DAVID Chu's response in last Saturday's paper to Christine Loh's article, accurately portrays her angry letter as ''politically correct fervour''. However, his accuracy extends no farther than this criticism. His argument about democracy, although untainted with anger or political correctness, fails to support his position. He questions the need for democracy in Hongkong by invoking democratic principles, something philosophers call self-referential incoherence. He opposes ''democracy'' by using arguments that support it in some form. The outline of a more detailed argument appears in his article. He says that ''Serious politicians have to take account of the way that at least 60 per cent of our Hongkong people see the world.'' That same 60 per cent are those ''who, in all the surveys, rate democracy well below stability and prosperity''. He says that group is among those who do not vote - only 20 per cent of those eligible voted at the elections. He takes this to mean that although they care about government policies, they wish someone else to direct that policy. Politicians must take account of those views, according to Mr Chu. He says, ''The rather more immediate question (than who is more or less Chinese) is how we give our rather less travelled and more straight-forwardly Chinese fellow citizens what they want.'' His sneer at Miss Loh's alleged misrepresentation of Hongkong people offers further proof that Mr Chu wants the people's voices heard and answered. Giving people what they want is the spirit of democracy - a governmental system which subordinates political authority to the people's demands. If Mr Chu wishes to represent the views of the silent 60 per cent and give them what they want, he must call himself a democrat. Mr Chu may just possibly mis-define democracy as electing representatives. If this is true, it is logically consistent to oppose elections - and hence the narrowly defined ''democracy'' - yet call for representation. Voting on laws, either directly or indirectly through elected representatives, is simply an institution by which democracy becomes feasible. It is not democracy itself. Democracy is possible, though of dubious merit, without the institution of ''one man, one vote''. The street demonstration, for example, can both express the people's will and force leaders to act. If Mr Chu supports democracy without elections, he ought to explain his unusual position. Mr Chu may actually oppose democratic principles of representation. How might we explain his arguments? Perhaps they are a deceptive shield from criticism. If so, he manifests the triumphant attitude of the dictator, pleased with himself when the majority agree with him. When the majority shifts its views, such a man ignores its views. If this is his position, which seems unlikely, he ought to make it clear. Mr Chu, most likely, champions representation of the views of those who care little for or oppose democracy. He opposes democracy in Hongkong with the argument that the views of the silent majority must be represented and obeyed. This requires a logical fallacy, in essence using ''A'' as a premise in an argument that concludes with ''not A''. Mr Chu needs to choose which principles he holds more strongly. If he supports stability first, democracy only when it is convenient, then he should give logically consistent arguments which clarify his position rather than hide it. If he supports representation first, he inevitably commits himself to some practical form of democracy, probably voting for legislators. Let us hope that whatever he chooses, he pursues in the best interests of the Hongkong people. HUGH D. HUGHES North Point
