Sars Crisis: A Case of Too Much Democracy?

THE World Health Organisation (WHO) says Vietnam became the first country to contain Sars because it promptly sealed off the hospital where a Chinese-American 'index' patient was treated in February.

The operation's quiet success, compared to raucous resistance to remedial measures in some places, poses an important question about democracy and crisis management.

Two weeks ago, this writer cited Indian Nobel laureate Amartya Sen to argue that lack of transparency is a sure recipe for disaster. Abuses that stunt growth and benefit the corrupt flourish in its absence.

There is no doubt that China would have faced fewer daunting problems today if it had come clean four months earlier. Once the damage is done, however, there is no alternative to tempering the discourse of democracy with discretion and discipline.

The problem is universal. 'There is no national boundary in health, medical treatment, disease and epidemic prevention,' says Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian. People must be protected even at the risk of offending dignitaries like Toronto's blustering mayor who was outraged at a WHO travel advisory, or innocents like the Zhejiang peasants who rioted against a quarantine centre.

Emergencies demand strong medicine that zealous civil rights activists might see as infringing on personal liberty. From American airport inspectors being allowed to forcibly detain passengers from affected areas to my having to take my temperature, write it down on a sticker on my shirt and wear a mask while invigilating in a Singapore exam hall, a crisis situation demands unorthodox, even unpalatable, measures.

Migrant workers are monitored, taxis obliged to keep windows open at the cost of air-conditioning, Sars patients forbidden visitors, and quarantine breakers punished with fines and imprisonment.

The chief of Hongkong's Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education, Mr Daniel Heung Cheuk-kei, misses the point when he laments that people 'lack a sense of social responsibility' because they 'are too concerned with personal freedom'.

He should stress that a person cannot suffer if the public benefits. There is no conflict between Western individualism and Confucianist communitarianism.

The fear psychosis in parts of China places a special burden on the media. Imagine the uproar if Hongkong newspaper Wen Wei Po's alarmist headline 'The whole Chinese nation is in crisis' had been blazed across front pages when the People's Daily was dismissing Sars reports as 'malicious' and the China Daily blaming them on 'an anti-China clique'.

But responsible government must also be firm. As resistance to stringent new health measures stiffens in some areas and people take the law into their own hands, the crisis might seem to be one of too much democracy. Some medical workers reject orders that might expose them to infection. Some policemen will not lock up infected criminals. People refuse to allow schools to be converted into hospital wards; and physically obstruct the movement of potential carriers.

As panic spread, Taiwanese psychologist Albert Chen admitted that the 'democratic system also has a role in such disorder as too many people think they are protecting their rights, ignoring the fact that what they are doing could create further havoc'.

Democracy cannot lead to anarchy. Freedom is not licence. Governments have a duty to explain that democracy can be strengthened only by taking physical conditions into account.

Yes, citizens must be able to choose their leaders and unseat them when necessary. But only education, a reasonable living standard and a social welfare support system can make that fundamental right meaningful. Democratic choice serves a largely symbolic purpose unless people can exercise it with wisdom and discretion.

Man may not live by bread only. But the epidemic's high toll, especially among 800 million Chinese peasants who have little medical cover and do not figure in any database, is a reminder that he does not live at all without bread.