VOICE OF FREEDOM blog is representing those who are suffering and have no voice under communist China. This blog provides articles, poems, letters, stories and even thoughts and comments on Tibet issue. This blog also provides translations from Tibetan and Chinese to English. I welcome everyone to enjoy this blog and put up a line of your thoughts and comments share with us.
My country "Tibet" a hell on Earth
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
China's democracy cofounder is got freed today
11/30/2010
News in CHINA
Qin Yongmin, cofounder of the China Democracy Party, freed today
He was in prison for 12 years for promoting democratic reform in his country. Altogether, he spent 22 years behind bars. Police seize all his prison notes upon his release, warning him against talking to journalists and other dissidents.
Qin Yongmin, co-founder of the China Democracy Party (CDP), was released today after spending 12 years in prison for endangering state security. At the moment of his release, officers seized his prison notes and warned him not to speak to reporters or meet other dissidents.
Once home in Wuhan, his home city, Qin told friends by phone that he “tried to tell them it was illegal but they just stole everything I had written.”
China's ruling Communist Party brooks no opposition and the country's beleaguered dissidents have been under especially heavy pressure following the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned democracy activist Liu Xiaobo.
Liu's wife, Liu Xia, and many of his colleagues are under a form of undeclared house arrest, a condition that is not expected to end until after the 10 December award ceremony in the Norwegian capital of Oslo.
Qin was one of the founders of the China Democracy Party as an alternative to the one party state led by the Chinese Communist Party. He saw it as a way to reform the state from within.
In 1998, he and others tried to have the new party registered, but were instead accused of anti-state activity and jailed.
Two other cofounders, Wang Youcai and Xu Wenli, were also convicted on the same charges but were given lighter sentences. After years of US diplomatic pressures, they were exiled to the United States.
Qin (pictured in 1993) is now 57-year-old. He was given eight years for “anti-revolutionary propaganda and subversion” in 1981 for his activities in the pro-democracy movement.
In 1993, he was given two years of hard labour in a ‘re-education-through-labour’ camp for writing a ‘Peace Charter’
News in CHINA
Qin Yongmin, cofounder of the China Democracy Party, freed today
He was in prison for 12 years for promoting democratic reform in his country. Altogether, he spent 22 years behind bars. Police seize all his prison notes upon his release, warning him against talking to journalists and other dissidents.
Qin Yongmin, co-founder of the China Democracy Party (CDP), was released today after spending 12 years in prison for endangering state security. At the moment of his release, officers seized his prison notes and warned him not to speak to reporters or meet other dissidents.
Once home in Wuhan, his home city, Qin told friends by phone that he “tried to tell them it was illegal but they just stole everything I had written.”
China's ruling Communist Party brooks no opposition and the country's beleaguered dissidents have been under especially heavy pressure following the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned democracy activist Liu Xiaobo.
Liu's wife, Liu Xia, and many of his colleagues are under a form of undeclared house arrest, a condition that is not expected to end until after the 10 December award ceremony in the Norwegian capital of Oslo.
Qin was one of the founders of the China Democracy Party as an alternative to the one party state led by the Chinese Communist Party. He saw it as a way to reform the state from within.
In 1998, he and others tried to have the new party registered, but were instead accused of anti-state activity and jailed.
Two other cofounders, Wang Youcai and Xu Wenli, were also convicted on the same charges but were given lighter sentences. After years of US diplomatic pressures, they were exiled to the United States.
Qin (pictured in 1993) is now 57-year-old. He was given eight years for “anti-revolutionary propaganda and subversion” in 1981 for his activities in the pro-democracy movement.
In 1993, he was given two years of hard labour in a ‘re-education-through-labour’ camp for writing a ‘Peace Charter’
Where there is no freedom there is no happiness.Where there is no human rights there is no freedom.
11/30/2010 17:23
BHUTAN
Ongoing human rights violations in Bhutan, the sham happy kingdom
Two Protestant men are wanted by police for their ties with Prem Singh Gurung, a fellow Christian who got three years in prison for screening a movie on the life of Jesus. Exiled dissident complains about the violence against political dissidents as well as ethnic and religious minorities. “The regime has tried to fool the international community by using the term democracy,” he said.
Timphu (AsiaNews) – In Bhutan, where human happiness is an economic index, human rights violations continue against members of ethnic and religious minorities. The fate of Prem Singh Gurung is a case in point. A Protestant, he was sentenced to three years in prison for screening a movie on the life of Jesus. Two other Christians are currently sought by police. They are accused of working with Gurung to proselytise in Jigmecholin District.
In 2006, the Government of Bhutan began promoting democracy after centuries of absolute monarchy in which all religions other than Buddhism were banned. The new constitution of 2008 recognised freedom of religion for all Bhutanese, on the condition that the authorities are informed. Proselytising is banned however. The same is true for publishing Bibles, building Christian schools or sending foreign religious into the country. Thus, despite its claim to democracy, the kingdom is constantly criticised for violating human rights, especially those of political dissidents and members of ethnic minorities.
On Saturday, Bhutanese representatives participated in the first conference on human rights in South Asia organised by the South Asians for Human Rights. They included Tek Nath Rizal, leader del Bhutanese People's Party, who complained about the serious situation in his country. On that occasion, he called on the international community to put pressure on Bhutanese authorities to release Gurung and stop pursuing the other two Christians.
“Bhutan is multiethnic and multilingual state. Twenty-two languages are spoken. Sadly, the government has imposed one official language, ‘dzongkha’, and one religion, Kagyurpa Buddhism. Hinduism, Christianity and even Nyingmapa Buddhism have been suppressed.
According to the dissident, in predominantly Nepali areas in southern Bhutan local schools were seized by the government in the early 1990s. They now lay in ruins. The few children who can attend public schools are forced to learn in the government-imposed language, practice the official religion and follow its traditions.
Courts are also in dzongkha only, Rizal said, and defenders are not provided with an interpreter if they are unable to speak.
Political dissidents are victims of torture in prison as well. In addition, more than 80,000 Nepali Bhutanese have been languishing for more than ten years in refugee camps located on the border with Nepal.
“Given the level of oppression of innocent people, Bhutan cannot be said to be a democracy, ever,” Rizal said. “It has failed to address the issue of political prisoners, many of whom have been tortured. And yet, the regime has tried to fool the international community using the term democracy.”
BHUTAN
Ongoing human rights violations in Bhutan, the sham happy kingdom
Two Protestant men are wanted by police for their ties with Prem Singh Gurung, a fellow Christian who got three years in prison for screening a movie on the life of Jesus. Exiled dissident complains about the violence against political dissidents as well as ethnic and religious minorities. “The regime has tried to fool the international community by using the term democracy,” he said.
Timphu (AsiaNews) – In Bhutan, where human happiness is an economic index, human rights violations continue against members of ethnic and religious minorities. The fate of Prem Singh Gurung is a case in point. A Protestant, he was sentenced to three years in prison for screening a movie on the life of Jesus. Two other Christians are currently sought by police. They are accused of working with Gurung to proselytise in Jigmecholin District.
In 2006, the Government of Bhutan began promoting democracy after centuries of absolute monarchy in which all religions other than Buddhism were banned. The new constitution of 2008 recognised freedom of religion for all Bhutanese, on the condition that the authorities are informed. Proselytising is banned however. The same is true for publishing Bibles, building Christian schools or sending foreign religious into the country. Thus, despite its claim to democracy, the kingdom is constantly criticised for violating human rights, especially those of political dissidents and members of ethnic minorities.
On Saturday, Bhutanese representatives participated in the first conference on human rights in South Asia organised by the South Asians for Human Rights. They included Tek Nath Rizal, leader del Bhutanese People's Party, who complained about the serious situation in his country. On that occasion, he called on the international community to put pressure on Bhutanese authorities to release Gurung and stop pursuing the other two Christians.
“Bhutan is multiethnic and multilingual state. Twenty-two languages are spoken. Sadly, the government has imposed one official language, ‘dzongkha’, and one religion, Kagyurpa Buddhism. Hinduism, Christianity and even Nyingmapa Buddhism have been suppressed.
According to the dissident, in predominantly Nepali areas in southern Bhutan local schools were seized by the government in the early 1990s. They now lay in ruins. The few children who can attend public schools are forced to learn in the government-imposed language, practice the official religion and follow its traditions.
Courts are also in dzongkha only, Rizal said, and defenders are not provided with an interpreter if they are unable to speak.
Political dissidents are victims of torture in prison as well. In addition, more than 80,000 Nepali Bhutanese have been languishing for more than ten years in refugee camps located on the border with Nepal.
“Given the level of oppression of innocent people, Bhutan cannot be said to be a democracy, ever,” Rizal said. “It has failed to address the issue of political prisoners, many of whom have been tortured. And yet, the regime has tried to fool the international community using the term democracy.”
Wikileaks, completely wrong on North Korea
11/30/2010 14:20
CHINA – NORTH KOREA
by Joseph Yun Li-sun
Source tells AsiaNews, “these revelations are meaningless. In fact, they confirm the [Sino-North Korean] alliance because they show how deceitful China is with other governments. If a Chinese diplomat tells something to an American diplomat, you can be certain that he did not tell the truth.”
Seoul (AsiaNews) – Wikileaks’ revelations could negatively affect long-standing China-North Korea relations. They show that Beijing might be willing to give up on its erstwhile ally and allow Korean reunification under Seoul. The disclosure comes at a time of renewed crisis following last week’s North Korean artillery barrage against a South Korean island.
However, “These revelations are meaningless,” a Korean source told AsiaNews. “In fact, they confirm the [Sino-North Korean] alliance because they show how deceitful China is with other governments. If a Chinese diplomat tells something to an American diplomat, you can be certain that he did not tell the truth. It is unthinkable for Beijing to have South Korea-based US soldiers on its borders.”
Undoubtedly though, relations between Beijing and Pyongyang are at a low point. Deemed North Korea’s only ally, China did not formally condemn last week’s attack; instead, it called for emergency six-nation talks in Beijing with the two Koreas, the United States, Russia and Japan.
Behind the scenes however, the Chinese are not going to risk losing their influence in North Korea, whose rulers appear less and less willing to cooperate.
To calm the situation, China has summoned a top North Korean official to Beijing. Choe Thae-Bok, chairman of North Korea's so-called Supreme People's Assembly and a close confidant of leader Kim Jong-il, arrived today in the Chinese capital on five-day visit. After he landed, he did not make any public statements. According to China’s Xinhua news agency, Choe came on the invitation of Wu Bangguo, a Chinese Communist Party official, and would be staying until 4 December.
In the meantime, Washington and Seoul have been putting pressure on China to restrain the North.
“This shows that if Beijing was really serious about cutting North Korea loose, it would not waste its time summoning its officials,” the source told AsiaNews. “It would go directly to the top, to Kim Jong-il. Of course, they are concerned about an overreaction, but they are certainly not ready to see a reunified Korean Peninsula under Seoul’s control, as claimed by Wikileaks.”
For its part, North Korea has decided to up the ante. One of its official newspapers, the Rodong Sinmun, reported today that the government “had thousands of centrifuges at a uranium enrichment plant used for peaceful purposes. At this moment, we are building a new light water reactor [. . .] and are using a modern uranium enrichment system with thousands of centrifuges.”
On 12 November, US scientist Siegfried Hecker visited a nuclear site in Yongbyon, which was recently reactivated after the United Nations imposed sanctions last year. The US nuclear experts said he was “stunned” by how technologically advanced the plant was
CHINA – NORTH KOREA
by Joseph Yun Li-sun
Source tells AsiaNews, “these revelations are meaningless. In fact, they confirm the [Sino-North Korean] alliance because they show how deceitful China is with other governments. If a Chinese diplomat tells something to an American diplomat, you can be certain that he did not tell the truth.”
Seoul (AsiaNews) – Wikileaks’ revelations could negatively affect long-standing China-North Korea relations. They show that Beijing might be willing to give up on its erstwhile ally and allow Korean reunification under Seoul. The disclosure comes at a time of renewed crisis following last week’s North Korean artillery barrage against a South Korean island.
However, “These revelations are meaningless,” a Korean source told AsiaNews. “In fact, they confirm the [Sino-North Korean] alliance because they show how deceitful China is with other governments. If a Chinese diplomat tells something to an American diplomat, you can be certain that he did not tell the truth. It is unthinkable for Beijing to have South Korea-based US soldiers on its borders.”
Undoubtedly though, relations between Beijing and Pyongyang are at a low point. Deemed North Korea’s only ally, China did not formally condemn last week’s attack; instead, it called for emergency six-nation talks in Beijing with the two Koreas, the United States, Russia and Japan.
Behind the scenes however, the Chinese are not going to risk losing their influence in North Korea, whose rulers appear less and less willing to cooperate.
To calm the situation, China has summoned a top North Korean official to Beijing. Choe Thae-Bok, chairman of North Korea's so-called Supreme People's Assembly and a close confidant of leader Kim Jong-il, arrived today in the Chinese capital on five-day visit. After he landed, he did not make any public statements. According to China’s Xinhua news agency, Choe came on the invitation of Wu Bangguo, a Chinese Communist Party official, and would be staying until 4 December.
In the meantime, Washington and Seoul have been putting pressure on China to restrain the North.
“This shows that if Beijing was really serious about cutting North Korea loose, it would not waste its time summoning its officials,” the source told AsiaNews. “It would go directly to the top, to Kim Jong-il. Of course, they are concerned about an overreaction, but they are certainly not ready to see a reunified Korean Peninsula under Seoul’s control, as claimed by Wikileaks.”
