ASF scandal, pork prices hit govt credibility

The Prayut Chan-o-cha government has survived five waves of Covid-19 but it could finally be brought down sick by a swine virus. Pent-up fatigue and dissatisfaction accumulated over the past two years are now being distilled into pure anger following a seemingly delayed admission about the spread of African swine fever (ASF) in the country.

The resulting soaring pork prices are but the last straw — a tipping point for the mountains of frustration, not just about the government’s perceived ineptitude, but its tendency to gloss over the plight of common people while seemingly catering to the well-to-do.

Who does not feel uneasy over the cabinet approval for the air force to spend 13.8 billion baht to buy new jets when ordinary people are suffering both from the aftermath of Covid19 and recent price hikes in pork and other commodities?

A quote from the commerce minister that instant noodles remain at the same price, sounds both ignorant and heartless. To some, the casual remark might just be another cheap shot by the administration to deflect a failure to do its job. To others, it was another string of couldn’t-care-less comments that have now become part of the government’s brand.

It also showed that the government knows well about the hike in food prices and overall cost of living which has made it difficult for people to make ends meet. Still, it figures it does not need to do anything to address the issue.

As long as cheaper choices — like eating instant noodles, going hungry, even stealing from convenience stores — remain, it seems incumbent for citizens to endure the hardship or find a way out of it on their own.

The same mindset can be seen in what the chief of the livestock department had to say after pressure mounted on him to resign. He would not, he said. Why must he when he has not done anything wrong, the livestock chief reportedly stated.

That is the attitude. There is nothing wrong with his department repeatedly denying that ASF was present in the country even though Vietnam detected the virus in live pigs imported from Thailand last year.

He could not be held responsible either after the veterinarian dean consortium sent a letter last month urging his department to implement disease control measures since ASF had been found by a lab test in a pig carcass.

He could simply say he did not see the dispatch. And that is the end of it.

So much for the department’s designated mission of “ensuring there are enough hygienic and disease-free livestock for consumers in the country” and “to implement measures to control animal diseases according to the law.”

It is true the livestock chief did set up factfinding committees which finally confirmed that ASF was found at a farm last week. The disease was also reported to concerned international agencies and disease control measures were likewise finally enacted. But are these responses too delayed? The pork price scandal and seemingly slow reaction of the livestock department have hit the administration where it hurts.

The government has always told people to trust the bureaucracy, which it promoted as the engine of stability, growth and fairness. The government has also prided itself on being “honest” and “decent”, supposedly the marks of noble people as opposed to the “reckless” and “aggressive” behaviour often associated with its opponent progressive groups.

‘Pig-gate’ has shattered such images. Amid the soaring pork price scandal, “honesty” and “decency” seem to be missing.

As soon as the livestock department confirmed that ASF was found in the country, probably a year or two after suspected cases, a perception was set that the authorities could take the health and safety of people in the country for granted.

That the livestock chief could deny responsibility and stay on in his job despite the apparent damage makes the whole affair even more questionable. Is the government suggesting the allegedly delayed response is acceptable?

Questions are many. If pork has not become so scarce as to drive prices up, would the problem of ASF be officially recognised?

Both the livestock department and government have insisted there have been no attempts to cover up the ASF outbreak. If that is the case, how can it explain what seems to be an incredibly poor performance to detect the disease and bring it under control? More importantly, if negligence or failure were found, who should be held responsible?

Irresponsible behaviour can be like a virus. Unless accountability is established, it could spread like a disease. The buck must stop somewhere. It’s up to the government to decide where.