Some people used to say the tsunami in Indonesia was God's wrath against untrue Muslims. Is The Carpenter saying anything different in Thai military coup - lessons for us?

The question is not whether leaders are 'strong', but whether the leaders have the legitimacy of popular support and that they respect democratic institutions. The writer says, "We should not equate strong government with strong democratic institutions." No one makes that mistake, except perhaps the writer.

In Malaysia, Mahathir assumed political leadership of a democratic nation because he was acceptable to the 'establishment', or the 'elites'. Subsequently, whenever he was in danger of losing power, Mahathir did not hesitate to abuse the country's democratic institutions. This was done with the silent acquiescence of the establishment, including the media, so long as its balance of power remained in his favour.

Thailand's experience with democracy for the past five years was of a totally different kind. Thaksin was the upstart who came from outside the establishment, which jeeringly referred to him as the 'billionaire prime minister'. He built a level of support among Thais that was frightening to the elites because this left little leeway to manipulate him. The establishment has now struck back with force because there was no other way to remove him.

His fate is not very different from what befell former Philippine president Joseph Estrada who, like Thaksin, had won elections with the biggest majorities in their respective countries' histories, but was later overthrown in a military coup dressed up as 'people's power'. The underlying reasons are strikingly similar - they both dared to champion the cause of the poor.

The educated 'opinion leaders' swallow hook, line and sinker establishment media propaganda about 'corruption', 'cronyism', 'abuse', 'plunder', etc, without questioning whether any of the accusations were proven.

It has been many years since Estrada was charged with plundering the national treasury, which was one convenient way of smearing his name and justifying the military coup to the public. The case has dragged on for a suspiciously long time and many self-appointed analysts have assumed his guilt.

But what is the truth? Is anyone interested in it?