The caretaker prime minister's security guards and supporters reportedly resorted to brute force to literally subdue those protesters shouting anti-Thaksin slogans - many men punched and kicked the protesters before surrounding them to unleash yet more blows. Women and even a 70-year-old man were also reportedly attacked. And the protesters' crime was merely that they exercised their constitutional right to express their opinion loudly in public.

For Thaksin to wait until yesterday to say anything about the violence unleashed by his security forces and supporters is most unbecoming of a national leader. It's as if he condones violence by not pointing out that what his men did is wrong and in fact a criminal act.

On Monday, police reportedly stood idle and watched 70-year-old Itthipol Sorawitsakul being knocked down and stomped by more than 10 men at Central World Plaza until he lost consciousness. The man later received two stitches to his head at hospital, while the two suspects believed to have been the ones who perpetrated the violence against him were summarily released by police.

Thaksin stated however that all differences should be settled through the ballot box during the upcoming October election - this in itself is a very limited interpretation of what democracy entails and what rights people in a democracy should enjoy. Instead of the state protecting people's right to free expression, it is the state's machinery - the security forces of the caretaker premier, some of whom have had a reputation only for rudeness until their brutal nature was recently made all too evident - that violated these rights.

Whether the anti-Thaksin protesters were organised is not the issue, for it is perfectly legal for people to organise themselves if they wish to do so. Thaksin's political underlings have invariably claimed that these protesters are well organised and intent on embarrassing the caretaker premier. Well, as witnessed by this writer in many provinces, the premier's political party and pro-Thaksin supporters are indeed very well organised too. The issue should be whether or not any protesters provoked or incited violence against Thaksin and others, or are people merely expressing their displeasure over a politician for whom they have lost any iota of respect due to mountains of corruption and abuse of power allegations.

It should be recognised, especially by Thaksin and his men, that shouting anti-government slogans of any type is a basic right and it should be protected as part of the people's rights to freedom of expression - as long as it doesn't incite violence.

Where verbal expression by protesters ceases to be peaceful and turns into violent hateful speech, then protesters should be charged under the law but no one, not even Thaksin's own guards, has the right to take the matter into their own hands by lynching them. Thaksin's men demonstrated on Saturday at Siam Paragon shopping mall that they are the law and that they will behave no better than men serving a godfather.

To be fair, the anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy's (PAD) response to the incidents was also not inspiring. They merely discounted speculation that the protesters were organised by the PAD. At this point in time, PAD leaders may do well to categorically denounce any provocation of violence, organised or otherwise. If they fail to condemn any future possible violent provocation, then they're neglecting their self-proclaimed duty as peaceful leaders of the anti-Thaksin alliance.

In the end, these incidents served as a reminder of how little Thai society has learned from violent confrontations in the past, like that which occurred on October 6, 1976, when dozens of left-leaning students were lynched in front of Thammasat University by a right-wing pro-monarchist mob in broad daylight.

Lessons in how people can deal with differences of opinion without ending up killing one another should be a top priority in social education for both adults and school children. Is Thai culture inherently unable to deal with different opinions, and if so why, and what can be done? It will surely take more than a superficial avoidance of confrontation.

Thaksin himself should also learn that when a national leader can no longer command the respect of the people, it's time for the leader to start thinking seriously about quitting - for good - and look for another occupation where dissent need not be tolerated.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation