote an executive order that abolished state rights and put everything into the federal governments, effectively killing the separation of federal and state as mandated by the constitution, on a path to gaining absolute single power - perhaps removing the legislative power from congress as a next step, I would see it as the armed forces duty to step in. Nothing weird and clearly in their oath.

"Nothing weird"

I disagree. That is extremely weird.

You find it weird if people follow their oath or fight against dictatorship?

I suppose you alter your positions on most things if it can make you win an argument.

[Roadman]

It clearly says since 1962 in the posting above (effective, adopted 1960). How old are you saying that you are, if that is 'recent'?

Changed after the communist witch hunts, OK... makes sense.

Returning to your original statement - you are saying it means the US military will depose a sitting president? Please, ....

If a president wrote an executive order that abolished state rights and put everything into the federal governments, effectively killing the separation of federal and state as mandated by the constitution, on a path to gaining absolute single power - perhaps removing the legislative power from congress as a next step, I would see it as the armed forces duty to step in. Nothing weird and clearly in their oath.

In the country where I live which is one of, if not the most democratically correct in the world, if a criminal like Thaksin was over riding the checks and balances of democratic governance then the people would expect the police to step in and remove the scum and reset the democratic process on its correct path. Given that in Thaiiand's case the police are in the paid ownership of the Shinwatra clan, the only final check for the people is the Army. Only thing weird I see is that anybody from a western democracy would agree with a dictatorship to over ride democaray and then justify the thieving scum allowing his clone and puppets to replay the same hand. But then it takes all sorts to make this world.

[tlansford]

If a president wrote an executive order that abolished state rights and put everything into the federal governments, effectively killing the separation of federal and state as mandated by the constitution, on a path to gaining absolute single power - perhaps removing the legislative power from congress as a next step, I would see it as the armed forces duty to step in. Nothing weird and clearly in their oath.

"Nothing weird"

I disagree. That is extremely weird.

You find it weird if people follow their oath or fight against dictatorship?

I suppose you alter your positions on most things if it can make you win an argument.

No, that is not what I said.

Just to be perfectly clear, the quote below is what I find extremely weird.

If a president wrote an executive order that abolished state rights and put everything into the federal governments, effectively killing the separation of federal and state as mandated by the constitution, on a path to gaining absolute single power - perhaps removing the legislative power from congress as a next step, I would see it as the armed forces duty to step in. Nothing weird and clearly in their oath.

That is 100% Bizarre, Capital B, Bizarre. It has no connection to the real world.

[geriatrickid]

The belief that the US military would topple a US government really is boggling. The assorted scenarios provided are implausible as the President does not have the authority to modify the powers of government. In the fantasy world, apparently the house and senate just disappear. Unlike the Thai senate, the US senate is wholly elected by the people and whatever special interest group invested a few million.

[TAWP]

I like it how the non-Americans above, with a past track-record if disagreeing with the Constitution as the foundation of how the nation [uS] should be govern, that lived through several illegal wars - i.e. executive orders by the president, not approved by the Congress - suddenly act like it is only in a fantasy world a President could issue an executive order violating the constitution.

Yes, of course nor I and most others see the nightmare scenario happen anytime soon, but it was to illustrate the point that if it did happen then the armed forces are sworn to uphold the constitution, not to take orders from someone breaking it.

I am sorry if this concept of talking about 'scenarios' is too difficult to understand, but I refuse to only talk about things that have happened, because then often it is too late...(besides, even past events are constantly up for debate here by some).

Anyway, what's for lunch?

Edited January 1, 2012 by TAWP

[tlansford]

I like it how the non-Americans above, with a past track-record if disagreeing with the Constitution as the foundation of how the nation [uS] should be govern, that lived through several illegal wars - i.e. executive orders by the president, not approved by the Congress - suddenly act like it is only in a fantasy world a President could issue an executive order violating the constitution.

Yes, of course nor I and most others see the nightmare scenario happen anytime soon, but it was to illustrate the point that if it did happen then the armed forces are sworn to uphold the constitution, not to take orders from someone breaking it.

