Bloomberg interview with Abhisit: 'It's time for reform. Why can't the govt accept that'

[seminomadic]

PDRC and dems are not the same. Just accept it and move on.

You're delusional if you think they aren't. Just accept it and move on.

[fab4]

I noticed one thing with the Red Shirts supporter, is their failure to admit to the problem. Denial would be the word. They would rather patch up the system and keep on driving with it, hoping to reach the destination. But I must say, they are good at distraction techniques by bring out off the wall subject. Let's stick with the subject of YS administrative roles. The issue is their lack of accountability and responsibility for their actions. We can't solve the problem if we don't admit to it.

Well, perhaps you, like abhisit, can't see things staring you in the face.

Abhisit: 'It's time for reform. Why can't the govt accept that'.

They have accepted it, abhisit, you're just refusing to admit it

The government, meanwhile, insists any kind of reform process can only take place after a new government is elected democratically.

"Any government who wins the election will be a reform government," Suranand Vejjajiva, secretary general to the prime minister, told Al Jazeera.

"Yingluck Shinawatra has already committed that she will implement whatever reform agenda is proposed, if she becomes prime minister again. And once the reform agenda is complete, the house [of parliament] will be dissolved again and another general election will be called."

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2014116114546816134

[Ulic]

A complete BS interview and waste of time. Neither side has the moral or ethical high-ground. All the leaders

are crooks and scalawags. If you do not participate in the election you have no right to complain.

Instead of complaining the other side buys votes (which both sides do) come up with a plan that in inspires

voters to vote for you. When the Democrats were in power they did nothing to curb corruption and on the

contrary corruption went up according to the UN. Suthep was leading the charge to line his pockets.

This whole thing would be an absolute laugher if it wasn't so serious. If you believe this Vejjajiva, Suthep,

and there motley crew, I have a very special investment for you. It seems a Nigerian Prince has received

a huge inheritance but is having some difficulty getting it out of the country. For a small investment, blah blah blah..............

[Thait Spot]

Are you really saying the Dems aint corrupt?

Before you you continually bore us again with your 'proof, proof, proof' rhetoric, just do some research into that party and their corruption scandals. Sorry to say but the reports are endless.

Prove they aint corrupt or can't you get out of your 'Thait' ass this morning?

The entire Shinawatra machine tried to find dirt on him.

They went all the way back decades to his draft - and still haven't managed

I don't think you or your crimson clot-heads will do any better

[Thait Spot]

Can you use Google or is it too hard for you?

"Question by Jonathan Head of BBC to Korn: Why are the Democrats always unable to win more votes in the Northeast?

Answer by Korn: …I can tell you what is not the issue. People like to divide the camps into rural and urban. The majority of the southern voters are rural. The popularity of Thaksin in the Northeast and to a lesser degree in the North is undeniable. It is also undeniable that traditionally they have been less politically active then southerners. It is also undeniable that money politics is less prevalent in the South. We we have less money than PPP. However I agree with Chris [baker], money “is the price you pay to play the game but it doesn’t dictate whether you win or lose”. “If a candidate today in Loei runs under the Democrat banner for him to try to win he would need to spend two or three times more than his PPP opponent in order to win and even then he still might lose.

This is exactly what happened in the last election. A number of the old TRT MPs in the Northeast defected to the new party Puea Paendin and “they outspent PPP three to one and they still lost”. This goes along way to confirming what Chris said, but money is no longer determinative of your success. What Thaksin did was to make that connection and make it directly relevant to his target group. We are less afraid to compete against vote-buying than the buying of MPs. I still believe at the end of the day that if you sold your vote it is still your decision in the ballot box. However, it would be very ineffective for the Democrats to buy a Northeastern MP. Simply at the end of the day we cannot go against the will of the people and no amount of money will help."

http://asiancorrespondent.com/116697/vote-buying-thaksin-and-the-democrats/

yes.

And?

[Bluespunk]

Suthep and Abhisit in their relationship are not dissimilar to the IRA and Sinn Fein although I don't say or imply the T word here.

.

It's beyond doubt that the PDRC are nothing more than a tissue thin cover for the Democrat party, just a way to insulate the Dems from future court cases. (Let's save some time here...."Where's yer proof" holler the tin hat brigade!)

