IT is very discouraging to the dialogue of these pages to have letters so completely misread and maligned as J. H. T. Griffith (South China Morning Post, June 21) did to my views in the Post of June 14. I did criticise the tendency of people to excuse China's political crimes with Western corollaries. I then drew similarities between the students of Tiananmen Square, India under colonial rule, and the fate of native Americans, in order to state the point that more can be learned about the need for human rights from the victims of these examples than from the tendency to dismiss China's human rights violations with these Western precedents. My point is that creating a tolerant world is going to be impossible if every historical atrocity justifies another one. Why then does Mr Griffith attempt to refute my argument by repeating that ''There are few Western democracies that can boast a completely harmonious environment . . . (of) human rights.''? Furthermore, I never called for China to adopt ''a Western concept of democracy'', nor am I unaware of the colonial atrocities which have shaped China's development. In fact, in the present call for rights, I believe that China is correct to claim that one ''universal'' version of rights obscures the unique contributions and histories of varied cultures. Similarly, Western notions of human rights cannot identify the suffering of poverty and unequal economic development. Human rights must be inexorably linked to the right to development. But the fact remains that China's present demand for its own version of development is equally guilty of furthering human degradation. Quite purposefully, there is no mechanism within China for identifying despotism or human rights abuses. Disagreement is severely punished. Regard for individual rights and free expression is itself underdeveloped. Therefore, the only universal criteria of human rights should be this: in every society, there must be entrenched mechanisms for free speech as well as accountability for those in power. Notions of cultural relativism and difference of opinion must be allowed to flourish but always judged to the degree to which they themselves allow for equal respect, tolerance, and plurality in reaching their consensus. This, of course, also pertains to our dialogue here; Mr Griffith, please read more carefully. EVANS WARD Happy Valley