For its part, North Korea has decided to up the ante. One of its official newspapers, the Rodong Sinmun, reported today that the government “had thousands of centrifuges at a uranium enrichment plant used for peaceful purposes. At this moment, we are building a new light water reactor [. . .] and are using a modern uranium enrichment system with thousands of centrifuges.”
On 12 November, US scientist Siegfried Hecker visited a nuclear site in Yongbyon, which was recently reactivated after the United Nations imposed sanctions last year. The US nuclear experts said he was “stunned” by how technologically advanced the plant was
藏族退休干部和老教育工作者的《意见书》
编按：上个月（十月中旬），在藏区的中小学采取上街游行、校内集会等多种形式，表达他们对中共当局对臧政策（教育政策）的不满，十月底青海省西宁地区部分藏族退休干部和老教育工作者，向青海省教育厅递交了一份意见书，在书中他们从法理的角度探讨了很多关于目前教育方面的问题，并把意见抄送中央统战部等机构。意见书内容丰富，且有新鲜感。特刊载全文，以飨读者。
关于青海双语中长期改革问题的意见(全文)
青海省教育厅：
解放以来，尤其是改革开放以来，青海的民族教育发展迅猛，双语教育体系不断完善，成效显著，国际影响不断扩大；几个藏族自治地方慎重、稳妥、科学、严肃地推进基础教育阶段的双语教育，教育普及率大幅提高，青壮年非文盲率达到96%。
尤其黄南、海南两州，通过全面推行藏、汉语并行，多数学科以藏语文为教学语言，使得本地人才存量、高层人才数量走在全省的前列，双语、多语人才不仅 成为青海藏区跨越式发展和长治久安的中坚力量，而且可以说已经遍布全球，成为藏区双语教育效果最好的地区，也是在教育和语言领域群众意见最少的地区（相比 之下，海东和西宁所属藏族乡村、海北、玉树等地意见较多）。作为六州和省直机关的行政干部和教育工作者，我们看到在双语教育的引领下，学校教育从零起步， 迈出了可喜的一步。
近期，贵厅组织召开全省教育大会，出台《青海省教育改革和发展中长期规划纲要（2010--2020）》（以下称《青海纲要》），并决定筹措76亿 元，利用3年时间发展教育，尤其下决心在双语教育上取得新突破，包括加大双语师资培训，改善藏区教学条件，提高藏区教学水平等，我们深受鼓舞。
然而，由于《青海纲要》涉及藏汉语言的主次区分、教学用语的统一改革等一些重大问题，加之教育行政部门和个别地方急于坚决、迅速、强力推行，引起了 一些地区学生和家长的不满，导致10月19日以来黄南、海南、果洛、海北等四个藏族自治州中小学采取上街游行、校内集会等多种形式抗议，并正在中小学以外 和其他地区继续扩大和蔓延，在国际国内造成了非常恶劣的影响。
我们作为青海藏区建政、改革和发展的历史见证人、亲历者和推进者，不得不密切关注，冷静思考，深入反思，正面反映对这一重大问题的看法。为维护藏区稳定，发展平等、团结、互助、和谐民族关系尽我们义不容辞的责任。
藏、汉语广播电视和报纸全文发布贵厅王予波厅长的问答，使我们对学生表达利益诉求有了进一步的理解和认识。
对于《青海纲要》中省教育厅提出汉语为主、藏语为辅，以汉语为教学语言，并将汉语开设到学前，而且不顾学生及其家长等利益群体的正常诉求急着坚决推 行，王厅长提出“三个符合”即中央精神、国家法律和群众根本利益和意愿，但从中央文件、现行法律政策和藏区尤其是农牧区语言生活实际看，尤其从我们多年在 民族地区工作的经验和认识看，都是不合理的。我们认为：
第一“符合中央精神”，实 际上没有任何依据，实质上还违背了中央的要求。《国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020年)》经过多次公 开征求意见，可以说集民意、顺民意、合理合法，其中“第九章民族教育”部分，就“大力推进双语教学”强调：“全面开设汉语文课程，全面推广国家通用语言文 字。尊重和保障少数民族使用本民族语言文字接受教育的权利。”显然，这是基于汉语作为少数民族地区(尤其象藏区)第二语言的语言生活现实而规定的。汉族人 口众多、汉语使用广泛、汉语全球战略的国际影响力不断提高，藏族干部群众象渴望学好英语一样都自愿学好汉语，全面开设汉语文课程从未受到质疑，更未受到抵 制，我们相信其“前款”规定各地都在接受和推广。而紧接着提出“使用本民族语言文字接受教育”，并把它界定为法律赋予的一项权利要求尊重和保障，显然是说 明在数、理、化、政治、地理、品德、信息技术等中小学的非语言类课程学习中，并没有“要求”以汉语为教学语言。政府有责任尊重和保障民族语言作为教学语言 或者教学辅助语言。而王予波强调把目标设定为“坚持国家通用语言文字教学为主，同时学好民族语言文字，将国家通用语言文字作为教学语言”，而且公开设定时 间表，提出“到2015年，小学实现以国家通用语言文字为主、本民族语言文字为辅的“双语”教学 ”，不仅绕开了开设汉语文课程这个语言课程的教学设置，而且通过偷换概念篡改了《国家纲要》提出的用“民族语接受教育的权利”。
第二，所谓“符合国家法律”，实 际上是在断章取义，存在严重的违宪、违法行为。省教育厅?及王予波不顾多民族国家、多民族省份的国情、省情，公开地 限制少数民族语言文字在学校教育领域的学习自由、使用自由和发展自由，是完全违背了《宪法》、《中华人民共和国民族区域自治法》（以下称《自治法》）、 《教育法》和《国家通用语言文字法》（简称《语文法》），只是王予波个人在这些法律中截取了用于解脱或者自圆其说的部分条款，断章取义，用于公开表态，是 对国家法律的“误读”、“亵渎”和“践踏”，表现为随意引用、随意解读、随意篡改。首先，限制在教育教学领域使用民族语文，王予波所说的几个法都不支持。 《宪法》第四条第四款规定：“各民族都有使用和发展自己的语言文字的自由”；《语文法》一字不差，在第八条中规定“各民族都有使用和发 展自己的语言文字的自由”（还有一句跟在后面“少数民族语言文字的使用依据宪法、民族区域自治法及其他法律的有关规定”，说明这个法在具体操作中必须遵循 民族区域自治法）；《自治法》第十条规定：“民族自治地方的自治机关保障本地方各民族都有使用和发展自己的语言文字的自由”。其次，说学校的教学用语必须 作为统一国家的象征统一到汉语上。对此，具体的法律也不支持。《自治法》第三十七条第三款规定：“招收少数民族学生为主的学校（班级）和其他教育机构，有 条件的应当采用少数民族文字的课本，并用少数民族语言讲课；”这个规定如此清楚，无需解释。《教育法》第十二条则规定：“少数民族学生为主的学校及其他教 育机构，可以使用本民族或者当地民族通用的语言文字进行教学。”
这两个法律，难道作为教育厅长的王予波没有见到？而在《语文法》中，是否修改了这两个法律条款呢？据我们知道没有。其第十条规定，“学校及其他教育 机构以普通话和规范汉字为基本的教育教学用语用材。法律另有规定的除外。”王予波仅仅引用了前款2蓄意回避后一条款，而《自治法》、《教育法》的规定，就 是法律中的“另有规定”，是要“除在”《语文法》以外的。这里，明显的是断章取义，为个人所用，应当深刻检讨，全面纠正。再次，既然承认中华人民共和国依 然实行民族区域自治制度，一个行政部门就擅自改变包括自治地方在内的学校设置、教学用语等，是对国家基本法律的蓄意挑战和践踏，是对国家法律权威的严重蔑 视。除非全国人大通过修正《自治法》，一个具体的行政部门，其是一个省级行政机关，根本无权超越基本法律的原则规定而擅自作出违背法律的决定。《自治法》 作为我国实施宪法规定的民族区域自治制度的基本法律，其第三十六条明文强调“民族自治地方的自治机关根据国家的教育方针，依照法律规定，决定本地方的教育 规划，各级各类学校的设置、学制、办学形式、教学内容、教学用语和招生办法。”
《青海纲要》中的“教学语言”、“民汉合校”等学校设置、办学形式、教学内容和教学用语等，法律明确规定属于民族自治地方自治机关的教育权。在六个 自治州自治机关没有作出任何规定的前提下，省级教育行政部门擅自作出如此规定，并作为一个职能部门公开发布、强词夺理予以解释，严重违反了党和国家的现行 法律和民族政策，违背了民族理论，破坏了政策的权威性、严肃性和延续性，严重损害了党和国家民族法律政策的威信和公信力。另外还有一点，把汉语课程开到学 前阶段，全面加强学前双语教育，是与时具进、改造民族后代的“时代创新”和“重大突破”。《国家纲要》和《青海纲要》都明确了推广学前藏汉双语这个设想和 计划。我们看到，《自治法》第三十七条第三款规定“招收少数民族学生为主的学校（班级）和其他教育机构”，“根据情况从小学低年级或者高年级起开设汉语文 课程，推广全国通用的普通话和规范汉字。”把汉语学习的时间限定在小学低年级或高年级，符合少数民族地区语言生态的现实，符合国家推广通用语的需要，符合 民族语为母语的少数民族儿童语言思维和认知发育客观规律的，是站在多民族国家多语言文化基础上又面向统一国家的未来而设定。有了西藏3.14和新疆7.5 事件，就如此扩大汉语的“教化”功能和使用范围，不能不认为是以王予波等诸君的大民族个人意愿为前提的”。
第三，把过通用语言文字理解为中华人民共和国唯一的官方语言，是无知，是狡辩，更是无视中国多民族统一国家基本特征和民族区域自治基本制度的表现。 对于选择汉语作为单一的教学语言，王予波提出是基于汉语普通话和规范字是全国唯一的官方语言。这个说法完全站不住脚，它不仅混淆了官方语言和国家通用语言 文字的界限，也违背了中华人民共和国的国家语言政策。《语文法》实际上是除了适用于汉语各方言和书写传统中选择普通话、规范汉字作为通用规范标准外，并没 有阐述其与少数民族语文的关系（只有第八条 “各民族都有使用和发展自己的语言文字的自由”）。《自治法》还在第二十一条规定：“民族自治地方的自治机关在执行职务的时候，依照本民族自治地方自治条 例的规定，使用当地通用的一种或者几种语言文字；同时使用几种通用的语言文字执行职务的，可以实行区域自治的民族的语言文字为主。”
把国家通用语言文字混淆为官方语言，在教育行政部门、尤其是在青海这样的多民族地区是非常不应该的。官方语言作为一个国家的公民与其政府机关通讯时 使用的语言，有的国家只有一个，有的国家有几个（如印度），而在多民族统一的中国，既有国家统一层面的通用语言文字，但它不是唯一的官方语言。《自治法》 明确规定，在各个自治地方当地通用的少数民族语言也是政府机关首选或使用的本自治地方官方语言。所以在中国，除了民族自治地方，官方语言只有一种；而在民 族自治地方，则以本民族语言文字和国家通用语言文字同时作为自治地区官方语言的。纵观世界各国，除了民族国家、一些移民国家，多民族国家的官方语言也不一 定是单一的，其教学用语同样是多样的。
第四，既然肯定双语教育的成就，就没有理由让藏语文成为改革的替罪羊，没有理由将双语教育的困难问题归罪于藏语文。王予波称“双语教育取得长足发 展，基本建立了从基础教育到高等教育的双语教育体系，培养了大批民汉兼通的社会主义建设者和接班人，他们在全省各条战线发挥了重要作用，”其“重要作用不 可替代”，可以说客观公正、实事求是，符合实际。我们不少退休干部亲历这个发展历程，甚至有的终生献身于这一事业。而教育部门明知成就如此显著，为何还要 取消双语教育、区分语文主次、在教学语言上统一改用汉语，彻底否定民族教育、双语教育几十年逐步摸索、反复实践、艰难发展、培育壮大的巨大成就呢？我们无 法理解！把双语教育存在的诸多问题归结为藏语文作为“教学语言”的理由，更是片面的、狭隘的，没有任何科学依据。就是在最近第一次发生9. 1 9抗议活动的黄南州隆务镇，两大高中除了藏语、汉语和英语三门语言类课程，其余非语言类课程，该州同仁县民族中学的高中绝大多数课程以藏语为教学语言，黄 南州民族中学则分别选择藏语、汉语作为不同班级的教学语言，教学实践说明，同仁民中好于州高中，州高中的藏语班好于汉语班，对此作何解释？再说，黄南、海 南两州长期发展藏语授课为多数的双语教学，海北、海西、玉树三州则单设藏文课（或为选修课），而前者的双语教育普及率和质量远远好于后者，又作何解释？就 教学语言的改革这一重大性问题而言，首先在黄南州第一高中引起，显然是有这个所谓“经验主义”的认识基础的。无视好成就、好经验断然“改革”，师生、家长 难以接受是完全可以理解的。 在反思解放以来关于民族语文和双语教育问题正反两面经验的基础上，认为学校教学语言的选择要“根据多数群众的意愿和当地的语言环境决定”（1992 年国家教委、国家民委印发的《关于加强民族教育工作若干问题的意见》），而不是以一个省级行政部门领导个人意志为转移的。基于上述认识和考虑，我们提出：
1、立即停止执行汉语作为单一教学语言的违法条款。《自治法》第二十条规定“上级国家机关的决议、决定、命令和指示，如有不适合民族自治地方实际情 况的，自治机关可以报经该上级国家机关批准，变通执行或者停止执行；该上级国家机关应当在收到报告之日起六十日内给予答复。”
