While many Western media are critical of the "autocratic" style of the Singapore Government and lament the lack of civil liberties conscious among its population, they could not but admire the swift, effective, though draconian, measures in restraining the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in the island republic.

"Authoritarian, maybe, but it might just beat this alarming virus," said a BBC prime-time TV news programme (Lee). In an aired report, Canadian Broadcast Corporation said WHO (World Health Organisation) has preferred the stricter/highly controlled measures taken by Singapore than the voluntary compliance policies adopted by Canada (Contact).

I, too, applaud and salute our government's handling of the SARS crisis, but I notice how much power our government can wield in such situation: forcibly quarantining patients and their relatives, installing webcams to monitor those on quarantine orders, meting out harsh punishments to the violators. Another puzzling fact shows that most Singaporeans, including myself, do not question government's pro-active measures but generally regard them as prudent and wise while my foreigner friends are shocked that we have compromised our civil liberties.

Is a paternalistic government better coped with crisis management? Does that also mean civil liberties has therefore to be compromised?

When the Singapore Government detected the first few patients to the virulent and mysterious SARS virus, they wasted no time in forcibly quarantining those patients and their relatives, screening incoming flight passengers, introducing webcam to monitor those on quarantine orders, closing schools, forbidding visitors to hospitals. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, generally regarded as more liberal, Tung Chee Hwa has incurred the wrath of the Hong Kong people for his initially slow handling of the SARS crisis. Tung's unpopularity has even resulted the opposition lawmakers to present a no-confidence motion in Hong Kong's legislature. However, I think America, before September-11, would react to the disease much as Hong Kong would have, given that force quarantine order infringes on civil liberties.

Taiwan, with weeks of preparation and learning before SARS hit its shores, saw the virus spiralled out of control, suddenly giving the island the world's third-highest number of infections and deaths from the disease. Some Taiwanese observers points to the political factions rivalry, a lacking of coordination between the different ministries, an absence of political will as reasons for the debacle in this young democracy. Another Taiwanese reportedly said: "We have boasted of so-called individual freedom and human rights for so long that we tend to ignore the interest of society at large." And to his fellow Taiwanese, he said: 'Your opposition to quarantine, your use of 'human rights' to put pressure on officials will make Sars difficult to control in Taiwan.' (Chung).

The current consensus seems to affirm the two questions I raised.

But let us look at the issue from another angle. An economist professor of mine once said: "A well regulated economy is surely more desirable than an unregulated one; while a poorly regulated system is definitely worse off than an unregulated one." The problem, he added, in a well-regulated system is how to ensure it will continue to do so and not ended up badly managed, given that policy makers are human beings and human beings are not infallible.

My professor made that remark when explaining the difference between a planned (interventionist) and an unplanned (laisser-faire) economy. Some planned actions of government or other institutions, despite whatever the best of intention they had, often resulted in consequences they scarcely intended. The last century witnessed some of the horrific consequences of planned economy. The Great Leap Forward initiated in the Chinese economy between 1958-1961 resulted the worst ever famine, where millions of Chinese were literately starved to death. Yet, other economies (with pro-active government) like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and modern China have witnessed unprecedented progress, uplifting millions from poverty in a relatively short period of time.

That remark holds true for political system. For example, authoritarian health system in China scores more success in combating leprosy than democratic India. Sufferers of leprosy, a debilitating but curable disease, risk infecting others if they don't seek treatment and be quarantined immediately. China implemented a system of reward and penalties to encourage people turn in suspected cases to the authority. To date, China has almost eradicated leprosy within its border, while India has more than 60 per cent of the world's leprosy patients. (Wooldridge) (Chen).

The reverse holds true for paternalistic system went awry. China, in covering up the initial SARS cases, has unwittingly opened a Pandora's box of global scale. Even in democratic Japan, often subjects itself to internal regulation, saw its government admitting to a cover-up over the HIV-tainted blood debacle, a decade long scandal in which 2,000 were exposed to the virus. (Crowell).

Coming back to Singapore. We are fortunate to have a regulated system well-planned but that is no guarantee it will continue to remain so in the future. I am not against the use of harsh measures that might compromise civil liberties at times of crisis management; I even encourage it. But I caution such usage without the proper checks and balances in place to prevent possible abuse. (Also see "That's so tomorrow!")

Let us take a leaf out of the ancient Romans' book. In old Rome, the word "dictator" means a temporary appointed leader to deal with a crisis. The Romans knew the importance of extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures. However, the dictator must relinquish all his power once the danger has subsided to avoid misuse.

• Chen Xiang Seng, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2001, 79 (4), Leprosy in China: epidemiological trends between 1949 and 1998.
• Crowell, Todd, and Murakami Mutsuko, Asiaweek magazine, 8 March 1996, A Case of Delayed Justice The Health Minister Admits to a Government Cover-Up Over HIV-Tainted Blood, website - www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/96/0308/nat1.html
• Contact Singapore website, 29 April 2003, Singapore fares better than Canada, website - www.contactsingapore.org.sg/nm/global_talent/news/main_sars_b.htm
• Chung, Lawrence, The Straits Times, 11 May 2003, Taiwan urged to get tough like S'pore.
• Lee, Alfred, Sunday Times, 27 April 2003, S'pore's Sars moves world's toughest: BBC.
• Wooldridge, Mike, BBC website, 19 January 2000, India targets leprosy.