Old soldiers never die, only young conscripts do, says a post being circulated online.
This wry reproach emerged after Private Kacha Pacha, attached to an infantry battalion in Lop Buri, suffered a cardiac arrest and fell into a coma after allegedly being beaten by three senior conscripts during a corporal punishment session.
Atiya Achakulwisut is a columnist, Bangkok Post.
As is evident in the post online, some members of the public want the case of Pvt Kacha to be a wake-up call for the military to review its handling of conscripts, if not the entire culture which is viewed as being far from perfect.
Considering how the case has proceeded, however, it appears more likely that Pvt Kacha could end up as yet more collateral damage. Injuries like his, even deaths of low-ranking soldiers, may be regrettable but unavoidable if the military's might is to be shored up.
Although the three senior conscripts reportedly confessed to their superiors that they assaulted Pvt Kacha as part of the punishment, army chief Gen Chalermchai Sitthisad initially denied it. He said as far as he knew, Pvt Kacha was injured in a fight with other conscripts, not during a disciplinary session.
The army chief also insisted that these notorious disciplinary sessions, which have caused at least one death a year inside the barracks since 2007 according to the Prachatai news outlet, are no longer practised in the military.
He said some rogue soldiers may still claim they are administering punishment when engaged in a conflict or physical fight with others in the camp and vowed to pursue both disciplinary criminal action against any soldiers found to have violated the rule.
The army chief would have sounded great if his words were corroborated by reality.
According to news reports, the three senior conscripts confessed to Pvt Kacha's family that they did assault him during the so-called "disciplinary session". There was no mention of a conflict or physical fight as claimed by the army chief. The victim's family already filed a criminal complaint with the police who are in the process of summoning the three senior conscripts for questioning.
What is troubling is that the army chief not only got the basic facts wrong but also asserted that there is no physical punishment -- abuse or torture -- of conscripts or military cadets any more.
If the military has a policy against corporal punishment or disciplinary sessions involving physical assaults, how could new cases surface every year? As reported by Prachatai, 14 military officers, cadets or conscripts have died in barracks since 2007, eight of which could have been due to torture or disciplinary punishment.
If the army chief insists that there is a policy against this, then there must be a gap when it comes to practice. Is it possible nobody in the military cares about the rules? Is it possible that even though corporal punishment is not part of the army's discipline the practice has become ingrained in its macho culture and is allowed to go on informally? Is it possible physical assault is condoned because it is believed to serve a purpose, such as toughening up the young recruits? Is somebody turning a blind eye?
If the army was serious about its policy against corporal punishment, deaths or injuries related to the practice should have stopped. That they keep recurring should indicate something is not right.
The death or serious injury of conscripts under the military's care should never be taken as a unique incident or exception to the rule. It should be treated very seriously as the symptom of a rule that is not airtight. And for the army, any army, it should be unacceptable for its rules to be anything but fail-proof.
But like other gargantuan, traditional establishments in Thai society, the army has become so entrenched in its own traditions, and certain interests probably, it can't bring in enough new ideas and changes to keep abreast with a modern society where warfare is a distant possibility.
The top brass are often disdainful when people question why Thailand still needs to support massive military forces along with their exorbitant budgets or debate whether compulsory military conscription should be done away with.
These questions are hard-hitting but necessary if the military is to be made accountable to the general public. Cases like Pvt Kacha's, or that of Lahu activist Chaiyaphum Pasae who was allegedly shot dead by a soldier, must stop being taken as collateral damage. They are no aberrations but tangible signs of flaws in the system. And they should be fixed before the entire institution comes crashing down.