在目前的形势和条件下，未经上级国家机关同意，一个政府职能部门竟做出了如此大的违宪、违法的决定和改革。我们呼吁：在全国人大、省人大和六个自治 州的人大没有通过前，必须在六个民族自治州及民族散杂居地区停止执行。我们殷切希望省教育厅不要一错再错、扩大事态，而是尽早发出公开声明，立即纠正，立 即停止这种无视藏区群众教育需求和发展利益、恣意践踏国家宪法、法律、法规和基本政策，危害国家形象、破坏民族团结和社会稳定的行为。
2、立足现实，尊重科学，遵循规律，把藏、汉两门语言课和其他语言类教学中的藏语文应用同步推进、同步强化。认真、深入研究青海双语教育取得的成就 和发展的经验。广泛听取各民族专家学者、社会各界和各地区教育工作者、师生和家长的意见建议，在已有工作和成绩的基础上，加强和改进双语教育。在不断提高 作为第二语言的汉语水平及其应用能力的同时，切实培养藏、汉兼通的各科“双语教师”，坚持“尊重和保障”使用民族语言和文字接受数、理、化、音、体、美等 各门学科教育的权利，全面提高藏区教育的层次和水平。而“学生汉语水平不高（五个突出困难和问题之第二个方面）”，需要“提高汉语能力”，是要通过汉语课 这个语言教学来实现的，而不是通过实验室、算术题、画画、开展体育运动等非语言课目来实现的，语言课的任务就是提高汉语能力，而学科教学的任务是让学生通 过他们最熟悉和最熟练的语言，最便捷有效地接受学科知识教育。新成立的青海省完全藏文中学所谓的“双语”教师只招收藏语文老师，其他聘用的几十个各科“双 语”教师几乎只懂汉语，无法用藏语辅助教学，学生反映其课堂的学科教学听不懂，就是摆在现实面前的现实（试问，是不是藏语老师有双语要求，汉语老师没有双 语要求，只会一种语言也胜任双语教师职务吗？这是世界上的什么“通行惯例）。对于提高汉语水平，我们要一分为二，科学认识，科学看待，科学解决，语言水平 是要通过语言课解决的，而不能为了提高语言，牺牲其它学科知识的全面、便捷、直接地接受。强调双语教育，既要加强汉语和藏语两门语文课，更要加强用本民族 语言作为课堂教学语言的各课目教学；
3、通过划出一定的“民考民”招生比例和名额，拓宽双语学生的升学渠道和就业门路，增强对汉语世界的适应性。对于双语教育“升学渠道狭窄，就业门路 不宽和自身适应性不强”（五个突出困难和问题之三个方面），责任不在学生，而在于政府的高校招生政策和策略。解决双语学生升学难、就业难问题，切实需要学 习内蒙古、延边、新疆和西藏等民族地方好的、成功的和受群众欢迎的做法、经验，如民族语文教材开发和出版、小学到高校的民族双语教育体系建设、双语教育规 律研究、以语言能力为中心的汉语课程教学等，更要拿出诚意、善意，打破“双语生”升学渠道狭窄的界限，根据青海的区域现状，按照藏汉/蒙汉双语类“民考民 ”学生的人数和比例，在高校招生过程中单独划出适当比例的名额，为双语学生进入全国各大院校、各个专业敞开包容的大门，让他们走向全国，走向世界。
4、兑现关于加强民族语文教学的承诺，消除人们对双语改革的担心和忧虑。王予波提出“继续加强和改进少数民族语文教学，加大投入，改善条件，提高教 学质量。”这种空洞的提法，司空见惯、耳已生茧。在我们的经历中，上世纪八十年代提出在青海两种模式并行的双语教育“双轨制”，针对的是两种地区，即在西 宁、海东的散杂居地区民族学校，实行汉语为教学语言、单设民族语文的双语教育；在六个自治州则实行藏语为教学语言、汉语单设的双语教学。发展了三十年，西 宁和海东散杂居区除了循化（这几年化隆开始恢复），其他地区的双语教育几乎有名无实，民族语文教师几乎没有配备，使得藏汉、土汉、撒拉-汉等中小学双语教 育已是徒有虚名。单设民族语文的双语教育似乎成了推行汉语单语教学的最初台阶和口实。这个历史，在全省范围内是不愿被看到的，反而是需要纠正和改进的。现 在，省级教育部门推广汉语的决心和力度如此之大，却将这些地区（包括海北、海西的一些城镇和农牧区）的民族语文教学视而不见，何以证明“语言平等”？我们 呼吁，请省教育厅兑现承诺，在收到本意见书之日起六十天内就西宁、海东乡村民族学校的民族语文课程设置和师资配备问题拿出方案，给予明确答复，切实证明并 “不是用一种语言削弱另一种语言”，以换取藏族民众和国内外的信任。
我们强烈呼吁：
1、反思文革以来正反两面的经验教训，通过汉族和少数民族相互尊重、学习和使用语言，进一步巩固良好的民族关系。《自治法》第四十九条规定： “民族自治地方的自治机关教育和鼓励各民族的干部互相学习语言文字。汉族干部要学习当地少数民族的语言文字，少数民族干部在学习、使用本民族语言文字的同 时，也要学习全国通用的普通话和规范文字。”
我们这些退休干部年轻时，进入藏区的汉族干部基本上同时精通藏语。文化大革命完全禁止学习使用少数民族语文，三中全会后立即予以纠正。现在的天下变 了，少数民族学习汉语已成为普遍现象，但汉族干部几乎不掌握民族语文，甚至一些本民族干部也不学不用民族语文，自治机关使用民族语文的也越来越少，民族语 文不断削弱，民族语文人才不断被边缘化。这种趋势，严重影响了藏族自治地方的民族关系。希望省委、省政府高度重视，各自治地方正视严峻现状，积极作出回 应，尽早扭转类似的倒退局面。
2、保护和发展藏语文是多语言文化和谐并存、人类文明延续的需要，请给予尊重和重视。藏语文历史悠久，内涵丰富，承载着深厚的历史文化和精神文明， 为保存和传播本民族乃至印度文明、中原文明曾经并继续起着其他语言文字无法替代的作用，是提高中华民族文化软实力的重要部。。藏语同时作为一个跨国境的强 势语言，一个具有国际通用编码的文种，除了藏区，还涉及到周边一些国家和地区，藏语使用和发展问题并不是单一的国内问题。当前，语言多样性、文化多样性象 生物多样性一样受世人关注，成为全球共识。同时，虽然时过两年，3.14和7.5事件的阴影依然笼罩在藏民族的周围，人们充满担心和顾虑且在议论纷纷：中 央和国家的对藏政策是否改变，对待藏族干部、群众、学生，对待藏族文化、语言和宗教的态度是否改变？在这样的时代，这样的时段，这样的背景下，切断法律政 策的延续性，大规模实行所谓改革，实行限制藏语文在“教育教学用语用材”的使用，很容易引起人们的恐慌，更容易引起师生和家长的混乱，不利于稳定、和谐、 团结。希望教育部门对于我们这种本应坚决克服的、认为“影响社会稳定的错误思想”和“重重顾虑”，给予足够的评估和正视，切实把它“作为一项重大的政治任 务，一项重大的民生工程，下大决心、下大气力，抓紧抓好，抓出成效。”
3、由教育、民族工作部门以外的有关民间团体牵头，开展双语教育问题深层调查、研究、探讨和经验交流，维护社会稳定和民族团结，避免藏语文成为影响 民族关系和国家安全的政治因素。青海藏族研究会作为全省最大的民间团体，尽快组织本民族、汉族和其他民族的专家学者、教育工作者、社会工作者，全面学习、 正确理解青海省教育部门的规定和具体解读，尽可能组织专业力量和富有藏区教育工作经验的离退休干部，对藏汉双语教育做进一步的调查研究和分析探讨，积极召 开具有一定层次的藏汉双语教育研讨会，广泛征集双语教育加强、改进和发展方面的报告和论文（包括国外的双语教育经验和国内延边、内蒙古、新疆、西藏以及贵 州、云南各方面的经验），提出正面、善意、诚肯的意见和建议，防止藏族干部群众和师生采用“过激行为”表达正常诉求，防止事态扩大造成不良后果。也希望各 族同胞从长计议，长远谋划，尽量克制、沉着、冷静，不造谣、不信谣、不传谣，为科学、稳妥、有利、有效地推进双语教育、保持社会和谐稳定做出努力。
西宁地区部分藏族退休干部、老教育工作者
二零一零年十月二十四日
抄送：中央统战部、全国人民宗委、国家民委、国家教育部、全国政协民委、省委各常委、省人大、省政府、省政协领导及组成部门，省委统战部、省民宗委、六州党委、人大、政府、政协、六州教育局。
关于青海双语中长期改革问题的意见(全文)
青海省教育厅：
解放以来，尤其是改革开放以来，青海的民族教育发展迅猛，双语教育体系不断完善，成效显著，国际影响不断扩大；几个藏族自治地方慎重、稳妥、科学、严肃地推进基础教育阶段的双语教育，教育普及率大幅提高，青壮年非文盲率达到96%。
尤其黄南、海南两州，通过全面推行藏、汉语并行，多数学科以藏语文为教学语言，使得本地人才存量、高层人才数量走在全省的前列，双语、多语人才不仅 成为青海藏区跨越式发展和长治久安的中坚力量，而且可以说已经遍布全球，成为藏区双语教育效果最好的地区，也是在教育和语言领域群众意见最少的地区（相比 之下，海东和西宁所属藏族乡村、海北、玉树等地意见较多）。作为六州和省直机关的行政干部和教育工作者，我们看到在双语教育的引领下，学校教育从零起步， 迈出了可喜的一步。
近期，贵厅组织召开全省教育大会，出台《青海省教育改革和发展中长期规划纲要（2010--2020）》（以下称《青海纲要》），并决定筹措76亿 元，利用3年时间发展教育，尤其下决心在双语教育上取得新突破，包括加大双语师资培训，改善藏区教学条件，提高藏区教学水平等，我们深受鼓舞。
然而，由于《青海纲要》涉及藏汉语言的主次区分、教学用语的统一改革等一些重大问题，加之教育行政部门和个别地方急于坚决、迅速、强力推行，引起了 一些地区学生和家长的不满，导致10月19日以来黄南、海南、果洛、海北等四个藏族自治州中小学采取上街游行、校内集会等多种形式抗议，并正在中小学以外 和其他地区继续扩大和蔓延，在国际国内造成了非常恶劣的影响。
我们作为青海藏区建政、改革和发展的历史见证人、亲历者和推进者，不得不密切关注，冷静思考，深入反思，正面反映对这一重大问题的看法。为维护藏区稳定，发展平等、团结、互助、和谐民族关系尽我们义不容辞的责任。
藏、汉语广播电视和报纸全文发布贵厅王予波厅长的问答，使我们对学生表达利益诉求有了进一步的理解和认识。
对于《青海纲要》中省教育厅提出汉语为主、藏语为辅，以汉语为教学语言，并将汉语开设到学前，而且不顾学生及其家长等利益群体的正常诉求急着坚决推 行，王厅长提出“三个符合”即中央精神、国家法律和群众根本利益和意愿，但从中央文件、现行法律政策和藏区尤其是农牧区语言生活实际看，尤其从我们多年在 民族地区工作的经验和认识看，都是不合理的。我们认为：
第一“符合中央精神”，实 际上没有任何依据，实质上还违背了中央的要求。《国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020年)》经过多次公 开征求意见，可以说集民意、顺民意、合理合法，其中“第九章民族教育”部分，就“大力推进双语教学”强调：“全面开设汉语文课程，全面推广国家通用语言文 字。尊重和保障少数民族使用本民族语言文字接受教育的权利。”显然，这是基于汉语作为少数民族地区(尤其象藏区)第二语言的语言生活现实而规定的。汉族人 口众多、汉语使用广泛、汉语全球战略的国际影响力不断提高，藏族干部群众象渴望学好英语一样都自愿学好汉语，全面开设汉语文课程从未受到质疑，更未受到抵 制，我们相信其“前款”规定各地都在接受和推广。而紧接着提出“使用本民族语言文字接受教育”，并把它界定为法律赋予的一项权利要求尊重和保障，显然是说 明在数、理、化、政治、地理、品德、信息技术等中小学的非语言类课程学习中，并没有“要求”以汉语为教学语言。政府有责任尊重和保障民族语言作为教学语言 或者教学辅助语言。而王予波强调把目标设定为“坚持国家通用语言文字教学为主，同时学好民族语言文字，将国家通用语言文字作为教学语言”，而且公开设定时 间表，提出“到2015年，小学实现以国家通用语言文字为主、本民族语言文字为辅的“双语”教学 ”，不仅绕开了开设汉语文课程这个语言课程的教学设置，而且通过偷换概念篡改了《国家纲要》提出的用“民族语接受教育的权利”。
第二，所谓“符合国家法律”，实 际上是在断章取义，存在严重的违宪、违法行为。省教育厅?及王予波不顾多民族国家、多民族省份的国情、省情，公开地 限制少数民族语言文字在学校教育领域的学习自由、使用自由和发展自由，是完全违背了《宪法》、《中华人民共和国民族区域自治法》（以下称《自治法》）、 《教育法》和《国家通用语言文字法》（简称《语文法》），只是王予波个人在这些法律中截取了用于解脱或者自圆其说的部分条款，断章取义，用于公开表态，是 对国家法律的“误读”、“亵渎”和“践踏”，表现为随意引用、随意解读、随意篡改。首先，限制在教育教学领域使用民族语文，王予波所说的几个法都不支持。 《宪法》第四条第四款规定：“各民族都有使用和发展自己的语言文字的自由”；《语文法》一字不差，在第八条中规定“各民族都有使用和发 展自己的语言文字的自由”（还有一句跟在后面“少数民族语言文字的使用依据宪法、民族区域自治法及其他法律的有关规定”，说明这个法在具体操作中必须遵循 民族区域自治法）；《自治法》第十条规定：“民族自治地方的自治机关保障本地方各民族都有使用和发展自己的语言文字的自由”。其次，说学校的教学用语必须 作为统一国家的象征统一到汉语上。对此，具体的法律也不支持。《自治法》第三十七条第三款规定：“招收少数民族学生为主的学校（班级）和其他教育机构，有 条件的应当采用少数民族文字的课本，并用少数民族语言讲课；”这个规定如此清楚，无需解释。《教育法》第十二条则规定：“少数民族学生为主的学校及其他教 育机构，可以使用本民族或者当地民族通用的语言文字进行教学。”
