Page 122 - kpi17968

111

decision was considered unfair and did not ally with the rule of
law.

From this situation, we can understand that both parties
were calling for the act in accordance with the rule of law. The
problem, probably the first and foremost challenge for rule of law
in Thailand, is the mutual understanding of the meaning, the true
meaning of the rule of law.

From those contexts, maybe we should take a look again at
the definition of the rule of law I had mentioned earlier. And,
from that, we can try to identify where we are in the scale.

First, law must come from a rightful source and has to be
publicly promulgated. It also implies the idea of public
participation and decision making which means that the law must
come from the people. The point to be discussed here is what the
rightful source is.

For Thailand, even though we can speak without reservation
that law passes through legislation process where representatives
who are elected by people presided and supervised by the Senate,
which might come from election or appointment or the system.
On the surface, we can see that the law comes from the rightful
source. But when we take a closer look into that system, you will
see there are often some flaws, as long as money can buy votes and
the weak appointing process exists to filter a certain group of
people into the positions.

Then, what do we get? I suppose it might be hard to say
that the formation comprised of the true representatives of
majority of the people. That, being said, even if the law passes
legally through the process, they could have hardly considered to
be in accordance with the rule of law. And, as a result, law has
favored certain groups of people. To go about fixing this and
making sure that the constitution addresses the rightful source of
law is the first challenge.

Second, law must be in accordance with human rights and
international standard. Working in the area of criminal justice as

การอภิปรายรวมระหวางผูแทนจากตางประเทศ