But there's a wider lesson to be learned from both the Northern Ireland and South African conflicts. Resolution of both conflicts involved across the board amnesties for previous crimes and a truth and reconciliation process. People need to get it through their heads that a resolution of the present crisis will inevitably involve an amnesty for the main players. People like Abhisit, Suthep and Thaksin never do jail time.

PDRC and dems are not the same. Just accept it and move on.

.

Nothing escapes this guy!

ah, the scathing wit of it all..

Edited February 7, 2014 by Bluespunk

[ianf]

A load of hypocritical rubbish from a seemingly intelligent guy.

The unasked question was how can the Democrat Party, who themselves are mired in massive crony corruption and vote-buying, be trusted to do anything about corruption when their noses are in the trough once again? They have done nothing about it previously, so why suddenly now?

I would expect people like the Thaksin supporting Millwallfan to call this interview hypocritical. The fact is that Abhisit is a conviction politician, not a money politician. He is an intelligent man who has fought corruption within his own party. He has been accused of many things that he has not done because his nemesis, Thaksin, is a sociopath who knows how to manipulate people and events. Abhisit, in my humble opinion, is a good man, who has bucketfuls more intelligence than Thaksin and Yingluck have ever shown. Abhisit understands that the concept of 'democracy' was hijacked by Thaksin and his PR cohorts (such as Robert Amsterdam) in order to lay a lie against Abhisit and his party. People with intelligence, nay acumen, understand this and can see it so clearly. Unfortunately, ideologues on this forum (and we know who they are) refuse to see this. Evidence shows that Thaksin is a mass murderer, convicted criminal, and who is a fugitive from justice having been awarded a two year jail sentence, multiple arrest warrants, and a long list of pending legal cases. The sociopathic response off course is to try and persuade the population that the real murderer is Abhisit, which off course is utter and complete nonsense.

[billd766]

As rich a vein of hypocrisy as you're ever likely to find. 'We support free and fair elections' says the guy who boycotted an election and whose associates did their best to prevent people from voting in a free and fair manner. A valuable insight into the thinking of a hypocrite.

He should not be allowed to be involved in anything remotely connected to politics in this country ever again along with many of his cronies.

Incredible bunch of hypocrites. I would love to have sen a real " hard talk" type of interview, he would have been ripped apart.

I agree with you 100% but only if Yingluck is in the seat next to him and asked exactly the same questions.

It would be interesting to see the difference in answers, assuming of course Yingluck actually COULD answer any of the questions asked.

[billd766]

Abhisit is probably the best man to be PM. However, he made too many errors last time round, maybe thinking they had seen the last of Thaksin. He needs to be stronger if he gets another chance, win over the people in the north and don't take any shit from the elites.

Whoever gets power needs to erradicate corruption. I can't see a Thaksin backed government doing that.

The last thing Thailand needs is a well spoken spineless PM.

There must be somebody out there whether they be red white or blue, but yet to step up to the plate.

At the moment Thailand has a spineless PM who can't link 5 words together in a coherent sentence without it being written down for her

[heybruce]

Reform, excellent idea! Thailand can start by rewriting the 2007 constitution that was written by a military junta with the intent of hobbling democratic government, then put to a vote in which the choices were to accept the deeply flawed constitution or continue to live under military rule.

Unfortunately the red side wants a more democratic government (do they think they're living in a free country or something?) while the yellow side wants to increase their power at the expense of democracy. Difficult to see any possibility for compromise.

[billd766]

It's time for reform why can't the govrnment accept that... Says the man who wants to reform the reforms he made when in government....

"What have I done wrong? I respect the law. I respect the Constitution. I am exercising my rights." err... I know innocent until proven guilty but.. murder?

Here we go again.

Do you have ANY proof at all that he is guilty of murder?

Does anybody have ANY proof?

I will charitably assume that it is only your opinion which is worth just as much or just as little as mine.

[xminator]

You did null and nothing to counter corruption while in power Mr. Abhisit. On the contrary, you let a raving madmen, that lost his seat in parliament due to shady business tell you what to do.

The main problem is that the changes this neo-national-facist movement want to put in place is so far from democratic as just a facist state can come.

[billd766]

You did null and nothing to counter corruption while in power Mr. Abhisit. On the contrary, you let a raving madmen, that lost his seat in parliament due to shady business tell you what to do.