I am sorry if this concept of talking about 'scenarios' is too difficult to understand, but I refuse to only talk about things that have happened, because then often it is too late...(besides, even past events are constantly up for debate here by some).

Anyway, what's for lunch?

The errors of your last post begin with "non-Americans" and continue from there.

And after that, TAWP, I am sorry to say, but IMO the "scenario" you tried to use for the USA is just too far from reality to be useful in a discussion.

[OzMick]

US National Guard seem to be called out quite regularly - my memory stretches back as far as Kent State. Are you claiming that they are not part of the military?

FYI information under the Westminster system, MPs are expected to vote the party line unless a conscience vote is declared. failure to do so will inevitably lead to loss of party endorsement, and in most cases loss of seat at the next election. Independants rarely fare well and have little chance of having their bills passed unless they hold the balance of power and do sweetheart deals.

BTW in a prior post you claim to be familiar with the German political system, yet a few days back you were claiming the chancellor was the head of state.

In Germany, the president is essentially a ceremonial post, yes. And I am familiar with the German system. No I did not say that the chancellor was the German head-of-state. Nice try though...

No, the National Guard is not part of the military in the sense you imply. The National Guard is under control of the States, which is why you see the National Guard deployed domestically, especially for natural disasters, etc, and is called out by the governor (as in the case of Kent State, for example).

And no one wants to come back to the original inane point that it would be the duty of the US military to oust the president ? Geez, wonder why that is...

Happy 2555 all.

Again, you confuse political systems, as previously when you referred to the Chancellor in a discussion re removal of the head of state. A coup removed the self-appointed acting PM with no constitutional right to the position, not the head of state, the position held by the US president.

And your "sense" that the national guard is not a part of the military borders on the ridiculous.

[Skywalker69]

What a load of pure CRAP. She is not facing anything, and she knows, as anyone who has more than 3 braincells, that he was was ousted by an illegal coup and the trumped up charges and silly, stupid, false "conviction" is invalid.

WELCOME HOME TAKSIN.

I said it before. He was not even legally caretaker PM.

[tlansford]

US National Guard seem to be called out quite regularly - my memory stretches back as far as Kent State. Are you claiming that they are not part of the military?

FYI information under the Westminster system, MPs are expected to vote the party line unless a conscience vote is declared. failure to do so will inevitably lead to loss of party endorsement, and in most cases loss of seat at the next election. Independants rarely fare well and have little chance of having their bills passed unless they hold the balance of power and do sweetheart deals.

BTW in a prior post you claim to be familiar with the German political system, yet a few days back you were claiming the chancellor was the head of state.

In Germany, the president is essentially a ceremonial post, yes. And I am familiar with the German system. No I did not say that the chancellor was the German head-of-state. Nice try though...

No, the National Guard is not part of the military in the sense you imply. The National Guard is under control of the States, which is why you see the National Guard deployed domestically, especially for natural disasters, etc, and is called out by the governor (as in the case of Kent State, for example).

And no one wants to come back to the original inane point that it would be the duty of the US military to oust the president ? Geez, wonder why that is...

Happy 2555 all.

Again, you confuse political systems, as previously when you referred to the Chancellor in a discussion re removal of the head of state. A coup removed the self-appointed acting PM with no constitutional right to the position, not the head of state, the position held by the US president.

And your "sense" that the national guard is not a part of the military borders on the ridiculous.

Maybe you should just stick to talking about what you have written yourself and not about what others have written, since you seem to misspeak rather often in that regard.

I (repeating for the last time) never said that the Chancellor was the head of state in Germany. I also never said that the National Guard in the USA was not military. I was very clear that the National Guard is under the control of the Governor of the state and this is why the National Guard gets deployed - by the governor - in his/her state, and usually for natural disasters, although there are some well-known events where governors have deployed the National Guard for other reasons. The Governor has the authority to deploy the National Guard within his State.

Americans are particularly sensitive to issues of States' Rights versus the Federal Government. Deployment of the military domestically by the Federal Government is extremely rare, and to this day, a very sensitive issue.

