Pongmanut Deeod

Background Thailand has formally committed to inclusive education for three decades, yet its schools continue to fall short of the transformative vision set out in the Salamanca Statement. Existing explanations attribute this gap to implementation failure insufficient resources, weak enforcement, or inadequate training. Implementation factors alone do not sufficiently explain this persistence, which also reflects a paradigm misalignment between Thailand’s welfare-oriented policy architecture and the rights-based model of disability underpinning international inclusive education norms. Methods The analysis integrates policy paradigm theory, the rights-based model of disability under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Universal Design for Learning as a combined analytical framework. Thai legal instruments enacted since 1999, together with the empirical literature on their implementation, are synthesised to trace the depth of policy change achieved and to identify the structural conditions that have constrained it. Results Legislative reform since 1999 has produced first- and second-order change new instruments, budget allocations, and support services without disturbing the single-standard logic that continues to organise curriculum, assessment, and teacher practice. Four interlocking structural conditions sustain this misalignment: a school system built around the average learner, a charity-oriented framing of disability, a standardised assessment regime, and a teacher role confined to curriculum implementation rather than learning design. The analysis proposes a theoretical mechanism, termed the “moral trap,” describing how a culturally legitimised charity ethic absorbs rights-based reform and shields the existing paradigm from structural challenge even after formal legal transformation. Conclusions Building on these findings, the article proposes a Universal Design for Learning-Based Paradigm Realignment Framework, together with a four-question diagnostic tool, as a pathway toward third-order change that is potentially compatible with, rather than disruptive of, Thailand’s existing administrative structure across curriculum, assessment, and teacher professional development one that does not require dismantling Thailand’s centralised bureaucratic structure.

Background Thailand has formally committed to inclusive education for three decades, yet its schools continue to fall short of the transformative vision set out in the Salamanca Statement. Existing explanations attribute this gap to implementation failure insufficient resources, weak enforcement, or inadequate training. This article argues instead that the persistent gap reflects a paradigm misalignment between Thailand’s welfare-oriented policy architecture and the rights-based model of disability underpinning international inclusive education norms. Methods The analysis integrates policy paradigm theory, the rights-based model of disability under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Universal Design for Learning as a combined analytical framework. Thai legal instruments enacted since 1999, together with the empirical literature on their implementation, are synthesised to trace the depth of policy change achieved and to identify the structural conditions that have constrained it. Results Legislative reform since 1999 has produced first- and second-order change new instruments, budget allocations, and support services without disturbing the single-standard logic that continues to organise curriculum, assessment, and teacher practice. Four interlocking structural conditions sustain this misalignment: a school system built around the average learner, a charity-oriented framing of disability, a standardised assessment regime, and a teacher role confined to curriculum implementation rather than learning design. The analysis proposes a theoretical mechanism, termed the “moral trap,” describing how a culturally legitimised charity ethic absorbs rights-based reform and shields the existing paradigm from structural challenge even after formal legal transformation. Conclusions Building on these findings, the article proposes a Universal Design for Learning-Based Paradigm Realignment Framework, together with a four-question diagnostic tool, as a politically feasible pathway toward third-order change across curriculum, assessment, and teacher professional development one that does not require dismantling Thailand’s centralised bureaucratic structure.

Inroduction: This study examines the presence and persistence of security-affiliated directors individuals with prior service in the Royal Thai Armed Forces or Royal Thai Police on corporate boards of firms listed on Thailand’s capital market. Grounded in institutional theory and path dependence, the study tests whether such appointments reflect political patronage or institutionally embedded network structures, offering the first population-level empirical test of this question in an emerging-market democracy. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of all 924 listed firms on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) and the Market for Alternative Investment (mai) in 2026 was conducted, together with a panel analysis of 255 firms observed in 2021 and 2026. Results: Security-affiliated directors are systematically present across the market, with 19.5% of listed firms maintaining at least one such director. Their presence is significantly concentrated in resource-intensive and state-regulated sectors, is distributed evenly across large and small firms, and, most importantly, shows no statistically significant net change following Thailand’s transition from a military-influenced to a civilian government. Discussion: This pattern is consistent with an institutional rather than a patronage-based account of military business relations: security-affiliated board networks in Thailand appear structurally embedded and stable across political cycles rather than contingent on political protection. The study’s novelty lies in combining a full-market census with a repeated-measures test of institutional persistence across a major political transition, a design not previously applied to military business networks in Southeast Asia. These findings carry implications for corporate governance reform in emerging-market democracies.

Violence against healthcare workers poses a serious global threat to both individual safety and institutional integrity. Yet, many legal systems still rely on general criminal statutes that fail to address the specific vulnerabilities of healthcare settings. This study employs a comparative legal analysis, integrating normative philosophical frameworks—specifically consequentialism and retributivism—to evaluate how seven jurisdictions (Canada, India, Oklahoma–USA, England, Thailand, Bangladesh, and China) respond to healthcare violence. Findings show that jurisdictions with healthcare-specific legislation, such as Canada, China, and England, more effectively align legal sanctions with deterrence, institutional resilience, and moral accountability. In contrast, countries relying solely on general criminal law, such as Thailand and Bangladesh, provide limited normative clarity and protection. Intermediate models, such as India and Oklahoma, offer context-specific responses but lack comprehensive continuity. Synthesizing these insights, the study proposes a unified legal framework grounded in legal specificity, proportionality, and a balanced normative rationale. The model contributes to ethical discourse, informs legal reform, and supports Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3, 8, and 16. By bridging comparative law and moral philosophy, this study provides actionable strategies to safeguard healthcare workers and strengthen justice within health systems.

Violence in hospital emergency rooms (ERs) presents serious risks to patient safety and healthcare workers. While prior research has focused on organizatio