The main problem is that the changes this neo-national-facist movement want to put in place is so far from democratic as just a facist state can come.

Unlike the purest of pure PTP politicians, caretaker PM who listens to and allows a convicted criminal fugitive brother to TELL her what and when to do things

[smedly]

Haslinda added me on her FB friend list in 2008, in my opinion she is an incredibly intelligent person and all her interviews and reports are outstanding. Abhisit was lucky he didn't get burned down lol. In any case, he should be fighting for reform within the system, it is a slow process but it is the only way to achieve change legitimately. I actually supported Abhisit in 2010 because I admired the way he showed restraint and kindness for months in the face of the "burn the city, kill the elites" stage-speeches by the reds. But I stopped supporting him when he joined the overthrow movement recently, because the problems are state issues and should be resolved by relentless and thorough pressure within state, not on the streets. Overthrow movements, especially by suspect interests who refuse to outline their agenda, is a dangerous road to travel.

The democrats and the people that voted for them had no voice in parliment, PTP simply ignored them - that is not how a parliament works or a democracy

PTP did want reforms but they were aimed at dismantling the checks and balance system and taking power away from the courts and the bodies that were there to protect the system - the complete opposite to what is actually needed

It is very clear that the dems and the protestors want to increase these laws and checks so that any future governments cannot abuse power like PTP have done the last two and a half years - that cannot be accomplished while PTP are still in office so they need to go

[aussieinthailand]

All the Poo Thai red farang are out to attack a PM who left the economy in a healthy state and has something none of the lot who followed him,competence and intelligence.Mass Corruption and taking the country to collapse is what your barbie doll PM is doing.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Think ya might what to take a look into the history of Thai economy and it's rating of each government.

[smileydude]

Tough crowd here at TV.

Abhisit may not be perfect but he's a got a lot more intelligence then the average MP and his responses don't reflect being "ripped apart".

Intelligence though is usually not enough to be politically competent which involves a lot of deal making, compromises, hand wringling, fund-raising etc etc.

Put Yingluck on here and most interviewers just leave the room with a completely puzzled look on their face like "what the hell was that?"

Abhisit's weakness is often being a one-man think tank.

Yingluck's weakness is being a thinkless tank.

So who would you all suggest as the best candidate for Prime Minister?

Edited February 7, 2014 by smileydude

[fasteddie]

English man speak with forked tongue.

[jayjay49]

This man is from a minority party, has been refusing to talk with the 'caretaker-government' in order to solve the state of Anarchy that Thailand is in, has obstructed the democratic process, sees the 'rebel' Suthep as it's partner, talks with a double-tongue in this Bloomberg interview, has lost every election in the past 10 years, but feels fit to rule the country as a minority party - without being elected - for an undefinite time. Thai politics are sick, voters are being bought, most political leaders are billionaires (Baht) and give preference to 'family'-interests, corruption is all over the country and in every party. Responsible politicians should realize that there task is to get together, talk, negotiate, compromise and find win-win solutions to problems, fight corruption and show vision for a better future. ....... but at the moment parties don't talk, but play 'games'. Thailand deserves better! Chokdee!

[heybruce]

Tough crowd here at TV.

Abhisit may not be perfect but he's a got a lot more intelligence then the average MP and his responses don't reflect being "ripped apart".

Intelligence though is usually not enough to be politically competent which involves a lot of deal making, compromises, hand wringling, fund-raising etc etc.

Put Yingluck on here and most interviewers just leave the room with a completely puzzled look on their face like "what the hell was that?"

Abhisit's weakness is often being a one-man think tank.

Yingluck's weakness is being a thinkless tank.

So who would you all suggest as the best candidate for Prime Minister?

Um, how about the parties choose their candidates and the voters decide which one should be PM?

Oh wait, the voters keep choosing candidates affiliated with Thaksin. That's why the election process needs to be "reformed", to take the choice away from the voters.

[smedly]

You know guys there are two simple questions you need to ask yourselves and if you answer honestly then you know most of the argument

1. Are reforms needed - I think we can all generally agree on that one, history doesn't lie

2. Is the Thaksin regime the right people to carry out reforms

all the rest falls into place when you answer those two questions, obviously they raise a lot more questions if answered correctly but is sets a firm base to work from

[Spalpeen]

At the moment Thailand has a spineless PM who can't link 5 words together in a coherent sentence without it being written down for her

.

