The death of military cadet Pakapong Tanyakan that allegedly involved disciplinary measures imposed by a senior student should have prompted the government to review and reveal the military's culture of brutal hazing. Such severe forms of discipline and excessive corporal punishment that lead to fatalities should not be legal anywhere, even in the barracks.
But the prime minister and his deputy did just the opposite this week in their concerted effort to convince the nation not just to tolerate this kind of behaviour, but to embrace it.
Pakapong died on Oct 17 while at the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School. His family remains suspicious about the stated cause of his death even though they were told by the army-run Phramongkutklao Hospital that he died of cardiac arrest, while the school he fainted earlier that day.
During Pakapong's first six months at the school, his father said he was told by his son and the young man's friend that Pakapong was subjected to harsh punishment on at least two occasions. The second time he allegedly lost consciousness and later died.
The country's two top generals, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon, did not seem to be appalled by the case, even if it may have been caused by severe physical punishment. They suggested that subjecting cadets and army recruits to corporal punishment or excessive discipline is common, insisting they also went through it during their years at the school.
Everyone knows the military needs to build discipline to ensure compliance to orders and boost loyalty to the forces and the mission. But there must be a limit and that limit stops short of putting lives at risk.
The military needs to clarify how its culture of discipline and punishment works. The public deserves to know whether these norms, praised by the premier and his deputy, are safe, humane and acceptable or whether they constitute a form of torture.
If such practices are proved inhumane, and alternatives are proposed to cement bonds of discipline among military personnel, the army needs to review and change its policy.
Beyond the "common norms" of discipline and punishment is the issue of who is authorised to carry it out. Pakapong was allegedly disciplined by a third-year student who ordered him to perform "kangaroo" jumps, which involve placing one's head on the floor and hopping on alternate legs.
Students of high school age should arguably not be allowed to mete out such kinds of physical punishment, especially when not properly supervised and especially if it creates a window of opportunity for sanctioned bullying. They lack the maturity to understand the difference between yelling at someone to instil discipline and torturing them. It therefore paves the way for brutality.
During the past few years there have been numerous cases of army conscripts being subjected to harsh and inhumane discipline and punishment at the hands of low-ranking officers. Leaked video clips demonstrate how savage their acts can be. A number of the victims died.
As the army is conducting a probe into Pakapong's death, few are optimistic it will unearth the facts behind his death or hold the wrongdoers to account.
The army has taken the issue of brutal hazing too lightly. Most of the probes were carried out by its panels and the verdicts handed down by military courts. But the culprits were subjected to only light disciplinary action. This has enabled a culture of impunity to abound throughout the barracks, rather than discouraging cadets or troops from assaulting and attacking their fellow soldiers.
Many lives could have been saved if the army had cracked down on the more extreme forms of corporal punishment and brought the wrongdoers to justice. Gen Prayut and Gen Prawit may have survived being hazed. But they should have learned there are better ways to build a formidable army. They must not let this continue unchecked.