Thailand’s Mass Shooting and the Military’s Ugly Underbelly

Members of the Royal Thai Military gathering before Gen. Robert Brown, U.S Army Pacific Commanding General and Gen. Apirat Kongsompong, Commander-in-Chief in Bangkok, Thailand on September 12, 2019. Photo from U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.

In Thailand, operations within the military have always retained a level of opacity, as well as a threatening aura that discourages investigation. The military has a unique place in the country’s political structure, where it can turn away prying eyes by using its powerful connections. Thailand’s military controls the Internal Security Operations Command, which is the government agency in charge of protecting national security through the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Department of Special Investigation. Both of these organizations handle cases of misconduct that may implicate high-ranking government officials. But this conflation of entities has resulted in a military that answers to no one but itself, a fact which has turned out to have terrifying repercussions.

Earlier this month, Amnesty International published a report on the maltreatment Thai commanders routinely inflict upon military conscripts, providing insight on the deep-rooted culture of abuse in the military that has still remained unchecked. Researchers interviewed 26 former and current officers who described various punishments like beatings and sexual abuse that were so common that they appeared to be the norm. This “open secret” has always been left unaddressed due to the military’s vast influence. However, in February, a crisis finally forced the military to acknowledge its failings when Jakrapanth Thomma, a soldier in the Royal Thai Army, shot and killed his commanding officer and the commanding officer’s mother-in-law, bringing the horrific truths about the military institution into light.

On the afternoon of February 8, 2020, Jakrapanth was talking to his commanding officer, Colonel Anantharot Krasae, and the officer’s mother-in-law, Anong Mitrchan, about a property deal. Unfortunately, sustained tensions over their deal broke out in violence and Jakrapanth ultimately shot them both in a frenzy. Jakrapanth then abandoned his first two victims and went on a rampage, shooting passersby and holding civilians hostage in a shopping mall before the authorities managed to shoot and kill him in the early morning. His rampage, which ended in 29 people dead and 58 injured, is the worst mass shooting Thailand has ever seen.

The mass shooting dredged up the unspoken discontent the public felt towards the military. In the following days, scathing comments about the army flooded Thailand’s social media. Several days later, Apirat Kongsompong, commander in chief of the Royal Thai Army, delivered a statement in tears that addressed the shooting. Apirat also addressed the backlash, pleading the public not to blame the army for what had happened.

“The army is a sacred institution whose purpose is to maintain stability within the nation,” he said, “there are soldiers who are hard at work, risking their lives to protect the country’s sovereignty. There are good people in the army who make sacrifices and work hard for the sake of the people, and they do not deserve this kind of criticism.” Apirat said that he alone, as chief of the Royal Thai Army, took full responsibility for the event. He then moved off to the side and proceeded to wipe at his eyes with a handkerchief.

 However, his speech turned into fuel for another social media bashing. Comments on videos of his speech objected to the narrative he presented, which seemed to divert attention from the real systemic problems within the military. This criticism was strong despite the commander’s announcement that he was beginning efforts to create a new administrative body that would provide officers with a channel through which they could file complaints about mistreatment anonymously. Although his proposal seemed to have merit, what kept the public unimpressed might have been the prelude to his speech, which reflected a worrying attitude he seemed to hold towards the tragedy. The commander may have shot himself in the foot when he began his public address by renouncing the late Jakrapanth’s status as a member of the army. He said that while Jakrapanth had been a military officer, “the minute he held a weapon against the civilians he had a duty to protect, was the minute he relinquished his title as a soldier of the Royal Thai Army and became a criminal.”

Regardless of Apirat’s intent, Thai citizens took these words as an attempt to create distance between Jakrapanth and the army, to remove the institution from blame in order to place it squarely on Jakrapanth as an individual. Since the commander in chief is the highest ranking officer of the Royal Thai Army and the embodiment of the military institution itself, his subtle move to renounce Jakrapanth’s ties to the military was seen as another display of power — a showcase of the military’s ability to brush away accusation. The events that had unfolded had complex implications. Jakrapanth’s actions were a product of his own will, so he should not be cast as merely a victim of abuse, but his motives brought into light a systemic problem that might have otherwise remained unaddressed.

Investigations into Jakrapanth’s case have confirmed that he was being mistreated by his superiors. Anong Mitrchan, his superior officer’s mother-in-law, had sold Jakrapanth a house, but refused to return a deposit he was supposed to get back. The deal Jakrapanth had brokered with Anong apparently took advantage of him. His posts on Facebook — which he kept updating even as he prowled the shopping mall with a gun — suggest that his anguish over being cheated had triggered his sudden violence. While authorities eventually managed to take down his Facebook account, observers were given a chilling window into Jakrapanth’s thoughts as he prowled through the shopping mall with his gun. His posts started off as angry comments about his superior officer and his mother-in-law, and then slowly developed a quality of hopelessness as his time of death approached.

In an effort to provide a better image of Jakrapanth as an individual, a news outlet in Thailand published a sad narrative of Jakrapanth’s situation before his crimes. Sources close to Jakrapanth revealed that he had cared a great deal about the house, and was looking forward to moving in. A construction worker who was working on the house said that Jakrapanth often came to oversee progress and take pictures. Jakrapanth had apparently visited every day to water his garden, and would stay over on the weekends. He had seemed “perfectly normal” to the construction worker, and had never said anything about problems regarding the property deal.

A new channel for complaints in the military could provide people like Jakrapanth with a means to air their distress. Ever since coverage about the shooting erupted in the media, there has been more effort than ever from the military to introduce solutions to the problems that have long plagued the military. The property deal was an example of an operation that screamed of possible abuse of authority, and Jakrapanth’s case pushed the military to purge similar businesses that army officials and their relatives had been conducting on the side. A reporter, during a session that Apirat had opened for questions, asked him why the military was pursuing this line of action only retroactively and had to wait for the tragedy to happen before taking action against the long-existing problem. The commander in chief, however, shied away from giving a direct answer.

The military institution in Thailand has a special place in politics. Military coups happen often enough that the people see its intervention as natural and sometimes necessary. Whether or not this intervention is harmful is another discussion entirely, but the fact that military affairs are so entrenched in Thailand’s political system is irrefutable. The military, as Apirat stated, sees itself as a sacred institution, and it has attempted to maintain this sanctity through a façade of infallibility, which has led to unaddressed concerns about its inner workings. Regretfully, if the shooting had not happened and had not taken so many lives, it seems that the military would have gone on without any reform. Jakrapanth’s case will hopefully be a powerful lesson to the military that there are consequences to intransparency, and that the victims of the flawed system could be anyone, not just members of the military institution.

Kris Jenvaiyavasjamai is a sophomore at Columbia College studying Economics and Political Science. She is from Bangkok, Thailand, and can be found in restaurants trying to add chili powder to everything.