Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's remarks about the Cultural Revolution being an extreme form of democracy were merely a slip of the tongue, some say. Others add that, since he has apologised, we should move on rather than dwell on the issue. But even though Mr Tsang now agrees that the Cultural Revolution was a bad example to cite, he obviously still thinks that democracy is dangerous, and that we should move very cautiously towards the implementation of universal suffrage. Mr Tsang cited California as another example of democracy gone awry, in the same interview. 'In California, for instance,' he said, 'you have [any number of initiatives that let you] overturn policy taken by the government. That's not necessarily conducive to good government.' In California, the public can propose state laws and amend the constitution, through proposals known as ballot initiatives. A successful initiative leads to a referendum. It is true that laws adopted by the state legislature may be overturned in this way. But to qualify for inclusion on the ballot, a petition must be signed by at least 10 per cent of registered voters, and the proposition itself needs to be approved by more than 50 per cent of all voters - not inconsiderable hurdles and a far cry from mob rule. This is the process that Mr Tsang described as 'not necessarily conducive to good government'. His policy address shows what Mr Tsang really thinks of democracy. In that carefully crafted document, he said: 'We promote democratic development without compromising social stability or government efficiency.' This suggests that, in his mind, democracy is somehow opposed to social stability and government efficiency. He does not appreciate that, without democracy, it is difficult to have either social stability or good government. These ideas are complementary, not opposed to one another. Even the wording of his apology is revealing. Instead of apologising for making a wrong characterisation of democracy, Mr Tsang said he had made 'an inappropriate remark concerning the Cultural Revolution'. His thinking showed clearly in an ATV interview, which he gave after the RTHK radio interview in which he mentioned the Cultural Revolution. On ATV, he acknowledged that democracy and good governance were not mutually exclusive. But he added that he had seen examples of democracy developed to an 'extreme level' at the expense of good governance. Without mentioning examples, he merely said: 'I have seen manifestations elsewhere.' But then he cited Hong Kong as an example, saying: 'We seem to be mired down on frivolous issues [in recent] years. We have not been focusing on what will lead Hong Kong into greater stability and harmony.' It's not certain exactly what Mr Tsang had in mind, but issues like the environment and the preservation of Hong Kong's heritage have been very much in the news. One must hope that Mr Tsang does not consider these frivolous. However, the chief executive has handled some serious issues in ways that trivialised them, creating the impression that he considers them frivolous. On air pollution, for example, he has compared Hong Kong's air to that of the 'pristine' air at the north and south poles; he cited Hongkongers' high average life expectancy as evidence that the air quality was good. No wonder many think he regards some serious issues as frivolous. Mr Tsang's lack of understanding of the Cultural Revolution is deplorable. His lack of understanding of democracy is dangerous. He must show Hongkongers that he is capable of changing, otherwise no one will believe that he is a true advocate of democracy. Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator. frank.ching@scmp.com