Ordinary Gweilo

Now we have yet another report on the SARS crisis, and this one attributes blame to certain individuals (which the previous two did not), specifically Yeoh Eng-kiong, Lam Ping-yan, Leong Che-hung, Ho Shiu-wei and Chan Fung fu-chun.

They have offered their apologies, but so far no-one has resigned. Many, including Simon, think that’s not good enough, and are expecting resignations from some or all of the people named in the report, though Chan Fung fu-chun has already left Hong Kong to take up a senior position in the World Health Organization. The prime candidate is obviously Enoch Yeoh Eng-kiong (Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food).

In a similar vein, Mike Rowse now seems to be the official scapegoat for the Harbour Fest fiasco. What puzzles me is that several months ago Mr Rowse seemed to regarded as one of villains of the piece, but now that there is the prospect of some disciplinary action being taken against him the general view seems to have changed and he is now seen more as a victim. For example, a recent cover of Spike magazine had the headline “Mike Rowse the fall guy”.

A recent column in The Guardian by Peter Preston argues (correctly, in my opinion) that sacking the boss is usually a meaningless gesture that brings with it no guarantee of improvement. It appears to be a decisive response, but in fact it’s just a sop to public opinion. Good managers need time, and have to be allowed to make mistakes. If the mistake is serious then one would expect some form of warning and follow-up action to ensure that corrective action is taken and improvements are made. Equally, if someone is obviously not competent then action needs to be taken quickly.

Peter Preston mentions football managers in his column, and I have to agree that this is a prime example of where a short-sighted attitude so often prevails. How often does a change of manager really make a difference? Will it really help Germany, Italy or Spain that they will have new managers in charge for their World Cup qualifying campaigns?

I don’t want to comment on Mike Rowse specifically because I haven’t read all the reports in enough detail, but if he has really been negligent then obviously disciplinary action should be taken. However, the blame for the failure of Harbour Fest correctly rests with the politicians who took the decision to go ahead with the event, and to allow the American Chamber of Commerce to organize it. If the event had been a success (or not taken place, or not been funded by the government) then there would be no general criticism of Mr Rowse. It is his misfortune that the failure of the event has made his (alleged) mistakes more newsworthy.

As for SARS, the danger is in the use of hindsight. We have to remember that this was an unprecedented epidemic, and one that was not well understood at the beginning. Mistakes were made, but at the time it was very difficult to know what was the right decision. Extensive quarantine measures, closing hospitals, or other drastic measures could have created widespread panic and would have looked very foolish if they hadn’t turned out to be the appropriate response.

It is fact of life that politicians often have to take the blame, even if they may not have personally done very much wrong – they take the responsibility for the mistakes of the officials who work for them. The public is supposed to feel that the resignation of a minister brings the matter to a close.

However, what really matters is that the lessons are learned. If SARS returns next year, we have every right to expect that prompt and decisive action is taken. It should be, because we will be prepared for it. The danger is something else new and unexpected that will require a different response. It’s hard to see how the resignation of Messrs Yeoh, Lam, Leong or Ho would help to ensure that we are prepared for the unexpected, or that the response to a similar crisis would be more effective.