这两个法律，难道作为教育厅长的王予波没有见到？而在《语文法》中，是否修改了这两个法律条款呢？据我们知道没有。其第十条规定，“学校及其他教育 机构以普通话和规范汉字为基本的教育教学用语用材。法律另有规定的除外。”王予波仅仅引用了前款2蓄意回避后一条款，而《自治法》、《教育法》的规定，就 是法律中的“另有规定”，是要“除在”《语文法》以外的。这里，明显的是断章取义，为个人所用，应当深刻检讨，全面纠正。再次，既然承认中华人民共和国依 然实行民族区域自治制度，一个行政部门就擅自改变包括自治地方在内的学校设置、教学用语等，是对国家基本法律的蓄意挑战和践踏，是对国家法律权威的严重蔑 视。除非全国人大通过修正《自治法》，一个具体的行政部门，其是一个省级行政机关，根本无权超越基本法律的原则规定而擅自作出违背法律的决定。《自治法》 作为我国实施宪法规定的民族区域自治制度的基本法律，其第三十六条明文强调“民族自治地方的自治机关根据国家的教育方针，依照法律规定，决定本地方的教育 规划，各级各类学校的设置、学制、办学形式、教学内容、教学用语和招生办法。”
《青海纲要》中的“教学语言”、“民汉合校”等学校设置、办学形式、教学内容和教学用语等，法律明确规定属于民族自治地方自治机关的教育权。在六个 自治州自治机关没有作出任何规定的前提下，省级教育行政部门擅自作出如此规定，并作为一个职能部门公开发布、强词夺理予以解释，严重违反了党和国家的现行 法律和民族政策，违背了民族理论，破坏了政策的权威性、严肃性和延续性，严重损害了党和国家民族法律政策的威信和公信力。另外还有一点，把汉语课程开到学 前阶段，全面加强学前双语教育，是与时具进、改造民族后代的“时代创新”和“重大突破”。《国家纲要》和《青海纲要》都明确了推广学前藏汉双语这个设想和 计划。我们看到，《自治法》第三十七条第三款规定“招收少数民族学生为主的学校（班级）和其他教育机构”，“根据情况从小学低年级或者高年级起开设汉语文 课程，推广全国通用的普通话和规范汉字。”把汉语学习的时间限定在小学低年级或高年级，符合少数民族地区语言生态的现实，符合国家推广通用语的需要，符合 民族语为母语的少数民族儿童语言思维和认知发育客观规律的，是站在多民族国家多语言文化基础上又面向统一国家的未来而设定。有了西藏3.14和新疆7.5 事件，就如此扩大汉语的“教化”功能和使用范围，不能不认为是以王予波等诸君的大民族个人意愿为前提的”。
第三，把过通用语言文字理解为中华人民共和国唯一的官方语言，是无知，是狡辩，更是无视中国多民族统一国家基本特征和民族区域自治基本制度的表现。 对于选择汉语作为单一的教学语言，王予波提出是基于汉语普通话和规范字是全国唯一的官方语言。这个说法完全站不住脚，它不仅混淆了官方语言和国家通用语言 文字的界限，也违背了中华人民共和国的国家语言政策。《语文法》实际上是除了适用于汉语各方言和书写传统中选择普通话、规范汉字作为通用规范标准外，并没 有阐述其与少数民族语文的关系（只有第八条 “各民族都有使用和发展自己的语言文字的自由”）。《自治法》还在第二十一条规定：“民族自治地方的自治机关在执行职务的时候，依照本民族自治地方自治条 例的规定，使用当地通用的一种或者几种语言文字；同时使用几种通用的语言文字执行职务的，可以实行区域自治的民族的语言文字为主。”
把国家通用语言文字混淆为官方语言，在教育行政部门、尤其是在青海这样的多民族地区是非常不应该的。官方语言作为一个国家的公民与其政府机关通讯时 使用的语言，有的国家只有一个，有的国家有几个（如印度），而在多民族统一的中国，既有国家统一层面的通用语言文字，但它不是唯一的官方语言。《自治法》 明确规定，在各个自治地方当地通用的少数民族语言也是政府机关首选或使用的本自治地方官方语言。所以在中国，除了民族自治地方，官方语言只有一种；而在民 族自治地方，则以本民族语言文字和国家通用语言文字同时作为自治地区官方语言的。纵观世界各国，除了民族国家、一些移民国家，多民族国家的官方语言也不一 定是单一的，其教学用语同样是多样的。
第四，既然肯定双语教育的成就，就没有理由让藏语文成为改革的替罪羊，没有理由将双语教育的困难问题归罪于藏语文。王予波称“双语教育取得长足发 展，基本建立了从基础教育到高等教育的双语教育体系，培养了大批民汉兼通的社会主义建设者和接班人，他们在全省各条战线发挥了重要作用，”其“重要作用不 可替代”，可以说客观公正、实事求是，符合实际。我们不少退休干部亲历这个发展历程，甚至有的终生献身于这一事业。而教育部门明知成就如此显著，为何还要 取消双语教育、区分语文主次、在教学语言上统一改用汉语，彻底否定民族教育、双语教育几十年逐步摸索、反复实践、艰难发展、培育壮大的巨大成就呢？我们无 法理解！把双语教育存在的诸多问题归结为藏语文作为“教学语言”的理由，更是片面的、狭隘的，没有任何科学依据。就是在最近第一次发生9. 1 9抗议活动的黄南州隆务镇，两大高中除了藏语、汉语和英语三门语言类课程，其余非语言类课程，该州同仁县民族中学的高中绝大多数课程以藏语为教学语言，黄 南州民族中学则分别选择藏语、汉语作为不同班级的教学语言，教学实践说明，同仁民中好于州高中，州高中的藏语班好于汉语班，对此作何解释？再说，黄南、海 南两州长期发展藏语授课为多数的双语教学，海北、海西、玉树三州则单设藏文课（或为选修课），而前者的双语教育普及率和质量远远好于后者，又作何解释？就 教学语言的改革这一重大性问题而言，首先在黄南州第一高中引起，显然是有这个所谓“经验主义”的认识基础的。无视好成就、好经验断然“改革”，师生、家长 难以接受是完全可以理解的。 在反思解放以来关于民族语文和双语教育问题正反两面经验的基础上，认为学校教学语言的选择要“根据多数群众的意愿和当地的语言环境决定”（1992 年国家教委、国家民委印发的《关于加强民族教育工作若干问题的意见》），而不是以一个省级行政部门领导个人意志为转移的。基于上述认识和考虑，我们提出：
1、立即停止执行汉语作为单一教学语言的违法条款。《自治法》第二十条规定“上级国家机关的决议、决定、命令和指示，如有不适合民族自治地方实际情 况的，自治机关可以报经该上级国家机关批准，变通执行或者停止执行；该上级国家机关应当在收到报告之日起六十日内给予答复。”
在目前的形势和条件下，未经上级国家机关同意，一个政府职能部门竟做出了如此大的违宪、违法的决定和改革。我们呼吁：在全国人大、省人大和六个自治 州的人大没有通过前，必须在六个民族自治州及民族散杂居地区停止执行。我们殷切希望省教育厅不要一错再错、扩大事态，而是尽早发出公开声明，立即纠正，立 即停止这种无视藏区群众教育需求和发展利益、恣意践踏国家宪法、法律、法规和基本政策，危害国家形象、破坏民族团结和社会稳定的行为。
2、立足现实，尊重科学，遵循规律，把藏、汉两门语言课和其他语言类教学中的藏语文应用同步推进、同步强化。认真、深入研究青海双语教育取得的成就 和发展的经验。广泛听取各民族专家学者、社会各界和各地区教育工作者、师生和家长的意见建议，在已有工作和成绩的基础上，加强和改进双语教育。在不断提高 作为第二语言的汉语水平及其应用能力的同时，切实培养藏、汉兼通的各科“双语教师”，坚持“尊重和保障”使用民族语言和文字接受数、理、化、音、体、美等 各门学科教育的权利，全面提高藏区教育的层次和水平。而“学生汉语水平不高（五个突出困难和问题之第二个方面）”，需要“提高汉语能力”，是要通过汉语课 这个语言教学来实现的，而不是通过实验室、算术题、画画、开展体育运动等非语言课目来实现的，语言课的任务就是提高汉语能力，而学科教学的任务是让学生通 过他们最熟悉和最熟练的语言，最便捷有效地接受学科知识教育。新成立的青海省完全藏文中学所谓的“双语”教师只招收藏语文老师，其他聘用的几十个各科“双 语”教师几乎只懂汉语，无法用藏语辅助教学，学生反映其课堂的学科教学听不懂，就是摆在现实面前的现实（试问，是不是藏语老师有双语要求，汉语老师没有双 语要求，只会一种语言也胜任双语教师职务吗？这是世界上的什么“通行惯例）。对于提高汉语水平，我们要一分为二，科学认识，科学看待，科学解决，语言水平 是要通过语言课解决的，而不能为了提高语言，牺牲其它学科知识的全面、便捷、直接地接受。强调双语教育，既要加强汉语和藏语两门语文课，更要加强用本民族 语言作为课堂教学语言的各课目教学；
3、通过划出一定的“民考民”招生比例和名额，拓宽双语学生的升学渠道和就业门路，增强对汉语世界的适应性。对于双语教育“升学渠道狭窄，就业门路 不宽和自身适应性不强”（五个突出困难和问题之三个方面），责任不在学生，而在于政府的高校招生政策和策略。解决双语学生升学难、就业难问题，切实需要学 习内蒙古、延边、新疆和西藏等民族地方好的、成功的和受群众欢迎的做法、经验，如民族语文教材开发和出版、小学到高校的民族双语教育体系建设、双语教育规 律研究、以语言能力为中心的汉语课程教学等，更要拿出诚意、善意，打破“双语生”升学渠道狭窄的界限，根据青海的区域现状，按照藏汉/蒙汉双语类“民考民 ”学生的人数和比例，在高校招生过程中单独划出适当比例的名额，为双语学生进入全国各大院校、各个专业敞开包容的大门，让他们走向全国，走向世界。
4、兑现关于加强民族语文教学的承诺，消除人们对双语改革的担心和忧虑。王予波提出“继续加强和改进少数民族语文教学，加大投入，改善条件，提高教 学质量。”这种空洞的提法，司空见惯、耳已生茧。在我们的经历中，上世纪八十年代提出在青海两种模式并行的双语教育“双轨制”，针对的是两种地区，即在西 宁、海东的散杂居地区民族学校，实行汉语为教学语言、单设民族语文的双语教育；在六个自治州则实行藏语为教学语言、汉语单设的双语教学。发展了三十年，西 宁和海东散杂居区除了循化（这几年化隆开始恢复），其他地区的双语教育几乎有名无实，民族语文教师几乎没有配备，使得藏汉、土汉、撒拉-汉等中小学双语教 育已是徒有虚名。单设民族语文的双语教育似乎成了推行汉语单语教学的最初台阶和口实。这个历史，在全省范围内是不愿被看到的，反而是需要纠正和改进的。现 在，省级教育部门推广汉语的决心和力度如此之大，却将这些地区（包括海北、海西的一些城镇和农牧区）的民族语文教学视而不见，何以证明“语言平等”？我们 呼吁，请省教育厅兑现承诺，在收到本意见书之日起六十天内就西宁、海东乡村民族学校的民族语文课程设置和师资配备问题拿出方案，给予明确答复，切实证明并 “不是用一种语言削弱另一种语言”，以换取藏族民众和国内外的信任。
我们强烈呼吁：
1、反思文革以来正反两面的经验教训，通过汉族和少数民族相互尊重、学习和使用语言，进一步巩固良好的民族关系。《自治法》第四十九条规定： “民族自治地方的自治机关教育和鼓励各民族的干部互相学习语言文字。汉族干部要学习当地少数民族的语言文字，少数民族干部在学习、使用本民族语言文字的同 时，也要学习全国通用的普通话和规范文字。”
我们这些退休干部年轻时，进入藏区的汉族干部基本上同时精通藏语。文化大革命完全禁止学习使用少数民族语文，三中全会后立即予以纠正。现在的天下变 了，少数民族学习汉语已成为普遍现象，但汉族干部几乎不掌握民族语文，甚至一些本民族干部也不学不用民族语文，自治机关使用民族语文的也越来越少，民族语 文不断削弱，民族语文人才不断被边缘化。这种趋势，严重影响了藏族自治地方的民族关系。希望省委、省政府高度重视，各自治地方正视严峻现状，积极作出回 应，尽早扭转类似的倒退局面。
2、保护和发展藏语文是多语言文化和谐并存、人类文明延续的需要，请给予尊重和重视。藏语文历史悠久，内涵丰富，承载着深厚的历史文化和精神文明， 为保存和传播本民族乃至印度文明、中原文明曾经并继续起着其他语言文字无法替代的作用，是提高中华民族文化软实力的重要部。。藏语同时作为一个跨国境的强 势语言，一个具有国际通用编码的文种，除了藏区，还涉及到周边一些国家和地区，藏语使用和发展问题并不是单一的国内问题。当前，语言多样性、文化多样性象 生物多样性一样受世人关注，成为全球共识。同时，虽然时过两年，3.14和7.5事件的阴影依然笼罩在藏民族的周围，人们充满担心和顾虑且在议论纷纷：中 央和国家的对藏政策是否改变，对待藏族干部、群众、学生，对待藏族文化、语言和宗教的态度是否改变？在这样的时代，这样的时段，这样的背景下，切断法律政 策的延续性，大规模实行所谓改革，实行限制藏语文在“教育教学用语用材”的使用，很容易引起人们的恐慌，更容易引起师生和家长的混乱，不利于稳定、和谐、 团结。希望教育部门对于我们这种本应坚决克服的、认为“影响社会稳定的错误思想”和“重重顾虑”，给予足够的评估和正视，切实把它“作为一项重大的政治任 务，一项重大的民生工程，下大决心、下大气力，抓紧抓好，抓出成效。”
3、由教育、民族工作部门以外的有关民间团体牵头，开展双语教育问题深层调查、研究、探讨和经验交流，维护社会稳定和民族团结，避免藏语文成为影响 民族关系和国家安全的政治因素。青海藏族研究会作为全省最大的民间团体，尽快组织本民族、汉族和其他民族的专家学者、教育工作者、社会工作者，全面学习、 正确理解青海省教育部门的规定和具体解读，尽可能组织专业力量和富有藏区教育工作经验的离退休干部，对藏汉双语教育做进一步的调查研究和分析探讨，积极召 开具有一定层次的藏汉双语教育研讨会，广泛征集双语教育加强、改进和发展方面的报告和论文（包括国外的双语教育经验和国内延边、内蒙古、新疆、西藏以及贵 州、云南各方面的经验），提出正面、善意、诚肯的意见和建议，防止藏族干部群众和师生采用“过激行为”表达正常诉求，防止事态扩大造成不良后果。也希望各 族同胞从长计议，长远谋划，尽量克制、沉着、冷静，不造谣、不信谣、不传谣，为科学、稳妥、有利、有效地推进双语教育、保持社会和谐稳定做出努力。
西宁地区部分藏族退休干部、老教育工作者
二零一零年十月二十四日
