The way the military -- from Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsowon down to the Phramongkutklao Hospital and the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School (Afaps) -- has been handling the suspicious death of Pakapong Tanyakan, a freshman of the school, not only leaves much to be desired, but leaves the military establishment bruised.
Foremost of all, an insensitive remark made by Gen Prawit was deemed disrespectful to the deceased cadet. He said Pakapong might have died due to illness and not as a consequence of som -- military jargon for violent hazing.
While admitting he himself used to be subjected to the same kind of violence until he passed out, he suggested that those who were not willing to accept the military tradition of violent hazing or corporal punishment should not enrol in the first place.
Veera Prateepchaikul is a former editor, Bangkok Post.
It's no wonder Gen Prawit was bombarded with fierce criticism on social media for his provocative remark, to the extent that Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha had to come to his defence a day later, saying the deputy minister didn't mean what he said and he was not in a good mood after being pressed too hard by media questioning.
Again, the media were blamed for spoiling Gen Prawit's mood. But if he had heeded the proverbial saying "silence is golden", he would not have landed himself in such trouble.
The media could not force him to answer their every question and he could just walk away or wave them away as former prime minister Prem Tinsulanonda did many times in the past.
Why comment by saying the cadet died of an illness when the autopsy is not concluded yet? Amid a social media backlash, he was later forced to apologise.
As far as army-owned Phramongkutklao Hospital is concerned, it maintains it had the lawful right to keep the dead cadet's vital internal organs, such as his brain, stomach and heart, for further examination because the cadet died in unusual circumstances on the campus of the military academy.
It is true Thai law does not stipulate that keeping a dead person's organs without the permission of his or her family is a criminal offence.
But why didn't hospital staff have the decency and courage to tell the cadet's family of this fact when they handed the body back to the family?
Would the hospital have told the truth about the missing organs had the family had not found out by themselves when they took the body to a private hospital for a second autopsy?
Hence, suspicions linger about what the real motive might have been for keeping the vital organs without informing the family.
Supreme Commander Gen Thanchaiyan Srisuwan maintains the military hospital only kept small pieces of the vital organs and there was no thievery involved.
He was right that stealing human organs is not a criminal offence in Thai law, but wrong about the organs taken -- they were removed in their entirety, not just small pieces.
The Tanyakan family has now received the missing organs from Phramongkutklao Hospital and sent them to the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS) of the Justice Ministry for examination to find out the actual cause of their son's death. They do not believe Phramongkutklao Hospital's finding that he died from cardiac failure.
Hopefully, the CIFS will come up with an independent finding without any external interference.
The school has produced some selected CCTV footage taken at the school's medical unit on Oct 17 where Pakapong was receiving treatment prior to his collapse and subsequent death from sudden cardiac arrest as insisted by the school.
The footage was meant to show that Pakapong was not beaten up, and that his death was not caused by foul play.
But the footage didn't disprove the suggestion that the cadet was allegedly subjected to the brutal hazing prior to Oct 17.
According to the dead cadet's father, Mr Pichit, his son had been on the receiving end of such punishment since Aug 24 for defying a senior officer's order not to use a particular path on the campus.
He had been forced to assume a painful kind of headstand for hours on end, and as a result of this gruelling punishment, he was sent to the hospital for treatment.
Mr Pichet said, at first, he thought of filing a complaint with the police but changed his mind. Later on, he found out his son had again been subjected to similar treatment.
On Oct 16, he was informed by a friend of his son that Pakapong had been taken to the school's medical unit following another such punishment.
The school has not been transparent about Pakapong's case and no action was taken against the wrongdoers until the Tanyakan family went to the media to demand the truth and the return of their son's missing vital organs.
Several critics have drawn a parallel between Pakapong's case and the 1992 Hollywood movie, A Few Good Men, which features the court trial of a marine colonel accused of ordering a "code red" on a black marine conscript, resulting in his death.
Here is the most pertinent quote from Col Nathan R Jessup, played by Jack Nicholson, during his trial in the movie: "We live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You, Lt Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago [the dead marine] and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives."
Like Col Jessup, many of our military officers from the top brass down to the commissioned officers, appear to share a similar mindset: one where the armed forces occupy a walled world and their code of honour, loyalty and responsibility for the greater good outweighs consideration for the individual's welfare.
As we cry foul over Pakapong's death and the cruel corporal punishment he suffered, the military establishment will continue to think otherwise -- that institutionalised traditions, such as the so-called som, have saved lives and will to do so again in the future.