[TAWP]

I like it how the non-Americans above, with a past track-record if disagreeing with the Constitution as the foundation of how the nation [uS] should be govern, that lived through several illegal wars - i.e. executive orders by the president, not approved by the Congress - suddenly act like it is only in a fantasy world a President could issue an executive order violating the constitution.

Yes, of course nor I and most others see the nightmare scenario happen anytime soon, but it was to illustrate the point that if it did happen then the armed forces are sworn to uphold the constitution, not to take orders from someone breaking it.

I am sorry if this concept of talking about 'scenarios' is too difficult to understand, but I refuse to only talk about things that have happened, because then often it is too late...(besides, even past events are constantly up for debate here by some).

Anyway, what's for lunch?

The errors of your last post begin with "non-Americans" and continue from there.

And after that, TAWP, I am sorry to say, but IMO the "scenario" you tried to use for the USA is just too far from reality to be useful in a discussion.

Typical non-responsive post from our american poster. (I went by the info you put out by yourself. Since that is wrong(?) I am happy to adjust it. Another misunderstanding I had about you is that you lived here. That is also wrong.)

It doesn't matter if the scenario is plausible to happen anytime soon, the question is what the oath means and the action would be. But of course you feign 'being unable to understand that' so you can avoid the issue at hand.

But atleast we can note that you then think the armed forces wouldn't intervene if a dictator would take over in another nation, say the US, and you don't wish them for taking any actions. Is that correct?

[soundman]

OK - enough guys.

Back to the Thai PM's possible impeachment proceedings thanks.

[tukkytuktuk]

The impeachment is of the PM is a tried and tested policy of the democrats. Ex PM Samak was ousted from the top job for hosting a cookery show on TV. I think though that this Thai political drama will revolve and revolve for a long time to come. The only way to true democracy is with transparancy and with hard working politicians who work for the people who vote for them and not to help there family. A coup is inevitable a year or two from now, due to politicians not moving forward and serving Thailand to the best interests of the Thai people. Some people can gain power and use it wisely, some abuse power and only help themselves.

[philw]

The impeachment is of the PM is a tried and tested policy of the democrats. Ex PM Samak was ousted from the top job for hosting a cookery show on TV. I think though that this Thai political drama will revolve and revolve for a long time to come. The only way to true democracy is with transparancy and with hard working politicians who work for the people who vote for them and not to help there family. A coup is inevitable a year or two from now, due to politicians not moving forward and serving Thailand to the best interests of the Thai people. Some people can gain power and use it wisely, some abuse power and only help themselves.

Completely agree with you.

Depressingly correct scenario and the timing depends on the main event.

Even a small group of sincere politicians and administrators would transform this country..

I know they exist, I've met them but they can never get their hand on the tiller, the vested interests are too strong.

[whybother]

Yes. So with 39 Cabinet positions, that means the PTP have 226 votes in parliament (for laws) compared to the rest being 235. So the PTP needed to form a coalition to have an "effective" government. And one other thing that they did to get more votes in parliament was for ministers that were party list MPs to resign, giving them extra votes.

No they did not need a coalition. All they needed to be sure of passing a bill was to have a plurality of votes. Considering the number of reps absent on any given vote, it is not hard to maintain the majority. Even on a contested vote, the magic number is 5 votes. This could easily be obtained with some political horsetrading.

Why are you so hung up on the number of seats? It is not unusual to have a minority vote position, yet still form the government without a coalition. A recent example was the Conservative minority government in Canada. There was no coalition formed and the Conservatives ran the government.

Well, strictly No. To pass laws, they need a majority of votes. But given it's just Yes / No vote, majority and plurality are basically the same.

I'm not hung up about it. I'm just discussing it. For PTP to govern properly, they needed the support of more than just the PTP MPs. If the current coalition partners were not included and given their ministries, they probably wouldn't have supported the PTP. And without that support, and with the Ministers not being able to vote on laws, the PTP would have struggled to pass anything.

[ttelise]

ttelise>> You might look into quoting the post you are replying to if it isn't right before yours, since now it just doesn't make sense.