抄送：中央统战部、全国人民宗委、国家民委、国家教育部、全国政协民委、省委各常委、省人大、省政府、省政协领导及组成部门，省委统战部、省民宗委、六州党委、人大、政府、政协、六州教育局。
Saturday, November 13, 2010
西藏问题及其解决办法
博讯2010年11月12日 首发 作者： 艾自由
西藏问题的由来
西藏解放后，达赖喇嘛、班禅喇嘛与毛泽东有过一段蜜月期，但是非常短暂。毛泽东不能接受藏区有三分之一的男性人口是僧人。他要求所有的人都去劳动，不能呆在寺庙。在藏区，由于没有专门的学校，寺庙就是学校，年青僧人就是学生。很多藏人年青的时候都要去当僧人，学习文化，大部分学完之后，回去从事生产。少部分会留下来当老师，年老的僧人就是老师。经书就是知识，包括天文，地理，语言，医药，艺术等等很广泛的范围。实际上藏区的僧人越多，说明这里的百姓受教育程度越高，文明程度越发达。但是毛泽东认为百姓越愚昧，越容易统治（其实所有共产党领导人都是这样认为的）。坚决不让百姓受教育。终于有一天，毛泽东说出了，“僧人既不生产物资资料，又不生产人，留着有何用！”。毛泽东不是不知道僧人就是藏人中的学生和老师，就是一个民族的未来。但是，为了自己的统治，他宁愿自己的百姓愚昧，宁愿抹杀百姓、民族、国家的未来也要维护自己的统治。
对于这一点，达赖喇嘛是很清楚的，僧人代表的是藏族文化的传承，寺庙是藏族的学校，毛泽东不让藏人学习文化，等于是要藏族走向灭亡。为了逃避毛泽东的迫害，为了让藏族的文明能够得到传承。他带领了8万僧人历经艰辛逃到了印度。达赖的这个举动，等于是挽救了8万人的生命，让一个历史悠久的民族文化得以保留和传承。这也许是他获得诺贝尔和平奖的原因。留在藏区的僧人们就没有这么好的运气了，他们大多数都遭受了迫害。当时的藏区地位最高的宗教领袖班禅活佛都难逃脱软禁和公开殴打。
89年，一直被软禁在北京的班禅终于获准可以回到藏区，但是，他一到藏区，就不明不白的死了，当时陪同他回去的是胡锦涛。有人说是胡锦涛毒死了班禅。由于自己的宗教领袖死的不明不白，于是藏区百姓发生了骚乱，当然被胡锦涛残酷镇压。
这些年来，共产党不知出于什么目的，对藏人的迫害一直在继续，为了方便监控僧人，很多寺庙以消防的名义驻扎武警。有时武警会殴打僧人，不让他们学习，驱赶他们离开寺庙。藏人的老师和学生一直生活在恐怖之中。藏民网上下载一些歌颂达赖的歌曲，如果被发现，共产党会以下载反动歌曲罪判处藏民几年有期徒刑。藏民在家里供奉一些达赖的画像，如果被发现，会被殴打，然后投入监狱。甚至，如果共产党怀疑某个村庄中有反抗人员，会派士兵将这个村庄摧毁，杀死所有人，不会放过一个，不管男女老幼。
最近，由于寺庙教育的日渐衰弱，藏民的子女无法学习藏语，被迫发生藏区小小的中小学生都不得不去游行，要求学习藏语。
藏族在中国，已经到了不能学习自己语言的地步。我不敢想像，当一个民族在一个国家内，不要说自己的文化，连自己的语言都不能学习。这个民族还会爱这个国家吗？这个民族的人还会想呆在这个国家内吗？
西藏问题的解决办法（由于作者水平有限，仅起抛砖引玉的作用）
1，中国实现民主制度，让所有中国人（包括藏人）拥有做人的基本权力。
2，更换迫害西藏百姓的领导人。换上能善待西藏百姓，愿为藏人有一个幸福的未来努力的领导人。
3，处置一些迫害西藏百姓的凶手。
4，落实民族自治制度，让藏民能够选举藏人来服务藏区。
5，落实宗教信仰自由制度，让藏民能追求自己想要的生活。
6，藏区的土地和矿产资源由藏人所有，让藏人能够从自己的资源中获得利益。
7，。。。
总之，要停止在西藏的文化灭绝活动，撤走驻扎在寺庙监控僧人的武警，让西藏的年轻人可以自由的在寺庙中学习自己的文化，和达赖商谈西藏高度自治的事宜，让西藏的百姓能追求自己想要的生活。大力发展藏人的教育水平，让藏人在掌握传统的知识与文化的同时，能够学习到先进的科学与技术，不要落伍于时代，让藏人过上自由，平等，民主，富裕的生活。
以上是必须做的，还要做更多，才可能打消藏人的顾虑，放弃独立，考虑留在中国。否则，西藏迟早会分裂出去。
为了国家不走向分裂，欢迎大家转发。
西藏问题的由来
西藏解放后，达赖喇嘛、班禅喇嘛与毛泽东有过一段蜜月期，但是非常短暂。毛泽东不能接受藏区有三分之一的男性人口是僧人。他要求所有的人都去劳动，不能呆在寺庙。在藏区，由于没有专门的学校，寺庙就是学校，年青僧人就是学生。很多藏人年青的时候都要去当僧人，学习文化，大部分学完之后，回去从事生产。少部分会留下来当老师，年老的僧人就是老师。经书就是知识，包括天文，地理，语言，医药，艺术等等很广泛的范围。实际上藏区的僧人越多，说明这里的百姓受教育程度越高，文明程度越发达。但是毛泽东认为百姓越愚昧，越容易统治（其实所有共产党领导人都是这样认为的）。坚决不让百姓受教育。终于有一天，毛泽东说出了，“僧人既不生产物资资料，又不生产人，留着有何用！”。毛泽东不是不知道僧人就是藏人中的学生和老师，就是一个民族的未来。但是，为了自己的统治，他宁愿自己的百姓愚昧，宁愿抹杀百姓、民族、国家的未来也要维护自己的统治。
对于这一点，达赖喇嘛是很清楚的，僧人代表的是藏族文化的传承，寺庙是藏族的学校，毛泽东不让藏人学习文化，等于是要藏族走向灭亡。为了逃避毛泽东的迫害，为了让藏族的文明能够得到传承。他带领了8万僧人历经艰辛逃到了印度。达赖的这个举动，等于是挽救了8万人的生命，让一个历史悠久的民族文化得以保留和传承。这也许是他获得诺贝尔和平奖的原因。留在藏区的僧人们就没有这么好的运气了，他们大多数都遭受了迫害。当时的藏区地位最高的宗教领袖班禅活佛都难逃脱软禁和公开殴打。
89年，一直被软禁在北京的班禅终于获准可以回到藏区，但是，他一到藏区，就不明不白的死了，当时陪同他回去的是胡锦涛。有人说是胡锦涛毒死了班禅。由于自己的宗教领袖死的不明不白，于是藏区百姓发生了骚乱，当然被胡锦涛残酷镇压。
这些年来，共产党不知出于什么目的，对藏人的迫害一直在继续，为了方便监控僧人，很多寺庙以消防的名义驻扎武警。有时武警会殴打僧人，不让他们学习，驱赶他们离开寺庙。藏人的老师和学生一直生活在恐怖之中。藏民网上下载一些歌颂达赖的歌曲，如果被发现，共产党会以下载反动歌曲罪判处藏民几年有期徒刑。藏民在家里供奉一些达赖的画像，如果被发现，会被殴打，然后投入监狱。甚至，如果共产党怀疑某个村庄中有反抗人员，会派士兵将这个村庄摧毁，杀死所有人，不会放过一个，不管男女老幼。
最近，由于寺庙教育的日渐衰弱，藏民的子女无法学习藏语，被迫发生藏区小小的中小学生都不得不去游行，要求学习藏语。
藏族在中国，已经到了不能学习自己语言的地步。我不敢想像，当一个民族在一个国家内，不要说自己的文化，连自己的语言都不能学习。这个民族还会爱这个国家吗？这个民族的人还会想呆在这个国家内吗？
西藏问题的解决办法（由于作者水平有限，仅起抛砖引玉的作用）
1，中国实现民主制度，让所有中国人（包括藏人）拥有做人的基本权力。
2，更换迫害西藏百姓的领导人。换上能善待西藏百姓，愿为藏人有一个幸福的未来努力的领导人。
3，处置一些迫害西藏百姓的凶手。
4，落实民族自治制度，让藏民能够选举藏人来服务藏区。
5，落实宗教信仰自由制度，让藏民能追求自己想要的生活。
6，藏区的土地和矿产资源由藏人所有，让藏人能够从自己的资源中获得利益。
7，。。。
总之，要停止在西藏的文化灭绝活动，撤走驻扎在寺庙监控僧人的武警，让西藏的年轻人可以自由的在寺庙中学习自己的文化，和达赖商谈西藏高度自治的事宜，让西藏的百姓能追求自己想要的生活。大力发展藏人的教育水平，让藏人在掌握传统的知识与文化的同时，能够学习到先进的科学与技术，不要落伍于时代，让藏人过上自由，平等，民主，富裕的生活。
以上是必须做的，还要做更多，才可能打消藏人的顾虑，放弃独立，考虑留在中国。否则，西藏迟早会分裂出去。
为了国家不走向分裂，欢迎大家转发。
中国知识分子在达兰萨拉演讲西藏问题
2010-11-12 11:41
【西藏之页】西藏流亡政府外交部的筹备下，2010年11月10日，四位中国知识分子访问达兰萨拉，当天下午3时半在员工大厅向西藏流亡政府所有工作人员发表关于西藏问题的进展，在开展演讲活动上西藏流亡政府外交部助理秘书长扎西发表演讲。
随后，美国驻西藏流亡政府办事处汉藏联络员贡嘎扎西一一介绍四位声援西藏问题的中国知识分子。接着由声援西藏问题的项小吉先生发表演讲说：中国一党专政，不但造成了西藏人民50年流离他乡的悲惨结局，也把广大汉族人民也遭受到60年的折磨。也讲道美国和中国的经济模式。
夏明先生发表未来如何解决西藏问题时说：未来解决西藏问题的第一方法是“西藏独立”。但是获得西藏独立需要国际支援，如果得不到国际的大力支持，西藏独立很难实现。而解决西藏问题的最佳方法是争取全体西藏人民获得名副其实的西藏自治。
中国未实现真正的“民主”之前解决西藏问题也是很难的，因此争取中国民主和争取西藏自治同步发展。在历史上，1949年中国专制党执政后汉民族和藏民族之间的关系发生了改变，但是我相信，在未来结束中国的独裁专制后一定会重建我们之间的友好关系。
我们所有汉人感谢，圣尊达赖喇嘛支持刘晓波先生荣获2010年诺贝尔和平奖。其次，还有一个最大的困难就是中国政府不实施他们的宪章。
冯玉兰女士表示：刘晓波先生获得今年诺贝尔奖项的原因是，他为中国走向民主和自由化起草了“08宪章”，诺贝尔和平奖协会也表达中国千万人民的艰苦斗争和境内西藏人民的勇敢斗争。今年12月10日在挪威首都奥斯陆举行颁发诺贝尔和平奖项时，我们准备邀请西藏流亡政府的代表。
她还表示：促进汉藏青年间的关系是很重要的。我对旅居在加拿大的汉人呼吁，中共对境内藏人采取镇压和强硬政策要表示抗议。最近，圣尊达赖喇嘛在加拿大展开访问时参与“藏汉友好对话”的汉人有所增多，比以往增加了150至300人。藏汉两民族继续展开对话是至关重要的，藏人在国际舞台上能够获得大力支持，我们会努力揭露中共对境内藏人采取的镇压策略。
最后，朱学渊先生发表了中共对藏政策详细情况后进行展开问答。
【西藏之页】西藏流亡政府外交部的筹备下，2010年11月10日，四位中国知识分子访问达兰萨拉，当天下午3时半在员工大厅向西藏流亡政府所有工作人员发表关于西藏问题的进展，在开展演讲活动上西藏流亡政府外交部助理秘书长扎西发表演讲。
随后，美国驻西藏流亡政府办事处汉藏联络员贡嘎扎西一一介绍四位声援西藏问题的中国知识分子。接着由声援西藏问题的项小吉先生发表演讲说：中国一党专政，不但造成了西藏人民50年流离他乡的悲惨结局，也把广大汉族人民也遭受到60年的折磨。也讲道美国和中国的经济模式。
夏明先生发表未来如何解决西藏问题时说：未来解决西藏问题的第一方法是“西藏独立”。但是获得西藏独立需要国际支援，如果得不到国际的大力支持，西藏独立很难实现。而解决西藏问题的最佳方法是争取全体西藏人民获得名副其实的西藏自治。
中国未实现真正的“民主”之前解决西藏问题也是很难的，因此争取中国民主和争取西藏自治同步发展。在历史上，1949年中国专制党执政后汉民族和藏民族之间的关系发生了改变，但是我相信，在未来结束中国的独裁专制后一定会重建我们之间的友好关系。
我们所有汉人感谢，圣尊达赖喇嘛支持刘晓波先生荣获2010年诺贝尔和平奖。其次，还有一个最大的困难就是中国政府不实施他们的宪章。
冯玉兰女士表示：刘晓波先生获得今年诺贝尔奖项的原因是，他为中国走向民主和自由化起草了“08宪章”，诺贝尔和平奖协会也表达中国千万人民的艰苦斗争和境内西藏人民的勇敢斗争。今年12月10日在挪威首都奥斯陆举行颁发诺贝尔和平奖项时，我们准备邀请西藏流亡政府的代表。
她还表示：促进汉藏青年间的关系是很重要的。我对旅居在加拿大的汉人呼吁，中共对境内藏人采取镇压和强硬政策要表示抗议。最近，圣尊达赖喇嘛在加拿大展开访问时参与“藏汉友好对话”的汉人有所增多，比以往增加了150至300人。藏汉两民族继续展开对话是至关重要的，藏人在国际舞台上能够获得大力支持，我们会努力揭露中共对境内藏人采取的镇压策略。
最后，朱学渊先生发表了中共对藏政策详细情况后进行展开问答。
西藏流亡政府总理大选预选结果出笼：洛桑桑盖博士（Dr.Lobsang Sangay）大幅领先
作者: 普布廷莱
[星期五，2010年11月12日]
【达兰萨拉】11月12日：2010年10月3日全球流亡西藏人社区举行了西藏流亡政府总理及国会议员初选， 本次预选竞争激烈，仅总理候选人就达17位。
根据西藏流亡政府选举委员会11月12日公布的初步统计结果表明，哈佛大学法学院高级研究员洛桑桑盖博士得票遥遥领先。有超过10,000选民提前投了他的票，选他为下一个西藏总理（噶伦赤巴）的候选人。洛桑桑盖博士在本次预选中获得的总票数为22489。本次选举登记选民为79449名，投票率约为61％。
按照西藏选举委员会的选举规则，本次预选入围的前六名噶伦赤巴(政府总理）候选人将角逐于2011年03月20日举行的最后大选。
本次预选另外5位候选人和得票情况是：
前流亡政府总理Mr Tenzin Namgyal Tethong 获得12319票 ；
现任国会副议长嘉日卓玛女士，获得2733张票；
Kasur Tashi Wangdi 获得2101张票；
Lobsang Jinpa 获得1545票；
Khorlatsang Sonam Topgyal 获得605票。
西藏流亡政府选举委员会负责人Jamphal Choesang说，本次噶伦赤巴预选投票的总票数中只有1019张票被视为无效票。
预估，在全球大约15万流亡藏人中，超过18岁以上并有投票资格的选民大约为9万左右。上次（2006年）的噶伦赤巴选举有大约72,000（60％）选民注册登记，但只有26.8％（32205人）实际参加了投票。