She has already - in the testosterone charged world of Thai politics - become the country's first female prime minister, won two consecutive elections with record majorities, laughed off Suthep and his Big Bangkok Shutdown and prevented a coup. Not a bad list of achievements for someone with no previous experience of politics. Most professional politicians would envy a record like this.

Spineless.......well, that's what I'd call a politician who is so Absolutely Certain he will lose that he doesn't even bother to turn up. He probably learned that kind of craven submission in his first year at Eton.

[icommunity]

As usual, he is lying, twisting and distorting.

1. Dissolving the house was demanded by him and when that happened, he boycotted it.

2. Reform initiatives were called by PM YS long before the house dissolved. The dem boycotted it and went round the country criticizing the government's initiatives. What had they come out with for reform? They cannot even accept the reforming of their own party.

3. Where are the protesters now. There was no crackdown that caused them to go home - unlike the 2010.

4. Free and fair election - I think it is the job of EC.

5. The dem had never come out to condemn the criminal activities of blocking election registration centres, blocking the distribution of ballot boxes and papers, the use of physical violence to block voters from voting and threats issued by its PDRC/PCAD to block election. These criminal activities were not initiated by PTP or any participating parties. Therefore he has no legitimacy to say the election is not free and fair during the interview. Also, AV has no legitimacy to talk about wasting Bt3 billion during the interview - because he has been silent on these criminal activities.

6. Not deferring the election was not the decision of the Government. The government brought in all the contesting parties and they did not want a deferment. Why should these parties submit to the demand of the dem. It is not the only party in Thailand.

7. PM YS did not refuse the deferment of election. It was the collective decision of the government and EC. No party was enable to guarantee that violence scare, mongered by EC, will stop and that all party will accept a new election date. Furthermore, no one was able to guarantee that there will be no legal action taken against the Government and EC.

8. When did PM YS's refused to accept a verdict of the Constitutional court?

9. Who would be the people the society can trust to oversee the election after some initial reforms take place? Is the EC credibility questioned by him?

10. It is not true that PM YS had precondition. It was the dem and its PDRC/PCAD - reform before election and an unelected 'people council' to run the country. PM YS did say 'we can't discuss the election postponement' - That was before CC said the election could be postponed if both side agreed. She could not discuss the government's caretaker status before it was mandated according to Royal Decree and Constitution.

11. AV also accused during interview: "the government of majority doesn't attend Parliament, doesn't answer questions in the House, is not accountable, puts itself above the law and doesn't accept court verdicts." When did all these happen? It was the dem who walked out of parliament, threatened the speaker, physical assault in parliament and parliamentary hooliganism.

12. When did Yingluck government said people in areas who didn't vote for her would not get development or budget funds, or their projects were cancelled?

13 AV said "There is, but the prime minister has to take that first step of admitting that this election is getting us to nowhere, that there need to be talks, a postponement, and that she might have to step aside so that people have faith in a free and fair election." Why should the government do that? Free and fair election is the job of EC? Is he discrediting the EC again? Why can't he just join the election and at the same time make sure that it is free and fair like what PTP and all participating parties did?

14. Interviewer :What will you do if you return to lead the country?

AV replied : "I will have to push forward reform that is very much needed right now to get rid of corruption and move the country forward so that we can actually fulfil our economic potential." Did he push for reform when he was the leader of dem led government? Did he get rid of corruption during his term? What had he done to GET RID of corruption? Why he rejected reform initiatives when it was called months before his demand of house dissolution?

15. He talked about rule of law: He forgot that the administration and enforcement of rule of law equally without fear and favour are the responsibility of the courts and enforcement agencies - not street mobs and thugs. Not smear, misinformation and distortion campaigns. Not denigrating the people. Certainly not behavior like using fake document to avoid a mandatory military service, refusing to sign a bail condition like everyone has to.

In conclusion : He is trying to wriggle out of the mess he created for himself, the dem and Thailand using lies, misinformation, distortion and untruth.

Well Well .that took some dreaming up .you should write fantasy books or maybe manifestos for Poo Thai

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Poor loser attitude. This is the best you can offer.

[billd766]

It's time for reform why can't the govrnment accept that... Says the man who wants to reform the reforms he made when in government....

