Outrage as Cadets Who Killed Fellow Student Escape Jail Time
In a verdict that has stirred widespread outrage, the Supreme Military Court of Thailand has issued its final ruling in the 2017 death of army cadet Phakaphong “Mei” Tanyakan. The two senior cadets responsible for beating him—identified only as Pipat and Phumipat—received sentences of four months and 16 days in prison, alongside a fine of 15,000 baht each. However, the court suspended the prison terms for two years, citing their clean criminal records and potential to “serve the country.”
The case has drawn significant public scrutiny due to the brutal nature of the incident and the perceived leniency of the military court system. Cadet Phakaphong died on October 17, 2017, at the Armed Forces Preparatory School. His death followed a disciplinary beating administered by the two senior cadets. While early reports were shrouded in secrecy, the public learned over time that he had been subjected to physical abuse that led directly to his death.
The victim’s family, disillusioned by the official narrative, pushed for legal action. They filed lawsuits against the two senior cadets for assault leading to death and against one instructor, 2nd Lt Piyapong, for negligence. Despite the gravity of the incident, the instructor was never indicted, and prosecutors dismissed several charges due to a supposed lack of eyewitnesses.
Military courts handled the case from the beginning, due to the defendants’ status as military personnel and the location of the incident. After years of legal proceedings, the final ruling still leaves the family—and the public—deeply unsatisfied.
Speaking after the verdict, Phakaphong’s mother, Mrs. Sukanya, expressed bitter disappointment. “If it were an ordinary student or civilian, we might be able to understand. But these were cadets in command positions, individuals expected to uphold the law,” she said. “And yet, they were the ones who broke it.”
She questioned whether individuals who committed such acts could ever truly serve the country honorably. “How can we trust government officials who behave in this way to carry out their duties for the benefit of the nation?”
One of the most painful elements for the Tanyakan family has been the complete lack of remorse shown by the perpetrators. “Not once have they come forward to apologize,” Mrs. Sukanya added.
The military court justified the suspended sentences by saying that keeping the defendants out of prison would be more beneficial to the nation. Critics, however, argue that such reasoning sets a dangerous precedent, undermining both military discipline and public faith in the justice system.
As the case concludes, many observers are left asking whether justice was truly served—or if military privilege once again trumped accountability.