西藏流亡政府中央选举管理委员办公室同时也宣布了第15届西藏流亡政府议会议员的预选结果。委员会公布了50名议会议员候选人中的部分候选人的名单，其中有包括3名分别来自西藏传统三省的候选人，10名来自四大教派的候选人，以及北美和欧洲的候选人。这50名候选人将角逐西藏流亡政府议会中的44个席位。
Choesang先生表示，本次流亡藏人的选举不幸遭受重大挫折，尼泊尔当局打乱了加德满都市两个选区的投票进程，他们强行拿走了18个票箱。他说，我们尽最大的努力试图挽救投票过程，但最终所有的努力都失败了。他说，被强行没收的投票箱中有超过1000张选票。
Choesang表示，来自尼泊尔的注册选民共有11620，其中3623票已成功地统计在总的选举结果中。
在不丹王国，流亡西藏人的选举也面临着类似的问题。议员Choesang说，不丹有1097名注册登记的选民，但是613张已投的票被浪费在那里无法统计结果，因为不丹当局下令西藏人的任何选举文件不得运送出不丹国境之外。
第三届西藏流亡政府总理（噶伦赤巴）的直选和第15届西藏流亡政府国会议员的最后大选将于2011年3月20日举行。
选举委员会还宣布，错过预选的选民可从2010年11月30日到2011年1月17日之间，在当地社区注册选民资格。
Choesang先生说，选民注册登记本应在2011年1月24日之前送达选举委员会办公室。
[星期五，2010年11月12日]
【达兰萨拉】11月12日：2010年10月3日全球流亡西藏人社区举行了西藏流亡政府总理及国会议员初选， 本次预选竞争激烈，仅总理候选人就达17位。
根据西藏流亡政府选举委员会11月12日公布的初步统计结果表明，哈佛大学法学院高级研究员洛桑桑盖博士得票遥遥领先。有超过10,000选民提前投了他的票，选他为下一个西藏总理（噶伦赤巴）的候选人。洛桑桑盖博士在本次预选中获得的总票数为22489。本次选举登记选民为79449名，投票率约为61％。
按照西藏选举委员会的选举规则，本次预选入围的前六名噶伦赤巴(政府总理）候选人将角逐于2011年03月20日举行的最后大选。
本次预选另外5位候选人和得票情况是：
前流亡政府总理Mr Tenzin Namgyal Tethong 获得12319票 ；
现任国会副议长嘉日卓玛女士，获得2733张票；
Kasur Tashi Wangdi 获得2101张票；
Lobsang Jinpa 获得1545票；
Khorlatsang Sonam Topgyal 获得605票。
西藏流亡政府选举委员会负责人Jamphal Choesang说，本次噶伦赤巴预选投票的总票数中只有1019张票被视为无效票。
预估，在全球大约15万流亡藏人中，超过18岁以上并有投票资格的选民大约为9万左右。上次（2006年）的噶伦赤巴选举有大约72,000（60％）选民注册登记，但只有26.8％（32205人）实际参加了投票。
西藏流亡政府中央选举管理委员办公室同时也宣布了第15届西藏流亡政府议会议员的预选结果。委员会公布了50名议会议员候选人中的部分候选人的名单，其中有包括3名分别来自西藏传统三省的候选人，10名来自四大教派的候选人，以及北美和欧洲的候选人。这50名候选人将角逐西藏流亡政府议会中的44个席位。
Choesang先生表示，本次流亡藏人的选举不幸遭受重大挫折，尼泊尔当局打乱了加德满都市两个选区的投票进程，他们强行拿走了18个票箱。他说，我们尽最大的努力试图挽救投票过程，但最终所有的努力都失败了。他说，被强行没收的投票箱中有超过1000张选票。
Choesang表示，来自尼泊尔的注册选民共有11620，其中3623票已成功地统计在总的选举结果中。
在不丹王国，流亡西藏人的选举也面临着类似的问题。议员Choesang说，不丹有1097名注册登记的选民，但是613张已投的票被浪费在那里无法统计结果，因为不丹当局下令西藏人的任何选举文件不得运送出不丹国境之外。
第三届西藏流亡政府总理（噶伦赤巴）的直选和第15届西藏流亡政府国会议员的最后大选将于2011年3月20日举行。
选举委员会还宣布，错过预选的选民可从2010年11月30日到2011年1月17日之间，在当地社区注册选民资格。
Choesang先生说，选民注册登记本应在2011年1月24日之前送达选举委员会办公室。
我的非暴力抗争观
日期：11/12/2010
来源：中国人权双周刊
作者：胡平
转自：北京之春
关于非暴力抗争，我已经写过不少文字。这里，我再做一些补充。
黄万盛先生在《思考法国大革命》一书的序言里讲到这样一段故事：哈佛教授罗尔斯一次在课堂上讲关于“无知之幕”的理论，那是他公正理论的逻辑起点。突然，一个学生举手问到：老师，你讲的很好，我都能接受，可是，这套理论如果碰到了希特勒，怎么办？罗尔斯愣住了，他说：让我想一 想，这是个重要的问题。他在课堂上沉思，整个教室了无声息静静地等着，十分钟以后，罗尔斯抬起眼来，严肃而平和地给出了一个答复：我们只有杀了他，才能讨论建设公正的问题。
我对罗尔斯的回答很不满意。需要提醒的是，这里说到的希特勒，当然不是那个维也纳的流浪汉，而是第三帝国的元首。这样问题就清楚了：对于统领雄兵百万并得到相当多德国民众狂热拥戴的希特勒，请问你罗尔斯怎么去杀死他？关键的一点是，当罗尔斯说“我们只有杀了他”时，这里的“我们”是谁？
除非你是斯陶芬伯格伯爵，那位德军上校，1944年7月戈登斯堡刺杀希特勒事件的主角，那多少还有可能。记得当年林彪事件爆发，我们被告知林立果曾经组织暗杀毛泽东，但未获成功，那时我感到非常振奋，也非常惋惜（“惜乎不中秦皇帝”），但我也深知，这种事不是我辈普通百姓能做的，也不是罗尔斯们能做的。
要么罗尔斯就是把自己当成丘吉尔或罗斯福了。唯有强大民主国家的领袖才有足够的军事力量去杀死希特勒。由此可以推出，民主国家有权先发制人（象布什总统发动伊拉克之战），最好是对极权国家的独裁者实施斩首行动。既然那是对付希特勒的唯一办法，因而没必要非等到希特勒发动世界大战，造成严重恶果后再动手。我疑心罗尔斯肯不肯把自己的理论推这么远，但是按照他的答复，他似乎没有理由不推这么远。
但问题是，如果你罗尔斯既不是斯陶芬伯格，又不是丘吉尔或罗斯福，那又该如何是好呢？假如你是个德国人，是个拒不接受纳粹那套邪恶理念的德国人，比方说，你是德国的哲学家雅斯贝尔斯，你该怎么办？你能怎么办？汉娜?阿伦特对她这位哲学导师在纳粹时期的表现给予很高的评价，而雅斯贝尔斯那时的表现恐怕连非暴力反抗都谈不上，至多是非暴力不合作而已。但是在当时，能做到这一点已经非常不容易。我想，如果换成罗尔斯，大约也只能做到这一点。
假定罗尔斯是希特勒治下的犹太人，那情况就更糟糕了。1938年11月，甘地曾经建议犹太人以他为榜样，用非暴力方式反抗希特勒。犹太领袖马丁?布伯很不以为然，写信反问：“圣雄，你知道不知道，什么是集中营，那里发生着什么事？集中营里有哪些折磨人的刑罚？有哪些缓慢的和快速的杀人方法？”布伯指出：对于那些不明事理的人，可以采取行之有效的非暴力态度，因为使用这种方式有可能使他们逐渐变得明智起来。可是要对付一个万恶的魔鬼就不能这样了。
布伯的反问看上去很有道理，但问题是，对犹太人而言，如果非暴力抗争对希特勒这类政权是无用的无效的，那他们又该怎么办呢？用暴力吗？你若对犹太人建议，说你们应该杀死希特勒，这和晋惠帝得知老百姓没米饭吃被饿死，于是建议老百姓去吃肉有什么区别呢？
很明显，在非暴力抗争很难进行的地方，暴力抗争往往就更难进行。我们务必要记住这一点。
现在，人们一谈到非暴力抗争的无效用，总是拿希特勒政权做例证。是的，纳粹政权不是被非暴力抗争击败的，而是被暴力击败的；但不是被犹太人、被德国人的暴力抗争击败的，而是被盟军的暴力击败的。如果希特勒不急于发动世界大战，那又怎么办呢？
我在“我为什么写《论言论自由》”（1987年）一文里讲到，在1973年，我第一次读到威廉?夏伊尔的《第三帝国兴亡》时，我想到的问题就是：要是当年希特勒在进行军事扩张时稍微更有耐心一点，结局又将如何呢？或者说，假如希特勒并不一味向外扩张，而只是不断地加强对内的控制，那么德国人民还能摆脱纳粹的统治吗？当人们不幸落入了现代极权主义的魔掌之中时——例如中共统治下的中国人，尤其是在毛时代，我们该怎么办？难道我们就只有等着外国军队打败暴政把我们解放出来吗？难道我们自己就注定了不可能进行任何有成效的抗争吗？假如说一个国家陷入极权主义的魔掌，它还可以指望着别的国家来解救，但要是整个世界都陷入极权主义的魔掌，那是否意味着除了外星人来解救，否则就只有永远地生活在暴政之下吗？自由如果是赢得起输不起的，那就太危险了。
正是出于对这种极端处境的思考，我坚信，极权主义一定是可以从内部战胜的。作为普通人，我们一定是能够对之进行有成效的抗争的。我相信事在人为。 所谓事在人为，有两层意思。一是说我们自己一定能打开出路，二是相信极权统治者一定会犯错误。从理论上讲，极权主义或许能把自身完善到天衣无缝、无懈可击的地步，但极权统治者也是人，而人总是要犯错误的。极权统治者必定会由于自身的愚蠢与任性而把事情搞得一团糟，从而为追求自由的人们提供可乘之机。
还有一点也非常重要。极权统治不是凭空建立的。极权统治是利用人们身上的弱点建立起来的。但同时，极权统治也是利用人们身上的优点、利用人们善良的愿望建立起来的。这些人终究可以从自己的经验中认清极权主义的面目，从而根本改变他们的政治态度。你可以说希特勒、毛泽东是魔鬼，他们决不可能变得通情达理；但是希特勒和毛泽东都不是凭借他们自己一个人的力量来统治我们的，他们都是靠着千千万万的人们对他们的自愿支持来统治我们的，而在这些人之中，大多数还是善良的、通情达理的。我们不可能改变希特勒或毛泽东，但是我们完全可以改变那千千万万原来自愿支持他们的人。事实上，非暴力抗争都不是做给对手看的，而是做给公众看的。我们不是寄希望于统治者，而是寄希望于民众。一旦大多数民众放弃了对极权统治者的支持与服从，极权统治者就失去了他的力量。政治制度不同于建 筑物，它不可能在一经建成后便可以自然地维持其存在。政治制度是活的东西，它时时刻刻需要人们的参与。无论如何，极权统治不可能在失去人们的自觉支持，尤其是最有理想、最有能力的那批人的自觉支持下，依然继续存在下去。必须记住，在构成极权统治那似乎是无可匹敌的威力中，正包含着我们自己提供的一份力量； 因此，我们每一个人自己，当然也就可以削弱它的威力。
这就是我自己的非暴力抗争观的产生过程。自那以后三十多年的历史已经证明，对极权统治，非暴力抗争也是可以发挥作用，取得成功的。八九民运就差一点取得成功。现在有不少人对非暴力抗争又生出种种疑问，我以为这些疑问还是因为对问题缺少根本性的思考。我写下我自己当年的思考过程，或许对澄清问题不无助益
来源：中国人权双周刊
作者：胡平
转自：北京之春
关于非暴力抗争，我已经写过不少文字。这里，我再做一些补充。
黄万盛先生在《思考法国大革命》一书的序言里讲到这样一段故事：哈佛教授罗尔斯一次在课堂上讲关于“无知之幕”的理论，那是他公正理论的逻辑起点。突然，一个学生举手问到：老师，你讲的很好，我都能接受，可是，这套理论如果碰到了希特勒，怎么办？罗尔斯愣住了，他说：让我想一 想，这是个重要的问题。他在课堂上沉思，整个教室了无声息静静地等着，十分钟以后，罗尔斯抬起眼来，严肃而平和地给出了一个答复：我们只有杀了他，才能讨论建设公正的问题。
我对罗尔斯的回答很不满意。需要提醒的是，这里说到的希特勒，当然不是那个维也纳的流浪汉，而是第三帝国的元首。这样问题就清楚了：对于统领雄兵百万并得到相当多德国民众狂热拥戴的希特勒，请问你罗尔斯怎么去杀死他？关键的一点是，当罗尔斯说“我们只有杀了他”时，这里的“我们”是谁？
除非你是斯陶芬伯格伯爵，那位德军上校，1944年7月戈登斯堡刺杀希特勒事件的主角，那多少还有可能。记得当年林彪事件爆发，我们被告知林立果曾经组织暗杀毛泽东，但未获成功，那时我感到非常振奋，也非常惋惜（“惜乎不中秦皇帝”），但我也深知，这种事不是我辈普通百姓能做的，也不是罗尔斯们能做的。
要么罗尔斯就是把自己当成丘吉尔或罗斯福了。唯有强大民主国家的领袖才有足够的军事力量去杀死希特勒。由此可以推出，民主国家有权先发制人（象布什总统发动伊拉克之战），最好是对极权国家的独裁者实施斩首行动。既然那是对付希特勒的唯一办法，因而没必要非等到希特勒发动世界大战，造成严重恶果后再动手。我疑心罗尔斯肯不肯把自己的理论推这么远，但是按照他的答复，他似乎没有理由不推这么远。
但问题是，如果你罗尔斯既不是斯陶芬伯格，又不是丘吉尔或罗斯福，那又该如何是好呢？假如你是个德国人，是个拒不接受纳粹那套邪恶理念的德国人，比方说，你是德国的哲学家雅斯贝尔斯，你该怎么办？你能怎么办？汉娜?阿伦特对她这位哲学导师在纳粹时期的表现给予很高的评价，而雅斯贝尔斯那时的表现恐怕连非暴力反抗都谈不上，至多是非暴力不合作而已。但是在当时，能做到这一点已经非常不容易。我想，如果换成罗尔斯，大约也只能做到这一点。
假定罗尔斯是希特勒治下的犹太人，那情况就更糟糕了。1938年11月，甘地曾经建议犹太人以他为榜样，用非暴力方式反抗希特勒。犹太领袖马丁?布伯很不以为然，写信反问：“圣雄，你知道不知道，什么是集中营，那里发生着什么事？集中营里有哪些折磨人的刑罚？有哪些缓慢的和快速的杀人方法？”布伯指出：对于那些不明事理的人，可以采取行之有效的非暴力态度，因为使用这种方式有可能使他们逐渐变得明智起来。可是要对付一个万恶的魔鬼就不能这样了。
布伯的反问看上去很有道理，但问题是，对犹太人而言，如果非暴力抗争对希特勒这类政权是无用的无效的，那他们又该怎么办呢？用暴力吗？你若对犹太人建议，说你们应该杀死希特勒，这和晋惠帝得知老百姓没米饭吃被饿死，于是建议老百姓去吃肉有什么区别呢？
