Sisaket Rajabhat Law Journal

Some Considerations on Religious Derogation and Criminal Liability

2025-12-30T13:30:25+07:00

This article aims to examine religious disparagement and criminal liability under Sections 206 to 208 of the Criminal Code, including considerations concerning statutory interpretation in the adjudication of cases.

The findings indicate that the study of religious disparagement and criminal liability under Sections 206 to 208 of the Criminal Code remains subject to limitations in statutory interpretation, particularly in determining acts of insult or religious disparagement, which subsequently affect judicial consideration and adjudication of cases.

The author proposes the following recommendations: the interpretation of religious insult and disparagement should be broadened in order to enhance legal deterrence, and Supreme Court judgments should be primarily relied upon in determining liability for this offence, so as to establish consistent standards for future judicial adjudication.

Legal Measures for the Regulation and Oversight of Cooperatives

2025-12-30T13:16:06+07:00

This article aims to study the development of cooperatives in Thailand, to examine the laws related to cooperatives in Thailand, to analyze issues concerning the regulation and supervision of cooperatives in Thailand, and to propose guidelines for improving the regulation and supervision of cooperatives in Thailand.

The findings of the study reveal two key issues. First, there are problems related to the supervisory bodies responsible for cooperatives. These bodies include the Cooperative Promotion Department (CPD) and the Cooperative Auditing Department (CAD), both of which operate under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC). As a result, the operations of these two agencies lack effectiveness in supervising and regulating cooperatives. Second, there are problems concerning regulatory measures. Both the supervision of the establishment and the operation of cooperatives remain problematic, leading to ineffective oversight and the occurrence of corruption within cooperatives.

The researcher proposes the following recommendations. A separate regulatory body for cooperatives should be established, independent from the Cooperative Promotion Department (CPD) and the Cooperative Auditing Department (CAD), with the specific mandate to supervise and regulate cooperatives. This body could be modeled on the Office of Insurance Commission (OIC), which is responsible for regulating the insurance sector. The proposed organization may be named the “Office of the Cooperative Regulation and Promotion Commission (CRPC)”, and specific legislation on cooperative regulation should be enacted to ensure effective and efficient supervision.

Legal Measures Concerning Craft Beer Production under the Role of Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Production B.E. 2565 (2022)

2025-12-30T13:25:51+07:00

This article aims to study the development and characteristics of alcoholic beverages, including the characteristics of beer; to examine the legal measures governing the production of craft beer under the criteria and conditions prescribed by the Role of Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Production B.E. 2565 (2022); and to propose legal measures for the sustainable production of craft beer.

The findings reveal that the production of craft beer under the criteria and conditions prescribed by the Role of Ministerial Regulation on Liquor Production B.E. 2565 (2022) involves several problems. First, the law does not allow natural persons to apply for a license to produce craft beer for commercial distribution, thereby limiting opportunities for market competition and resulting in the monopolization of production by large manufacturers. Second, in applying for a license to distribute craft beer, the law does not require distributors to undergo training related to the sale of craft beer, despite this being a crucial issue for effective control over distribution. Third, the production license is valid for only three years, which is an insufficient period for craft beer production.

The researcher offers the following recommendations. Regarding the qualifications of producers, the law should be amended to allow natural persons to apply for a production license. With respect to licensing for distribution, the law should be revised to require applicants for a distribution license to undergo training on the sale of craft beer in accordance with the curriculum prescribed by the Excise Department, with such training to be undertaken every two years. Regarding the duration of the license, the law should be amended to extend the validity period of the license to five years.