If the country has no rule of law and lacks of ability of law enforcement, the so-called democracy has already perished. Thai society was misled by the group of people called themselves People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) on the true meaning of democracy and freedom of assembly.

The protesters dishonestly employed the article 63 of the military-sponsored constitution to shield themselves from legal actions and hijacked the term "civil disobedience" to prevent social criticism.

The article 63 of the constitution says pretty clear that people have the right to stage peaceful protest without weapons. Its second paragraph makes clearer that such freedom of assembly must not be prohibited unless the authorities enforce the law to protect people convenience in using public places; or to keep order of the country during war or the state of emergency.

By spirit of the law, people in democratic society have their own freedom of expression to show their political opinion. Agree or disagree, the authorities must allow them to speak freely through any means including their own mouths, media and street protest.

However, there is no right to violate the law in mature democratic society. Civil disobedience is not a pretext to violate the law and it is not the right to stay above the law. Mahatma Gandhi, the spiritual leader of India who used the civil disobedience in the struggle for independence against British Empire made clear that he would voluntarily submit to the arrest when any people in authority seeks the arrest to any civil resister.

Look at what the PAD has done over the past months when it staged a protest against the elected government of Samak Sundaravej. Their actions mostly run against the constitution, democratic norm and the so-called civil disobedience.
They has staged the protest on the traffic surface of the capital where is the most congested traffic of the world. Blocking the roads basically harms public utility of traveling and that is against the laws, not only the traffic law but also the constitution.

Storming into state properties at the NBT television station and the government house is not the constitutional right.

The protesters have their basic right to express their political desire to have the Prime Minister stepped down but there is no law to guarantee the right to stage the street protest to topple the government. When the group of people comes out to express their political will, the right has already been utilized and over. The protesters' aim to topple the government by other means out of the channels mentioned in the constitution is obviously against the Penal Code. The charge of treason could not be avoided.

Associated protests called by the state enterprises to put pressure to the government for the same goal is also against the law. Labor law allows workers to strike to improve working conditions, but the protest to achieve political goal is not guaranteed by the law.

In democratic country, of course, ordinary citizens have the right to topple the government, which runs the country against the will of the population. Thailand, too, has many legal mechanisms to bring the corrupt government down. Samak and his cabinet's member as well as his ruling People's Power Party and two other coalition parties are facing legal actions possibly resulting in ending of his government.

Street protest to force him leave the office is unnecessary unless the protesters have other ultimate goal which might be undemocratic and hurt the country's rule of law.