According to Health Minister Chua Jui Meng, there were no reported cases of avian influenza to date and swabs taken from people with flu symptoms have been confirmed by the Institute of Medical Research to contain the "normal influenza virus" ('Nation wide alert, precautions against bird flu').

Does "no reported case" mean that there could be suspected cases but not yet reported or confirmed?

This scepticism of semantics is perhaps understandable.

In the case of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) outbreak in April last year, health director-general said that there were no Sars-related cases. Then a gag order was issued directing the media not to report deaths attributable to the virus.

Within barely 24 hours of Pak Lah's (then as acting prime minister) call for transparency, the nation - hitherto supposedly free from Sars - was astonished to learn about the government having received 41 'notifications' since March 18, 2003, but there being a rarefied distinction between 'suspected' and 'probable' cases (based on World Health Organisation's classification), there were no cases in the latter category.

One gets the impression that for the authorities, it is almost as if such bad news cannot be divulged, except by a system of initial denial, to be followed progressively by larger and larger driblets of truth being let out to cushion public confidence, which if done otherwise may collapse.

If past experience is any guidance, the authorities have eroded confidence by consistently downplaying the severity or rampancy of outbreaks, as happened in cases of the Coxsackie Nipah virus.

Hopefully they would have learnt from history by now than to repeat the folly in the case of the lethal H5N1 strain of the avian flu.

Yet there is room however for scepticism. It is in the nature of many governmental authorities to downplay rather than tell the unvarnished facts of such viral outbreaks.

The Chinese authorities were criticised for delay in revealing Sars cases, as Thai and Indonesian authorities are now alleged to have covered up earlier incidences of the bird flu.

The epistemology of these outbreaks is often not established. Whether Nipah, dengue, bird flu or Sars, they combine and mutate. That makes development of vaccines difficult and containment measures inefficacious. I suspect that most times we are mercifully spared only because they vanish as mysteriously as they descend upon us.

In these circumstances, could our general medical practitioners, who are at the front line to meet patients with flu symptoms, identify and distinguish with accuracy and confidence the difference between the onsets of common flu, Sars or avian flu or a hybrid?

No reported cases hence does not necessarily mean that there are no such cases, as time will show.

On the other side of the scale, it would seem an almost wise and practical measure for authorities (from their perspective) not to paint the "worst case scenario" and if necessary to err on the side of caution because of various other competing non-health related considerations.

Amongst the first considerations, is that there is no need to fan public panic unnecessarily. Already the share prices of counters related to poultry industry on Malaysian stock exchange have begun to drop. Our poultry industry is a billion ringgit business, not to mention the adverse effect of bird flu scare on the tourist, hospitality, entertainment, food and beverage, hotel, airline industries having recovered to some extent from the ravages of Sars.

One should not also forget that the culling of several million chickens (should such a virus strike) implies financial compensation to farmers in the agricultural sector, which are an important constituency in an election year though it is not too clear that government or local authorities finances are presently in so good a state of health as to prioritise it.

If compensation strains state coffers, no compensation hoewever implies loss of votes from the agricultural sector in the coming election - either way, the H5N1 virus poses a dilemma to the authorities as regards transparent disclosure.

In light of the virus having reported to have struck at least 10 Asian countries, it strains credulity to think that our fowls and ducks are somehow spared or that our handling of animal husbandry in terms of hygiene and standards of official disclosure and reporting are several notches higher by regional comparisons.

The health minister advised our poultry farm workers to "wear protective gear such as masks gloves aprons and boots to reduce the risk of contracting the disease transmitted through contact with oral and nasal secretions of infected birds".

Do farm workers have the money, and even if they do, will they spend it to acquire these paraphernalia, especially when, according to media reports, there are no reported cases? The minister also advised that they should "wash their hands and bathe with soap and water after working with poultry". That is a good advice provided it is followed.

Looking at the state of our public toilets does not give much cause for optimism regarding personal hygiene amongst many of us.