I am not an expert in Thai law, but I am familiar with laws in developed countries. So I am confused as to why the court ruled that the Pitak Siam rally posed no threat to democracy and to the democratically elected government. If I recall correctly, this newspaper and other media quoted the Pitak Siam leader, retired general Boonlert Kaewprasit, as stating that he wants a military coup and the closing of the country with suspension of democracy for five years.
In most countries, that is known as sedition, which is defined as ''incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority''. Again, in most countries, this is a serious crime punishable by imprisonment.
Why is it deemed acceptable behaviour in Thailand? Who in their right mind would want democracy suspended for five years? Unless, perhaps, they expected to profit from it.
This article is older than 60 days, which we reserve for our premium members only.You can subscribe to our premium member subscription, here.