People's assembly needed to reform country: academics
Play
A People's Assembly for National Reform is needed so the country can embark on a path of genuine political, economic and social reform, a group of academics said at a press conference at Thammasat University yesterday.
Ten academics condemned the Yingluck Shinawatra government for presiding over a system of “dictatorship by a capitalist political party under a parliamentary system”. But they noted that even if the opposition Democrat Party were returned to power, there might be little difference.
In a statement read by a representative of the group, they said the attempt by the ruling Pheu Thai Party to push through the blanket amnesty bill was the “last straw” and proof that the government did not listen to the voice of the people.
The academics, led by Banjerd Singkaneti, an assistant professor of law at Thammasat and a noted critic of fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, were vague on how to establish the people’s assembly but said it was possible if there were enough popular demand.
They said the government’s move to establish a national reform committee was a sham, as it was under political influence.
However, no one in the group, from at least four universities including the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), a stronghold of anti-Thaksin academics, had a plan on how to proceed.
Yotsak Kosaiyanon, an academic from Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, said he knew which was the lesser of the two evils.
“More evil than dictatorship through a military coup is parliamentary dictatorship,” he told reporters.
Yotsak criticised the Democrat Party too, without naming it, for allegedly claiming on an anti-government stage that the judiciary as well as academics and university students were weapons to unseat the Yingluck regime. He said academics were not tools of any side.
Saknarong Mongkot, another member of the group, asked if any political side was sincere about reform it would make Thailand democratic, more egalitarian and just. “Do the two political poles really want reform? Or are they actually afraid of reform?”
