Reference is made to Health Minister Chua Jui Meng's remarks ( Chua: M'sia as good as S'pore in handling Sars ).

Does the fact that "Singapore has 101 probable Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (Sars) cases and six deaths thus far whilst Malaysia has o­nly o­ne reported probable Sars case and o­ne death, which was the same person" by itself prove that we manage Sars better?

Don't forget statistics can catch up (as they did the last time). For example, for three weeks since Sars outbreak was reported elsewhere in the region, the health ministry was still maintaining that there were no Sars related case here.

There was even a home ministry directive to all major English-language newspapers to "adjust" their reports o­n Sars by leaving out any mention of fatalities and the directive to Chinese dailies o­n Monday not to put the Sars story in their front-page headlines.

Within 48 hours of Acting Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the cabinet's directive for transparent disclosure of Sars, there were suddenly more than 60 cases of suspected Sars. Did these cases emerge simply out of nowhere?

Then there was this spin: when the health director-general declared that there were no Sars-related cases, he meant that there was no "probable" case (until two days ago) as distinguished from "suspected" cases according to classification of World Health Organisation (WHO).

The difference between "probable" and "suspected" is that in the case of the former, there is "radiographic evidence of infiltrates consistent with pneumonia or Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) o­n chest X-ray (CXR) or there is autopsy finding consistent with the pathology of RDS without an identifiable cause" (WHO).

That, notwithstanding, leaves little consolation for the public and little justification for the health ministry to downplay suspected cases.

The line between probable and suspected cases is quite thin separated o­nly by radiographic confirmation and what is suspected can, as a matter time, easily pass to the category of "probable" by which time because of downplaying, the virus, which is efficient in transmission, may have spread.

Even now, some of us are sceptical of official figures whether o­n suspected or probable cases.

Malaysians may perhaps be forgiven for having this "suspicious" disposition. The initial handling of Sars against the backdrop of past handling of the dengue and Nipah virus give rise to such suspicions.

The culture of suspicion and its concomitant rumor-mongering amongst Malaysians - is but a direct response to the general culture of non-transparency of the authorities o­n most issues including (until recently) public health. You can't blame the public for that.

This is not to say that the government is not pro-active and doing its level best and what reasonably can be done to contain infectious diseases. There is however a difference between pro-actively trying o­ne's level best and being transparent.

The latter is of equal importance because the public deserves to know what they are up against and to take their personal measures of precaution. They cannot be deprived of this right because of the other competing consideration that transparency may scare and affect adversely economic life.

So back to the key issue just because we have o­nly o­ne fatality of "probable" Sars related case compared with Singapore's six, and just because 85 percent of probable Sars cases in Singapore happened among doctors and paramedics in the hospital setting, does this mean that we should take comfort that our authorities manage the outbreak better than Singapore?

Whilst it is true that there is no need to compare, o­ne is still flabbergasted that the health minister deems it necessary to do so o­n this criteria. Well, politically he probably has to do so to make amends to the rather dented image of the health ministry of late.

It is not however easy to accept that Singapore hospitals do not practise "barrier nursing" as touted.

Also with 80 percent recovery rate in Sars, those Malaysians infected may have either recovered or have spread to others with less immunity. o­nly time will tell the gravity of the situation, which again depends o­n how truly transparent the government is in disseminating the information.

As to whether Malaysians should or should not (according to Chua) have the impression that the government was not as effective as Singapore in handling the outbreak of Sars, it is too early to judge. Judging from past record, however, there is no cause to be optimistic.