So you think everything was cherry before 2006 and now live in Bali. Good for you.

Tried, but kept saying end quote or something not match. Not live in Bali. Live in US. Just spend maybe three months out of year in Bali and go when an epic swell is rolling through. Thailand seems to attract the more undesirables now and individuals with more to lose go and spend their money elsewhere. My wife is Russian and her Russian friends still go to Thailand so athailand can still attract Russians and people from countries that are very chaotic and dangerous. Most of my US friends that used to spend time in Thailand now either spend less time there or simply go to other countries now. I would venture to say that the Thai economy is being mangled by the mentality you endorse perhaps more than some care to acknowledge. I guess this happens when people are ruled more by their emotion than common sense.

Edited January 1, 2012 by ttelise

[wxyz]

interesting how people look at the charge of embezzlement, yet fail to remember he did more for the lower class people of thailand than anyone in recent history. the real criminals are the people who took part in and initiated the coup.

I look at the conviction for abuse of power as well as the many other charges, including terrorism for sponsoring the red menace insurgency in BKK.

But we must take into a/c his many beneficial actions such as paying off Thailand's debt (oh, sorry, that's still there), setting up the B30 medical scheme (without funding), etc etc. Umm, Why don't you tell us exactly what he did do besides lie, cheat, steal and kill?

Are you talking about Bush and Blair? Lie about WMD's, cheat the taxpayer into funding a phony war and busting their country to help their mates, steal the oil and kill 1.5m Iraqis.

Be nice to see the three of them on the gallows, but then we should have a pack of cards for the rest of them.

Taksin's sister PM, what did they expect? She will go and the red shirts will be out, yellow shirts in, bla de bla de blar. This could go on forever, or another military coup.

yahoo headline,,, "Iraqi civilian deaths climb in 2011: study"

you are of course, wrong, but you knew that already

[MaiChai]

There seems to be an impression that the government can do what they want and they are the highest power in the land. This is not the case. They still have to obay the law, then there is the democratic processes and then there are higher powers above this. Hence why its almost impossible for Taksin to return unless he admits guilt for his crimes, and then serves some time in jail. However he cannot admit guilt as his grass root supporters would desert him. That is, he would be shown to have lied to them.

An example of how the government cannot do what they want: red shirt law breakers are still being convicted and put in prison. Citizens want the law to be obayed.

Edited January 2, 2012 by MaiChai

[garym]

Well, I gave up reading this website a couple of years ago, cos I was sick and tired of reading the whinging outbursts of the the expat, bar stool Taksin haters, but I came back again tonight to see if anything had changed, and lo and behold you're all still here peddling the same old crap, except you've now got his sister to pick on as well. And of course, there's still the critics of the whole Thai nation and its inhabitants ranting and raving about their attitudes and way of life. Why don't you give it a rest and go back to where you belong, as you obviously don't enjoy living there. And heym, guess what, the Thais don't like you guys either!!! surprise surprise.

[OzMick]

ttelise>> You might look into quoting the post you are replying to if it isn't right before yours, since now it just doesn't make sense.

So you think everything was cherry before 2006 and now live in Bali. Good for you.

Tried, but kept saying end quote or something not match. Not live in Bali. Live in US. Just spend maybe three months out of year in Bali and go when an epic swell is rolling through. Thailand seems to attract the more undesirables now and individuals with more to lose go and spend their money elsewhere. My wife is Russian and her Russian friends still go to Thailand so athailand can still attract Russians and people from countries that are very chaotic and dangerous. Most of my US friends that used to spend time in Thailand now either spend less time there or simply go to other countries now. I would venture to say that the Thai economy is being mangled by the mentality you endorse perhaps more than some care to acknowledge. I guess this happens when people are ruled more by their emotion than common sense.

Strange that many Australians (NOT a chaotic and/or dangerous country, especially compared to the US) are changing their holiday destination from Bali to Thailand. Perhaps it has something to do with the relative strength of their currencies?

When you discuss the "mangling" of the Thai economy, it would be good to remember the source of the damage to it and most other world economies.