"What have I done wrong? I respect the law. I respect the Constitution. I am exercising my rights." err... I know innocent until proven guilty but.. murder?

Here we go again.

Do you have ANY proof at all that he is guilty of murder?

Does anybody have ANY proof?

I will charitably assume that it is only your opinion which is worth just as much or just as little as mine.

It's not even an opinion, which is why I included innocent until proven guilty Billd. But this is what it's about

The CRES set out rules of engagement, permitting security forces to use live ammunition as warning shots to deter protesters from moving closer; for self-defense; and when troops had clear visuals of "terrorists," a term the government failed to define. In reality, the military deployed snipers to shoot anyone who breached "no-go" zones between the UDD and army barricades, or who threw projectiles towards soldiers. Sometimes soldiers also shot into crowds of protesters. http://www.hrw.org/w...t-2011/thailand

And then you added but.....murder which to me nullified your post as though everything else was OK but.... murder isn't.

[Gweiloman]

He had a chance before. He is a pussy cat.

He "was" a pussycat. A complete greenhorn to government and top level politics but since then has had his baptism of fire and has learned much.

IMHO he is about the best shot Thailand has at having a good, strong and internationally capable and respected leader!

But will he acceptable to the people of Thailand?

[Spalpeen]

You know guys there are two simple questions you need to ask yourselves and if you answer honestly then you know most of the argument

1. Are reforms needed - I think we can all generally agree on that one, history doesn't lie

2. Is the Thaksin regime the right people to carry out reforms

all the rest falls into place when you answer those two questions, obviously they raise a lot more questions if answered correctly but is sets a firm base to work from

.

1.Are reforms needed?

2.Are these the right people to carry them out?

......

I think I'll stick with the elected government, if it's all the same.

[Gweiloman]

As usual, he is lying, twisting and distorting.

1. Dissolving the house was demanded by him and when that happened, he boycotted it.

2. Reform initiatives were called by PM YS long before the house dissolved. The dem boycotted it and went round the country criticizing the government's initiatives. What had they come out with for reform? They cannot even accept the reforming of their own party.

3. Where are the protesters now. There was no crackdown that caused them to go home - unlike the 2010.

4. Free and fair election - I think it is the job of EC.

5. The dem had never come out to condemn the criminal activities of blocking election registration centres, blocking the distribution of ballot boxes and papers, the use of physical violence to block voters from voting and threats issued by its PDRC/PCAD to block election. These criminal activities were not initiated by PTP or any participating parties. Therefore he has no legitimacy to say the election is not free and fair during the interview. Also, AV has no legitimacy to talk about wasting Bt3 billion during the interview - because he has been silent on these criminal activities.

6. Not deferring the election was not the decision of the Government. The government brought in all the contesting parties and they did not want a deferment. Why should these parties submit to the demand of the dem. It is not the only party in Thailand.

7. PM YS did not refuse the deferment of election. It was the collective decision of the government and EC. No party was enable to guarantee that violence scare, mongered by EC, will stop and that all party will accept a new election date. Furthermore, no one was able to guarantee that there will be no legal action taken against the Government and EC.

8. When did PM YS's refused to accept a verdict of the Constitutional court?

9. Who would be the people the society can trust to oversee the election after some initial reforms take place? Is the EC credibility questioned by him?

10. It is not true that PM YS had precondition. It was the dem and its PDRC/PCAD - reform before election and an unelected 'people council' to run the country. PM YS did say 'we can't discuss the election postponement' - That was before CC said the election could be postponed if both side agreed. She could not discuss the government's caretaker status before it was mandated according to Royal Decree and Constitution.

11. AV also accused during interview: "the government of majority doesn't attend Parliament, doesn't answer questions in the House, is not accountable, puts itself above the law and doesn't accept court verdicts." When did all these happen? It was the dem who walked out of parliament, threatened the speaker, physical assault in parliament and parliamentary hooliganism.

12. When did Yingluck government said people in areas who didn't vote for her would not get development or budget funds, or their projects were cancelled?

13 AV said "There is, but the prime minister has to take that first step of admitting that this election is getting us to nowhere, that there need to be talks, a postponement, and that she might have to step aside so that people have faith in a free and fair election." Why should the government do that? Free and fair election is the job of EC? Is he discrediting the EC again? Why can't he just join the election and at the same time make sure that it is free and fair like what PTP and all participating parties did?

