The army recently announced that a total of 848 personnel were affected by the clashes along the Thai-Cambodian border in the "Sattawat Operation" (Century Operation) last December. This includes 27 killed, 10 permanently disabled, 69 severely injured, 148 seriously injured, and 594 slightly injured. The army has submitted requests for compensation and military funds according to the Cabinet resolution of December 30 of last year for all groups, and approximately 80% of the process has been completed.
On May 12, 2026, the Cabinet approved compensation for 91 affected personnel totaling 452 million baht. For the army alone, 83 personnel received a total of 419.85 million baht. Currently, the Army Comptroller's Office is in the process of disbursing the budget with the Budget Bureau of the Prime Minister's Office, with payment expected by June.
Additionally, the army has provided care for the families of deceased personnel, including the recruitment of heirs to replace them in service, according to established criteria, to help provide security for the families of those who sacrificed. For the "Bodintr Operation" in July 2025, 15 personnel who met the criteria died. So far, 13 heirs have been placed in positions, with orders already issued, and one case is pending approval because the heir is still studying.
For the "Sattawat Operation" in December 2025, 26 personnel who met the criteria died. Currently, 10 have been approved for placement, with orders issued for 7, and 3 are in process. Meanwhile, 11 cases have requested to reserve the position because the heir is still studying, and 5 have either taken rights from other agencies, waived rights, or did not meet the criteria.
Such statements sound good, making it seem that the soldiers who died or were injured in battle are well taken care of, even if a bit slow, but the army will not abandon them. However, this progress in compensation came after earlier news that some families of brave heroes had not yet received the 10 million baht compensation promised by the government, and they did not dare to ask because they are poor and low-status. This leads to further reflection: Have those brave soldiers truly received appropriate compensation, and what should the system or approach for rewarding those who sacrificed be?
Nevertheless, aside from the losses suffered by personnel on duty in the southern border provinces, the Thai army has not frequently faced wars before the clashes along the Thai-Cambodian border. Therefore, there were no clear criteria and guidelines for compensation. The multi-million baht compensation per person after the clashes with Cambodia was a special measure approved by the government for political reasons more than anything else. But it is appropriate for the public to consider the criteria and guidelines for this matter as follows.
First, are the compensation criteria fair and consistent with the level of loss? According to the army's statement, the army seems to have criteria for considering those eligible for compensation in several categories: death, permanent disability, severe injury, serious injury, and slight injury. Although the army has criteria based on medical principles, such as permanent disability meaning permanent loss of physical capacity to continue military service, further questions arise: Are the criteria for grading injuries transparent? Can affected individuals appeal the assessment? Do personnel from all branches and ranks receive equal rights? Are conscripts and professional soldiers treated differently beyond what is reasonable? These questions are important because what society outside the military often hears is that high-ranking officers receive more, while subordinates, especially privates, receive less—a issue that frequently undermines morale.
Second, is the compensation amount appropriate for the loss? Considering only the total budget allocated by the government may not be sufficient or fair. If we look at details, for example: If a junior officer's family loses their breadwinner, how many days will the compensation last? If someone is disabled and requires lifelong care, will that lump sum be enough? Is there a monthly allowance or is it only a one-time payment? Has inflation and the cost of living been taken into account? Perhaps the army should consider a special livelihood system for those disabled from combat instead of a large one-time payment, because people who lose a leg, lose their sight, or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may suffer for their entire lives.
Third, rehabilitation for the disabled and post-combat careers. According to the army's statement, the number of disabled from the recent clashes is 10, which may not seem large, but this is the group the state must take responsibility for the longest. Are there devices such as prosthetic limbs or assistive technologies that require ongoing costs? If long-term treatment is needed, what will be done? Do they have opportunities to return to service in new positions or receive vocational training? Many countries use the concept of transforming warriors into experts, trainers, or civilian personnel in the security system, rather than releasing them from service with no future.
Fourth, the policy of taking care of the families of soldiers who sacrificed their lives by recruiting heirs or relatives into government service should be thoroughly reviewed, as it may raise issues of suitability for the mission. Modern armies need personnel suitable for increasingly complex missions, especially those related to cyber, drones, artificial intelligence, languages, and intelligence. Automatically recruiting heirs, even if in small numbers, may create a tradition of entering the military bureaucratic system without competing based on ability, which contradicts the approach of building a professional army based on knowledge and competence. The sacrifice of brave parents should not be converted into an exception to the organization's professional standards.
Moreover, rewarding heroes in this way may risk creating a modern patronage system, or what might be called institutional patronage. Supporting the families of those who sacrificed is necessary, but positions in the army should not be seen as a right that can be passed down through the family, because the outcome may not be fair to the heirs themselves. Some heirs of the deceased may not be suited for military life; they may have other dreams. Being forced by economic pressure to feel they must repay their parents' sacrifice seems highly inappropriate.
Instead of granting the right to recruit heirs, it would be better to guarantee career or educational opportunities, such as scholarships up to bachelor's or master's degrees, vocational scholarships, competitive quotas for government positions (but still requiring exams), monthly financial support, or family healthcare rights. The state should take responsibility for the future of personnel's families but should not interfere with the meritocracy principles of military recruitment. Families of those who sacrificed should receive stable life security, but they do not need to exchange it for inherited government positions. A modern army must select people based on knowledge and ability, while the state can repay sacrifice through scholarships, welfare, and broader life opportunities than sending descendants into the military system.
Finally, importantly, the losses from the two clashes along the Thai-Cambodian border all occurred among non-commissioned officers, with the highest rank being Sergeant Major, and the youngest age being 20. Besides finding money to compensate for these losses, the army must draw policy lessons for future use of force: Is personnel protection sufficient? Is equipment appropriate? Are there problems with medical assistance? Are field hospitals adequate?
In conclusion, if the Thai army intends to frequently lead personnel into war, it is essential to systematically plan compensation to reduce long-term impacts. It should not rely on ad hoc budgets from the government each time. Most importantly, the army must plan to protect the lives and bodies of personnel as much as possible. The military profession is a risky one, but that does not mean there is no need to think about preventing or reducing losses, or to blindly cheer for reckless fighting for someone's satisfaction without considering the feelings of soldiers and their families at all.
