"Rome" reveals that the Legal Committee found multiple irregularities in the "Nong Mae" case and plans to summon additional inquiries, highlighting that the police ruling of "not disgraceful" conflicts with common sense.,
On 23 July 2026, during a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Law, Justice, and Human Rights chaired by Rangsit Rome, a party-list MP from the Prachachon Party, complaints were reviewed regarding the legal procedures carried out by state officials in the case of military cadet Pakapong Tanyakarn, known as Nong Mae, who died from disciplinary punishment. The meeting also addressed legal measures for disciplining and ethically sanctioning perpetrators and protecting the rights of victims. The complainant was Sukanya Tanyakarn, mother of the deceased.
Rangsit Rome stated that the meeting could not yet reach a full conclusion but noted several suspicious points. For example, when the mother filed a complaint at Phayathai Police Station, the military prosecutor ordered a dismissal of charges and returned the case to Phayathai Police in December 2025. However, a notification letter from Phayathai Police in July bore a signature that was not the deceased’s mother’s, who had filed the complaint.
Another issue concerns facts held by Ban Na Police Station. The police chief there could not answer questions, possibly because he was not involved in the case. However, Rangsit suggested that this might be irrelevant because the facts should align with the documents. Given the severity of the incident, the apparent lack of serious police action seems inappropriate.
Regarding police officer qualifications, although the court sentenced an officer to four months imprisonment with a suspended sentence, it was unclear whether actual imprisonment was required. Rangsit plans to call another meeting to clarify this matter further.
Concerning the case against two cadets and a doctor at Ban Na Police Station, which was dismissed, further factual clarification from the military court’s code of conduct is needed. To date, clear reasons for the incident remain unavailable.
Rangsit said that all matters appear suspicious, but the most shocking was the police committee’s ruling that the officer sentenced by the military court was "not disgraceful." He emphasized that physical abuse cannot be interpreted as such and that this ruling contradicts common sense. Legally, the issue requires further review, especially since the military court’s guilty verdict and sentence might be sufficient grounds to reconsider the officer’s qualifications.
The committee plans further meetings to gather more facts. Rangsit believes most facts have been considered, with only some remaining, so more time will be needed before the committee can decide on further actions.
Today, it must be acknowledged that the issue of missing organs is strange, especially since the deceased’s family was not informed. Rangsit said he himself would find such a situation unacceptable.
Also, questions remain about the presence or absence of the bladder, with the forensic institute apparently unaware. Considering evidence from both sides, suspicious elements exist, but a fair hearing is necessary to determine whether errors in the process were procedural or intentional.
In the Phayathai Police case where a doctor at Phramongkutklao Hospital was not prosecuted, full facts remain unknown. It appears that Phayathai Police and possibly the military prosecutor relied on the Medical Council’s information, though the exact questions posed to the council are unclear, making it difficult to assess their answers. This issue will be reviewed again.
Regarding observations about the inquiry committee involving Police General Kornchai Klaiklueng, Rangsit noted the oddity that the ruling declared the officer "not disgraceful" and that explanations indicated case-by-case consideration. Ideally, a standard, anonymized approach based on facts should be applied, so similar behavior is judged consistently.
The problem is that it remains unclear whether individual cases were reviewed with knowledge of identities, which raises doubts. Therefore, a ruling of "not disgraceful" without sufficient reasoning or weight to counter facts established by the court is difficult to accept or agree with.