Vaccine transparency

28 01 2021

On Monday afternoon, “Ratsadon pro-democracy demonstrators led by Parit ‘Penguin’ Chiwarak gathered outside Siam Bioscience’s Bangkok headquarters this afternoon to protest the company’s role in Thailand’s Covid-19 vaccine programme.” Transparency remains an issue, especially as the country’s vaccination program has now been rescheduled.

But transparency is an alien concept for the regime. When it comes to the monarchy, the rule is no transparency, which leaves it open to highly speculative gossip.

Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha’s version of “transparency” had him declaring: “We don’t want to see the Covid-19 vaccine politicised because the vaccine is a matter of life and death…”. Naturally enough, the general was speaking at the Defense Ministry as he defended “the contract to Siam Bioscience, saying there were other manufacturers which had offered to produce the jabs, but Siam Bioscience was selected because it met all of the government’s criteria.”

The contract and the criteria are unknown.

Anutin unmasked. Clipped from Der Farang.

In an open letter to Thanathorn, “public health minister Anutin Charnvirakul said that the decisions to secure AstraZeneca and Sinovac vaccines against COVID-19 were made by medical experts and appropriate to the outbreak situation in Thailand.” He went on:

Speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Health and National Vaccine Institute, I say that our work is not delayed or lagging as Thanathorn has accused us of…. We act according to the calculations of medical experts who consider the national situation and citizens’ safety.

That doesn’t seem likely.

Back in December, it was reported that the “World Health Organization, national regulatory authorities and vaccine manufacturers in WHO South-East Asia Region discussed fast tracking of COVID-19 vaccine rollout in member countries…”. This was the second WHO South East Asia Region meeting with vaccine manufacturers and regulators after one held in April. The participants at the second meeting included “key global and regional partners such as GAVI and UNICEF, as well as vaccine manufacturers like Bio Farma Limited from Indonesia, and Government Pharmaceutical Organization (GPO), Bionet Asia Co Ltd and Siam Bioscience from Thailand.” That’s three from Thailand.

What was the problem with the other firms. No one knows.

A Bangkok Post editorial has observed that

In using Section 112 against Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit for raising questions about its vaccine procurement, the Prayut Chan-o-cha government could be said to have, at best, over-reacted. At worst, it’s being criticised for abusing the draconian law for political reasons.

The Post criticizes the regime’s response: “… the prime minister should know this is not the best way to secure public trust in the procurement plan. Mr Thanathorn is not the only one who has been sceptical about the procurement…. Such suspicions derive from fundamentally confusing data from the government from the beginning.”

The Post states: “What the public needs to know is a clear process and credible timetable for vaccination.”


Actions

Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.