Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa made a wise decision not to visit the United States before the handover, heeding aides' advice that he had nothing to sell. But armed with the good news of a smooth transition, Mr Tung made his maiden trip as Hong Kong's new chief to the US last week. This time he had something to offer. Mr Tung should not have been under any illusion that he could persuade his US hosts that the electoral plans for the first SAR legislature poll were acceptable. Unfortunately, in trying to defend his electoral policy to the Americans, and justify his US trip to Hong Kong people, he made a mistake which he could have avoided. In defending next year's electoral package, he told the US that the measured pace of democratisation that Hong Kong would have was in accordance with local people's wishes. But in Hong Kong, a key complaint concerning next year's electoral arrangement is the Government's failure to properly consult the local community. Criticisms levelled at the different aspects of the electoral method were promptly rejected or evaded. As local Democrats attacked the Government's plan to disenfranchise the SAR, Mr Tung chose to boast to his US audience that by 2004, the degree of democracy the SAR will enjoy would be greater than Hong Kong ever had in the 156 years of colonial rule. But this is simply not true. Numerically, the SAR legislature will have half, or 30, of its seats returned by one-person-one-vote in 2004. Compared with the ceiling of 20 directly elected seats the colonial legislature had before the handover, the 2004 assembly does appear to be more democratic. But adding together the nine new functional constituencies whose electorate had encompassed almost all eligible voters, and the 10 election committee seats which were returned by all directly-elected district board members, the 1995-97 electoral mix cannot be less democratic than that envisaged for 2004. The grievance Hong Kong people have is why the Government wants to take away their right to vote. A new poll published by Apply Daily shows that 43 per cent of respondents agree that next year's electoral plan will set back the course of democracy, as against 22 per cent who say otherwise. If Mr Tung felt compelled to hail the mainland as more generous than the British colonialists in granting the SAR greater democracy, he should also explain to the community why the Government is making such a huge effort in disenfranchising the 30 functional constituency and 10 election committee seats. Mr Tung is still shying away from taking up the issue with the local community. It is all very well for Mr Tung to declare that we in Hong Kong can make our own decisions at next year's election, but local people want proof that our future is in our own hands. If the people cannot persuade Mr Tung that some elements of the present electoral package are not democratic and need to be amended, how can he convince the community that we in Hong Kong are the masters of our destiny? By saying to his US audience that the SAR is heading for greater democracy, while dismissing local people's demands to eliminate the undemocratic elements of next year's electoral plan, Mr Tung appears to be practising double-talk. By making statements incompatible with reality, Mr Tung risks offending Hong Kong people as well as failing to win over his US hosts. An undemocratic Hong Kong is a bad product to sell, both locally and in the Western democratic world. Mr Tung should realise that before Hong Kong is genuinely on the path of greater democracy, no amount of public relations work can help him.