Prayut defends military punishment
PM says disciplining of cadets is ‘not torture’
Excessive military punishment has come under heavy criticism in the wake of the mysterious death of a cadet while Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has defended military cadet training standards.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also says that harsh disciplining of cadets could constitute an act of torture if the draft anti-torture law comes into effect.
Speaking to reporters yesterday, Gen Prayut said Supreme Commander Thanchaiyan Srisuwan would meet for talks the family of Pakapong “Moei’’ Tanyakan whose cadaver was later found to be missing organs including his brain.
Asked about public concern over military discipline for cadet training, he said the public should not be worried. “Don’t worry. Nobody wants any losses or injuries,” he said.
The prime minister also said he was disciplined when he studied at the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School.
“What’s wrong with it? I went through it all.”
Maintaining discipline to train and hold military personnel to high standards of both conduct and performance is common at other foreign military institutes, Gen Prayut added.
Angkhana Neelapaijit, a National Human Rights Commission member, said disciplining military personnel and cadets could be deemed as an act of torture if the draft anti-torture and anti-disappearance law is introduced.
Once the legislation is enacted, it will criminalise all forms of physical and mental torture, Ms Angkhana said, adding that a system of excessive military discipline would violate the law.
“If the government wants to make human rights a national priority, it should revamp this military disciplinary system,” she said.
Lt Gen Nathaphol Boon-ngam, spokesman for the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters said yesterday Gen Thanchaiyan had appointed ACM Chawarat Marungruang, deputy head of the joint chiefs of staff, to head an inquiry panel to look into the cause of the death of Pakapong.
The panel will examine in detail medical information relating to the cause of the cadet’s death, and investigate allegations that Pakapong was excessively punished.
The military academy has strict regulations on disciplining cadets and anyone who violates the rules will be punished, Lt Gen Nathaphol said.
Pakapong’s family yesterday collected his internal organs from army-owned Phramongkutklao Hospital and took them to the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) under the Justice Ministry for a further autopsy to determine the cause of his death.
The family secretly removed Pakapong’s body during his funeral rites as they did not believe he died of cardiac arrest as claimed by Phramongkutklao Hospital, which conducted the initial autopsy after his death.
The family brought Pakapong’s body for a second autopsy and found that his heart, brain, liver, lung and intestines were missing.
The hospital said later it removed the internal organs for further autopsy and returned them to the family yesterday to take to the CIFS which has stepped into conduct the fresh autopsy.
Som Promros, the CIFS director, said pathologists at the CIFS will check DNA from the organs to see if they match the body of the dead cadet.
Mr Som said the CIFS has contacted doctors from three hospitals — Siriraj Hospital, Chulalongkorn Hospital and Ramathibodi Hospital — to work with the CIFS to determine the cause of death.
Mr Som said the autopsy will be completed in seven days.
According to Mr Som, the family’s letter requesting the autopsy was sent to the CIFS on Oct 25 and it started on Nov 1.
Dr Panjai Woharndee, a CIFS official, said on Wednesday removing organs for a detailed examination without asking the family’s permission is neither illegal nor unethical.
She said there are no standard rules on the matter, while noting that DNA testing can prove if the returned organs belonged to the cadet.
According to the family, the death certificate indicates their son died of acute heart failure but provided no details.
Their suspicions intensified after the CIFS team found some organs under the chest and abdomen and the brain had been removed.
On Tuesday, the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School said the organs were taken out to conclusively determine the cause of the cadet’s death.
‘Again?” I believe that is the question asked by many over the death of a firstyear student of the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School (Afaps) as public mistrust of the military’s training and disciplinary methods grows.
The death of military cadet Pakapong Tanyakan, 18, captured the public’s attention after the army returned the young man’s body to his family with some of the body parts missing, and appeared to offer a less than complete explanation for his death.
The young man died at school on Oct 17. The academy provided his parents with a death certificate with an initial autopsy result indicating he died of sudden cardiac arrest. His family, however, was not convinced, because Pakapong was a healthy young man. They suspect he might have been beaten by his superiors at the camp and that this may have contributed to his death.
The story unfolded like the plot of a crime movie. On Monday, the family revealed they burned an empty coffin at his funeral rites after quietly taking Pakapong’s body for a second autopsy at a private centre.
They were shocked to find out some of his internal organs including his brain, heart, stomach and bladder had been removed from the body. Four ribs were broken and his abdomen was bruised. The Institute of Pathology at the armyowned Phramongkutklao Hospital said it removed Pakapong’s organs for a more complete autopsy to address his family’s concerns over his cause of death remaining unclear. They had not been returned to his body when it was handed over for the religious rites.
Afaps director Maj Gen Kanokpong Channual insisted the army’s probe shows Pakapong fainted and died without suffering any physical assault. He admitted Pakapong was punished by his superiors a couple of months ago for breaking the rules, but insisted there was no violence involved. However, the unclear circumstances of his death have inflamed public anger towards the army. They also raise questions whether the army’s corporal punishment norms are excessive.
This is not the first time that the military has used what is suspected to be excessive violence in disciplining young recruits. Previously, military conscripts are known to have died or have been brutally assaulted during training.
Two cases have emerged this year alone. The first concerns the death of 21-year-old Pvt Noppadol Worakitpan who was attached to the 45th Military Circle in Surat Thani. He died at home after returning from barracks on Aug 19. Fellow conscripts told his sister he was physically punished prior to coming home.
An autopsy report shows his heart and spleen were fractured, with bleeding in the chest and lungs apparently as a result of being crushed. But the army said it conducted a “careful and thorough investigation” which concluded that no assault occurred.
The other case concerns the death of 22-year-old Pvt Yutthakinun Boonniam. He died at Surat Thani Hospital on April 1 after being detained at the 45th Military Circle’s camp for two days as disciplinary punishment.
The Surat Thani military court later issued arrest warrants for nine suspects, all low-ranking army officers. A leaked investigation paper revealed a higherranking officer may have been aware of the violence but did not try to stop it. There is no conclusion at this stage.
Whenever violence takes place in the barracks, the military usually treats it as an “internal issue”. The army often sets up its own committee to investigate or uses its own bodies, such as military courts, which do not disclose information to the public. This repeated resort to violence has something to do with the military’s traditional mindset. With Pvt Noppadol’s death, some army officers remarked on social media, saying “discipline must be preserved” because “sometimes juniors may not obey their seniors”.
This was similar to the response on Wednesday by Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon about Pakapong’s death. He said he himself experienced tough disciplinary punishment in his day, but added that alleged violence in the military “has nothing to do with human rights violations”. Students who are concerned about it, he said, “shouldn’t come to the army academy”. He seemed to suggest that any kind of savage act would be acceptable for the sake of discipline.
The unexplained deaths of young recruits in the military shows the armed forces believe they can operate under their own rules. Yet its attempts to shield itself from scrutiny will only sow public distrust.