14. Interviewer :What will you do if you return to lead the country?

AV replied : "I will have to push forward reform that is very much needed right now to get rid of corruption and move the country forward so that we can actually fulfil our economic potential." Did he push for reform when he was the leader of dem led government? Did he get rid of corruption during his term? What had he done to GET RID of corruption? Why he rejected reform initiatives when it was called months before his demand of house dissolution?

15. He talked about rule of law: He forgot that the administration and enforcement of rule of law equally without fear and favour are the responsibility of the courts and enforcement agencies - not street mobs and thugs. Not smear, misinformation and distortion campaigns. Not denigrating the people. Certainly not behavior like using fake document to avoid a mandatory military service, refusing to sign a bail condition like everyone has to.

In conclusion : He is trying to wriggle out of the mess he created for himself, the dem and Thailand using lies, misinformation, distortion and untruth.

Well Well .that took some dreaming up .you should write fantasy books or maybe manifestos for Poo Thai

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Instead of replying with a lame post, why not counter with arguments like intelligent people would?

[Gweiloman]

I noticed one thing with the Red Shirts supporter, is their failure to admit to the problem. Denial would be the word. They would rather patch up the system and keep on driving with it, hoping to reach the destination. But I must say, they are good at distraction techniques by bring out off the wall subject. Let's stick with the subject of YS administrative roles. The issue is their lack of accountability and responsibility for their actions. We can't solve the problem if we don't admit to it.

I noticed with most Thai people, that they seldom admit to the problem.

[ShannonT]

The election law that is in place right now is the one that Abhisit and Suthep signed during their time in office. It's not Puea Thai who made the laws but the Democrats.

And on top of that, why did he not make any reforms while he was PM? Or are reforms only necessary when you're not in office and once you're in power, you don't need them anymore?

And after blocking the streets of Bangkok for over 2 months, neither Abhisit or Suthep have a clear plan on what these "reforms" would be. Why not make a plan first? Because nobody can say we support you or we don't if they don't even know what your plans are.

WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, Mr. Abhisit?

Edited February 7, 2014 by ShannonT

[billd766]

At the moment Thailand has a spineless PM who can't link 5 words together in a coherent sentence without it being written down for her

.

She has already - in the testosterone charged world of Thai politics - become the country's first female prime minister, won two consecutive elections with record majorities, laughed off Suthep and his Big Bangkok Shutdown and prevented a coup. Not a bad list of achievements for someone with no previous experience of politics. Most professional politicians would envy a record like this.

Spineless.......well, that's what I'd call a politician who is so Absolutely Certain he will lose that he doesn't even bother to turn up. He probably learned that kind of craven submission in his first year at Eton.

She has not won any election at all. She became the countries first Prime minister because her brother told "his" PTP party that she would be, despite NIL political experience.

That was the first election as for the latest election, if she has in fact won it they why is she STILL the caretaker PM and not in full control of the country as her brother wishes.

As far as I am aware and probably the majority of Thailand the election is NOT over, ALL the votes have NOT yet been counted.

She prevented a coup? You must be joking. She appointed herself the Minister of Defence without even knowing where the building is. She has NO control over the military, the police or even her own party.

If you think that is not a bad list of achievements how about a PM who has brought Thailand to near bankruptcy, divided the country, has no idea of what is going on with the rice scheme, which she is the chairperson of, cannot pay the countries debts to its own citizens, is under investigation for corruption by the NACC ruining the reputation of the country on the way.

Do you think that is something to be proud of after 2 1/2 years of "service to the country"?

[rickirs]

Good interview. He is a wise man and made his points clear.

It will never happen under the current government but it would be interesting to see a public debate among the political leaders to exchange their opinions freely on any subjects they wish to discuss.

The brainwashed farmers should learn and realize the truth about the dictatorship and abuse of power. The farmers are not stupid but the government keeps them ignorant. It is time for them to wake up.

And that's why Suthep needs to prevent farmers from voting until they have been "re-eductated"? That they're barinwashed but not in the way that Suthep wants them to be? Sounds like Suthep wants to pursue re-education programs experienced by Cambodia and China under Mao. Obviously as far from democracy as one can get.