很明显，在非暴力抗争很难进行的地方，暴力抗争往往就更难进行。我们务必要记住这一点。
现在，人们一谈到非暴力抗争的无效用，总是拿希特勒政权做例证。是的，纳粹政权不是被非暴力抗争击败的，而是被暴力击败的；但不是被犹太人、被德国人的暴力抗争击败的，而是被盟军的暴力击败的。如果希特勒不急于发动世界大战，那又怎么办呢？
我在“我为什么写《论言论自由》”（1987年）一文里讲到，在1973年，我第一次读到威廉?夏伊尔的《第三帝国兴亡》时，我想到的问题就是：要是当年希特勒在进行军事扩张时稍微更有耐心一点，结局又将如何呢？或者说，假如希特勒并不一味向外扩张，而只是不断地加强对内的控制，那么德国人民还能摆脱纳粹的统治吗？当人们不幸落入了现代极权主义的魔掌之中时——例如中共统治下的中国人，尤其是在毛时代，我们该怎么办？难道我们就只有等着外国军队打败暴政把我们解放出来吗？难道我们自己就注定了不可能进行任何有成效的抗争吗？假如说一个国家陷入极权主义的魔掌，它还可以指望着别的国家来解救，但要是整个世界都陷入极权主义的魔掌，那是否意味着除了外星人来解救，否则就只有永远地生活在暴政之下吗？自由如果是赢得起输不起的，那就太危险了。
正是出于对这种极端处境的思考，我坚信，极权主义一定是可以从内部战胜的。作为普通人，我们一定是能够对之进行有成效的抗争的。我相信事在人为。 所谓事在人为，有两层意思。一是说我们自己一定能打开出路，二是相信极权统治者一定会犯错误。从理论上讲，极权主义或许能把自身完善到天衣无缝、无懈可击的地步，但极权统治者也是人，而人总是要犯错误的。极权统治者必定会由于自身的愚蠢与任性而把事情搞得一团糟，从而为追求自由的人们提供可乘之机。
还有一点也非常重要。极权统治不是凭空建立的。极权统治是利用人们身上的弱点建立起来的。但同时，极权统治也是利用人们身上的优点、利用人们善良的愿望建立起来的。这些人终究可以从自己的经验中认清极权主义的面目，从而根本改变他们的政治态度。你可以说希特勒、毛泽东是魔鬼，他们决不可能变得通情达理；但是希特勒和毛泽东都不是凭借他们自己一个人的力量来统治我们的，他们都是靠着千千万万的人们对他们的自愿支持来统治我们的，而在这些人之中，大多数还是善良的、通情达理的。我们不可能改变希特勒或毛泽东，但是我们完全可以改变那千千万万原来自愿支持他们的人。事实上，非暴力抗争都不是做给对手看的，而是做给公众看的。我们不是寄希望于统治者，而是寄希望于民众。一旦大多数民众放弃了对极权统治者的支持与服从，极权统治者就失去了他的力量。政治制度不同于建 筑物，它不可能在一经建成后便可以自然地维持其存在。政治制度是活的东西，它时时刻刻需要人们的参与。无论如何，极权统治不可能在失去人们的自觉支持，尤其是最有理想、最有能力的那批人的自觉支持下，依然继续存在下去。必须记住，在构成极权统治那似乎是无可匹敌的威力中，正包含着我们自己提供的一份力量； 因此，我们每一个人自己，当然也就可以削弱它的威力。
这就是我自己的非暴力抗争观的产生过程。自那以后三十多年的历史已经证明，对极权统治，非暴力抗争也是可以发挥作用，取得成功的。八九民运就差一点取得成功。现在有不少人对非暴力抗争又生出种种疑问，我以为这些疑问还是因为对问题缺少根本性的思考。我写下我自己当年的思考过程，或许对澄清问题不无助益
Friday, October 8, 2010
New Political Ideas in Old Political Leaders
This article was posted last year just before Obama's inauguration day.
It is refresh yourself last year at this time the political battles.
New Wine in Old Wineskins
The inauguration of President Elect Barack Obama is about to take place on January 20, 2009 in Washington, DC. It
seems that many people are expecting this occasion to make history. The questions that are presented here to raise awareness are: (a) what history will be made? and (b) how will the Obama Administration be different from any other presidential administration? While it seems many Americans are willing to put all their belief in another administration that talks about change, utopia, globalization, one world order, or new world order, these are concepts and ideas of old political leaders throughout century. What do these concepts and ideas mean to the people in America? How will "change" help those who are not sure how to make change? In addition, think of the American people that fear "change."
It sees that President Elect Barack Obama has not really thought about the "change" to take place in America. If the President Elect Obama had a clear concept and idea of the change needed, he would not be so quick and willing to nominate the same political leaders that have ran this country in the last 20 years or so. Perhaps President Elect Obama should have refused to keep giving power to those old political leaders who refer to themselves as the "anointed elite."
There is an old proverb that warns us not to put new wine into old wine skins, which holds the same similarity of trying to put new political ideas into old political leaders who hold steadfast to their old political concepts and ideas.
A word of wisdom to the President Elect Barack Obama, the history you will make is forged by its framers and designers, and your administration will be different because you will be the one that will be used to help strengthened the "anointed elite" agenda, a plan to get the American people to welcome in full force of government intrusion. The Obama Administration is the entrance of dictatorship with martial law.
Apple’s No 1 but there’s blood on your iPhone
Published: Friday, May 28, 2010,
By Venkatesan Vembu | Place: Hong Kong | Agency: DNA
An epidemic of suicides, including three more unconfirmed deaths on Thursday, at a factory in southern China that assembles Apple iPhones and iPads, among other branded electronic goods, has reinforced the darkest stereotypes of Chinese sweatshops, and prompted a global campaign for a boycott of Made-in-China consumer electronics.
Reports and photographs of the latest alleged deaths — including a ‘double suicide’ — surfaced on Chinese web sites on Thursday, but were swiftly deleted by censors. If confirmed, they could take the number of suicides at Foxconn’s sprawling factory in Shenzhen since January to 14. Two other workers survived suicide attempts.
Labour activists told DNA most of the dead were young migrant workers from rural China, who worked for up to 60 hours a week, for a pitiful minimum wage, at a “military-style” disciplinarian workplace in an unfriendly city without access to social benefits and no sense of community.
Most of them jumped to their death from their dormitories.
“Foxconn workers told us they had no avenues to channel their workplace stress,” says Debby Chan, project officer at Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (Sacom), a non-profit organisation that campaigns for workers’ rights. Free trade unions are disallowed in China, including at the factories of Foxconn, a Taiwanese-owned Fortune 500 company and the world’s largest electronics manufacturer, which has factories in many countries, including India.
“On the production line, workers have to stand all day and complete a task every seven seconds, and cannot talk to one another,” says Chan. “And in their spartan dormitories, which they share with 10-12 others, they don’t have friends. They live in an atmosphere of alienation and isolation.”
Working conditions at Foxconn may be drawing particular attention, but they are by no means unique to the company, says Geoffrey Crothall, communications director at China Labour Bulletin, an NGO that promotes Chinese workers’ rights.
