The Hong Kong Observatory was criticised for not issuing the No 8 signal when Typhoon Prapiroon battered the city this month. Critics said the weather office put public safety at risk: the winds reached over 200km/h in some parts of the city, piles of shipping containers were knocked down at terminals and more than 600 trees were flattened. Director Lam Chiu-ying defended the observatory's decision not to issue the top level of public warning on scientific and rational grounds. However, public sentiment was hostile; some even called for his resignation. This is not the first time that the decisions of professionals in government departments have been challenged by the public. During the outbreak of bird flu in 1997 and the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic in 2003, both the Department of Health and the Hospital Authority were blasted for their perceived slow reaction. Despite local misgivings, however, Hong Kong was praised by the world health community for performing well in combating bird flu. Following the Sars crisis, the Hospital Authority was blamed by its own review panel for relying too much on the traditional, evidence-based epidemiological approach, which required full, 'hard' data before confirming the state of the outbreak. The panel called for greater weight to be given to 'soft' intelligence in order to overcome mental hurdles created by established practice within the medical profession. Professionals' reliance on hard data may sometimes prevent them from taking a more flexible approach to a situation. Two lessons can be drawn from this. First, there is no doubt that professional authority is no longer treated as sacrosanct. With the popularisation of knowledge, ordinary people with good educations are prepared to challenge the decisions of experts. The media, too, is keen to expose flaws in professional views and actions. Second, professionals in government have to recognise that handling public affairs is both a science and an art. Policy decisions must be evidence-based and rationally reached. However, public perceptions and expectations should also be part of the equation. Crisis management often fails simply because of poor communication and different ways of thinking between officials and citizens. But there is no reason why professional excellence must necessarily imply inadequate political good sense. In Hong Kong, a typhoon signal is not just a scientific indicator. Decades of typhoon signals have conditioned people and businesses alike to use them as the sole guide to behaviour. Thus it's crucial to think about how the signalling system can do a better job of putting people on the alert. The Observatory should constantly review the criteria for issuing typhoon signals; alerts are necessary for specific weather conditions in different parts of the city. The Observatory should continue to issue typhoon information based on scientific grounds - such as wind force and direction. But it's also necessary to supplement that information with related precautionary advice. Such advice should take account of the changing sprawl of the population, economic activities, local weather and traffic conditions, as well as special community needs. Releasing emergency information should be better co-ordinated by the government centre, and not left entirely to scientists. Anthony Cheung Bing-leung is an executive councillor and founder of SynergyNet, a policy think-tank
