In her lame defence of authoritarian systems, especially China's, Jan H. Melis ('Judging China,' Sunday Morning Post, February 8) displays the tendency to be 'politically correct' in regard to dictatorial states.
Her claim that repressive governments like China's are only 'trying to do what is good for people' will not wash in thinking circles. Would she acknowledge that the western media admits its errors and apologises (to me the BBC remains a beacon of professionalism), unlike the Chinese authorities? Take the case of a high official in Guangdong castigating the Hong Kong media for publicising a bird flu outbreak - despite the central government having admitted it. Realising this, he criticised Hong Kong's media for 'distorting' his words.
Do China's 'communication problems' exonerate its officials from lying? Should governments deal with events in ways they believe 'appropriate' even when some have lamentable records on freedom of expression and human rights? Should nobody accuse when untruths are spoken (Al-Jazeera's reporter on the western media) or when the only way to make the 'world a better place' (Melis' words) is by using universal standards to judge all actions? Being 'more tolerant and understanding' is a cop-out when faced with the regimes of China, Myanmar and many in the Middle East.
I am equally critical of the US and UK, not only for their rush to war but their corruption (which gets exposed thanks to their free media). Just as 'Asian values' were promoted to allow dictatorial states to control their people, making excuses for regimes which claim to know what is best for their people is plainly absurd.
RENATA LOPEZ, Lantau
