Since the very beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Prayut Chan-o-cha administration has been known for sending mixed signals. But the unpredictable nature of the outbreak means the government can no longer afford to mince its words when it comes to disease-control regulations. It has to be firm in underscoring that its rules apply to everyone.
With the border effectively open again to international tourism despite the continued increase in new Covid-19 infections -- from about 8,000 cases daily for the past few months to 10,490 cases daily as of yesterday -- the entire administration must understand that there is very little room for error. A slip-up will not only threaten the viability of the country's latest attempt to jumpstart the flagging economy, but also undermine public trust in the government, whose ambiguous approach to containing the disease is starting to border on being elitist and unscientific.
The entire administration must understand that "actions speak louder than words" is not merely an overused proverb. In fact, in the face of uncertainty, rules and rhetoric mean nothing to the individual actor, who is more likely to make his or her decision based on social cues from the surrounding environment.
To find an example that would drive the point home, one doesn't need to look too far: in the earlier stages of Thailand's Covid-19 outbreak, in an effort to stop infections from spreading to the provinces during the Songkan holiday period last year, the government went on an intense media campaign to get everyone to stay home.
But despite the government's repeated pleas for public cooperation, the disease ultimately made it to the nation's rural areas, many of which aren't as well prepared to deal with a spike in hospitalisation. Some provinces in the Northeast were so unprepared that at one point, authorities in Ubon Ratchathani proposed to isolate incoming visitors on rice fields, under a model they called "farm hut" quarantine.
Novel? Certainly. Humane? Most definitely not. Even the government-run outfit ThaiPBS poured scorn on the idea, citing the report of a Myanmar migrant worker in Kalasin who was "struggling each day to survive, searching for fish and vegetables in the rice fields for almost two weeks" during her stay in the huts, which had neither running water nor electricity.
Human beings are generally conformist by nature, often seeking safety in consensus and numbers. So what prompted thousands of people to defy constant public reminders that they weren't supposed to travel? While pandemic fatigue -- where people simply couldn't cope with living under virus restrictions and decided to flout the rules -- was certainly a factor for some travellers, the government's inconsistent messaging also played a big role.
While the Centre for Covid-19 Situation Administration (CCSA) indeed put out warnings against travelling, and the police set out checkpoints to deter unnecessary travel, other elements within the government were -- deliberately or not -- undermining these efforts. This sort of short-sightedness really needs to go if Thailand is to emerge from the pandemic stronger than before. Sadly, more recent events suggest that not only has the government learned its lesson, it is actually repeating the same mistakes it did in the past.
Last week, Prachuap Khiri Khan's communicable diseases committee agreed to allow the wedding of a Bhumjaithai MP's son to the daughter of a deputy minister of agriculture and cooperatives -- "after the bride and groom agreed to cut the number of guests from 4,000 to 1,000".
The decision was made by the committee chaired by deputy governor Prompiriya Kitnuson, after hearing the event will take place on a 50-rai field near a hospital, where guests who test positive before entering can be isolated immediately.
On the surface, it all seems fine -- after all, one might argue, the committee wouldn't allow the wedding to happen unless both families had gave assurance they will shoulder the risk should the wedding become a super-spreader event.
But upon reflection, the decision to allow the wedding effectively creates a two-track system, in which people are allowed to contravene rules which apply to the rest of the country, if they can afford the risk of doing so.
Not only did it set up a dangerous precedent that the country's elites would no doubt follow, the decision fails to take into account the risk the event poses to the many people working behind the scenes to make the event happen.
The government must think harder about the long-term consequences of its actions, no matter how far removed from the actual virus it may seem to be. To ensure public cooperation and keep cases down, it must also ensure the rules apply to everyone -- not just those who do not have the means to influence decision-makers.