“The same factory system and the same problems can be found at companies across southern China and in the coastal areas.”
In fact, Crothall reckons, similar suicides at other factories may be going unreported. “The reason why this Foxconn factory gets so much attention is, firstly, because it is connected to major international brands, including Apple.” Additionally, he adds, the mainland Chinese media has been focussing on it because the company is Taiwanese-owned.
Taiwanese administrators’ disrespect for mainland Chinese workers, and management strategies aimed at creation of only short-term jobs are critical reasons underlying the spate of suicides, according to Li Qiang, executive director at China Labour Watch.
Sacom is coordinating with global NGOs to observe June 8 as a “global day of remembrance” for the suicide victims at Foxconn and to urge consumers to boycott Apple iPhones, “which come with the bloodstains of economically exploited Chinese migrant workers”.
Crothall sees the consumer boycott call as “a valuable attempt to raise global awareness of the events at Foxconn” but suggests an alternative approach.
“Apple should get actively involved in the problems of Foxconn, and if additional costs are to accrue from giving better wages to workers, Apple could pass them on to consumers — who then have the choice whether or not to buy the product.”
By Venkatesan Vembu | Place: Hong Kong | Agency: DNA
An epidemic of suicides, including three more unconfirmed deaths on Thursday, at a factory in southern China that assembles Apple iPhones and iPads, among other branded electronic goods, has reinforced the darkest stereotypes of Chinese sweatshops, and prompted a global campaign for a boycott of Made-in-China consumer electronics.
Reports and photographs of the latest alleged deaths — including a ‘double suicide’ — surfaced on Chinese web sites on Thursday, but were swiftly deleted by censors. If confirmed, they could take the number of suicides at Foxconn’s sprawling factory in Shenzhen since January to 14. Two other workers survived suicide attempts.
Labour activists told DNA most of the dead were young migrant workers from rural China, who worked for up to 60 hours a week, for a pitiful minimum wage, at a “military-style” disciplinarian workplace in an unfriendly city without access to social benefits and no sense of community.
Most of them jumped to their death from their dormitories.
“Foxconn workers told us they had no avenues to channel their workplace stress,” says Debby Chan, project officer at Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (Sacom), a non-profit organisation that campaigns for workers’ rights. Free trade unions are disallowed in China, including at the factories of Foxconn, a Taiwanese-owned Fortune 500 company and the world’s largest electronics manufacturer, which has factories in many countries, including India.
“On the production line, workers have to stand all day and complete a task every seven seconds, and cannot talk to one another,” says Chan. “And in their spartan dormitories, which they share with 10-12 others, they don’t have friends. They live in an atmosphere of alienation and isolation.”
Working conditions at Foxconn may be drawing particular attention, but they are by no means unique to the company, says Geoffrey Crothall, communications director at China Labour Bulletin, an NGO that promotes Chinese workers’ rights.
“The same factory system and the same problems can be found at companies across southern China and in the coastal areas.”
In fact, Crothall reckons, similar suicides at other factories may be going unreported. “The reason why this Foxconn factory gets so much attention is, firstly, because it is connected to major international brands, including Apple.” Additionally, he adds, the mainland Chinese media has been focussing on it because the company is Taiwanese-owned.
Taiwanese administrators’ disrespect for mainland Chinese workers, and management strategies aimed at creation of only short-term jobs are critical reasons underlying the spate of suicides, according to Li Qiang, executive director at China Labour Watch.
Sacom is coordinating with global NGOs to observe June 8 as a “global day of remembrance” for the suicide victims at Foxconn and to urge consumers to boycott Apple iPhones, “which come with the bloodstains of economically exploited Chinese migrant workers”.
Crothall sees the consumer boycott call as “a valuable attempt to raise global awareness of the events at Foxconn” but suggests an alternative approach.
“Apple should get actively involved in the problems of Foxconn, and if additional costs are to accrue from giving better wages to workers, Apple could pass them on to consumers — who then have the choice whether or not to buy the product.”
IPhone Maker in China Is Under Fire After a Suicide
Published: July 26, 2009
SHENZHEN, China — When a closely guarded prototype of a new Apple iPhone went missing at a huge factory here two weeks ago, an internal investigation focused on a shy, 25-year-old employee named Sun Danyong.
Mr. Sun, a college graduate working in the logistics department, denied stealing the iPhone. But he later complained to friends that he had been beaten and humiliated by the factory’s security team. On the night he was questioned, he sent an anguished text message to his girlfriend.
“Dear, I’m sorry. Go back home tomorrow,” he wrote, according to a message she later posted online. “I ran into some problems. Don’t tell my family. Don’t contact me. I’m begging you for the first time. Please do it! I’m sorry.”
Soon after, in the early-morning hours of July 16, Mr. Sun apparently jumped to his death from the 12th floor of an apartment building in what his employer, Foxconn Technology, says was a suicide.
Apple and Foxconn, one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of consumer electronics and a major Apple supplier, issued statements last week expressing sorrow for the death. Foxconn said it suspended one security officer, pending a police investigation, and that the company was now considering counseling services for its employees.
The Apple statement said: “We are saddened by the tragic loss of this young employee, and we are awaiting results of the investigations into his death. We require that our suppliers treat all workers with dignity and respect.” The company would not comment further.
The local police bureau declined to answer questions about the case. But reports of the apparent suicide have set off a firestorm of criticism of Foxconn’s treatment of Mr. Sun, labor conditions at its factories and the pressures Apple places on suppliers to abide by the culture of secrecy that surrounds its development of new products.
The case also underscores the challenges that global companies face in trying to safeguard their designs and intellectual property in the hotly contested smartphone market, particularly here in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, an electronics manufacturing center known for piracy and counterfeiting.
Apple’s popular iPhone is already widely imitated and counterfeited in China. And there are regular rumors on Chinese Web sites about new Apple prototypes leaking out of Chinese factories.
“When you outsource to a third party, you lose some control,” says Dane Chamorro, general manager in China at Control Risks, a global consulting firm. “And if you’re outsourcing to China, it’s going to be even more challenging. There’s going to be a bounty on every design.”
Labor rights groups say the worker’s death should compel Apple to improve conditions at its supplier factories in China and prevent worker abuse.
Foxconn, part of Taiwan’s Hon Hai group, has also been sharply criticized because of suspicions about unduly harsh treatment of the worker.
Foxconn, which produces electronics for some of the world’s best-known brands, like Sony and Hewlett-Packard, operates a cluster of sprawling factories in southern China. One of its Shenzhen campuses has nearly 300,000 workers.
But some labor rights activists say the company treats employees harshly, routinely violating labor laws.
In an e-mail message on Thursday, China Labor Watch, which monitors Chinese factories and is based in New York, blamed Mr. Sun’s death on “Foxconn’s inhumane and militant management system, which lacks fundamental respect for human rights.” The group said it published an in-depth study of Foxconn last year, detailing its abuses.
James Lee, general manager of China operations at Foxconn, defended the company’s labor practices in a lengthy interview on Friday, and also said the company would strive to improve management of its facilities.
“It’s very difficult for the company to defend itself against such charges,” Mr. Lee said of complaints from labor rights groups. “You’re welcome to look at how employees are treated here.”
A reporter toured two of the company’s campuses in Shenzhen on Friday, including the one where Mr. Sun worked. The campuses were so large they contained retail stores, banks, post offices and high-rise dormitories with outdoor swimming pools.
The reporter was not allowed to see manufacturing lines because the company said it had to protect trade secrets.
SHENZHEN, China — When a closely guarded prototype of a new Apple iPhone went missing at a huge factory here two weeks ago, an internal investigation focused on a shy, 25-year-old employee named Sun Danyong.
Mr. Sun, a college graduate working in the logistics department, denied stealing the iPhone. But he later complained to friends that he had been beaten and humiliated by the factory’s security team. On the night he was questioned, he sent an anguished text message to his girlfriend.
“Dear, I’m sorry. Go back home tomorrow,” he wrote, according to a message she later posted online. “I ran into some problems. Don’t tell my family. Don’t contact me. I’m begging you for the first time. Please do it! I’m sorry.”
Soon after, in the early-morning hours of July 16, Mr. Sun apparently jumped to his death from the 12th floor of an apartment building in what his employer, Foxconn Technology, says was a suicide.
Apple and Foxconn, one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of consumer electronics and a major Apple supplier, issued statements last week expressing sorrow for the death. Foxconn said it suspended one security officer, pending a police investigation, and that the company was now considering counseling services for its employees.
The Apple statement said: “We are saddened by the tragic loss of this young employee, and we are awaiting results of the investigations into his death. We require that our suppliers treat all workers with dignity and respect.” The company would not comment further.
The local police bureau declined to answer questions about the case. But reports of the apparent suicide have set off a firestorm of criticism of Foxconn’s treatment of Mr. Sun, labor conditions at its factories and the pressures Apple places on suppliers to abide by the culture of secrecy that surrounds its development of new products.
The case also underscores the challenges that global companies face in trying to safeguard their designs and intellectual property in the hotly contested smartphone market, particularly here in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, an electronics manufacturing center known for piracy and counterfeiting.
Apple’s popular iPhone is already widely imitated and counterfeited in China. And there are regular rumors on Chinese Web sites about new Apple prototypes leaking out of Chinese factories.
“When you outsource to a third party, you lose some control,” says Dane Chamorro, general manager in China at Control Risks, a global consulting firm. “And if you’re outsourcing to China, it’s going to be even more challenging. There’s going to be a bounty on every design.”
Labor rights groups say the worker’s death should compel Apple to improve conditions at its supplier factories in China and prevent worker abuse.
Foxconn, part of Taiwan’s Hon Hai group, has also been sharply criticized because of suspicions about unduly harsh treatment of the worker.
Foxconn, which produces electronics for some of the world’s best-known brands, like Sony and Hewlett-Packard, operates a cluster of sprawling factories in southern China. One of its Shenzhen campuses has nearly 300,000 workers.
But some labor rights activists say the company treats employees harshly, routinely violating labor laws.
In an e-mail message on Thursday, China Labor Watch, which monitors Chinese factories and is based in New York, blamed Mr. Sun’s death on “Foxconn’s inhumane and militant management system, which lacks fundamental respect for human rights.” The group said it published an in-depth study of Foxconn last year, detailing its abuses.
James Lee, general manager of China operations at Foxconn, defended the company’s labor practices in a lengthy interview on Friday, and also said the company would strive to improve management of its facilities.
“It’s very difficult for the company to defend itself against such charges,” Mr. Lee said of complaints from labor rights groups. “You’re welcome to look at how employees are treated here.”
A reporter toured two of the company’s campuses in Shenzhen on Friday, including the one where Mr. Sun worked. The campuses were so large they contained retail stores, banks, post offices and high-rise dormitories with outdoor swimming pools.
The reporter was not allowed to see manufacturing lines because the company said it had to protect trade secrets.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
History of Tibet before the Chinese Invasion of 1949
Tibet has a history dating back over 2,000 years. A good starting point in analyzing the country's status is the period referred to as Tibet's "imperial age", when the entire country was first united under one ruler. There is no serious dispute over the existence of Tibet as an independent state during this period. Even China's own historical records and the treaties Tibet and China concluded during that period refer to Tibet as a strong state with whom China was forced to deal on a footing of equality.
At what point in history, then, did Tibet cease to exist as a state to become an integral part of China? Tibet's history is not unlike that of other states. At times, Tibet extended its influence over neighboring countries and peoples and, in other periods, came itself under the influence of powerful foreign rulers - the Mongol Khans, the Gorkhas of Nepal, the Manchu emperors and the British rulers of India.
It should be noted, before examining the relevant history, that international law is a system of law created by states primarily for their own protection. As a result, international law protects the independence of states from attempts to destroy it and, therefore, the presumption is in favor of the continuation of statehood. This means that, whereas an independent state that has existed for centuries, such as Tibet, does not need to prove its continued independence when challenged, a foreign state claiming sovereign rights over it needs to prove those rights by showing at what precise moment and by what legal means they were acquired.
China's present claim to Tibet is based entirely on the influence that Mongol and Manchuk emperors exercised over Tibet in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries, respectively.
As Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire expanded toward Europe in the west and China in the east in the thirteenth century, the Tibetan leaders of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism concluded an agreement with the Mongol rulers in order to avoid the otherwise inevitable conquest of Tibet. They promised political allegiance and religious blessings and teachings in exchange for patronage and protection. The religious relationship became so important that when Kublai Khan conquered China and established the Yuan dynasty, he invited the Sakya Lama to become the Imperial Preceptor and supreme pontiff of his empire.
The relationship that developed and still exists today between the Mongols and Tibetans is a reflection of the close racial, cultural and especially religious affinity between the two Central Asian peoples. To claim that Tibet became a part of China because both countries were independently subjected to varying degrees of Mongol control, as the PRC does, is absurd. The Mongol Empire was a world empire; no evidence exists to indicate that the Mongols integrated the administration of China and Tibet or appended Tibet to China in any manner. It is like claiming that France should belong to England because both came under Roman domination, or that Burma became a part of India when the British Empire extended its authority over both territories.
This relatively brief period of foreign domination over Tibet occurred 700 years ago. Tibet broke away from the Yuan emperor before China regained its independence from the Mongols with the establishment of the native Ming dynasty. Not until the eighteenth century did Tibet once again come under a degree of foreign influence.
The Ming dynasty, which ruled China from I368 to I644, had few ties to and no authority over Tibet. On the other hand, the Manchus, who conquered China and established the Qing dynasty in the seventeenth century, embraced Tibetan Buddhism as the Mongols had and developed close ties with the Tibetans. The Dalai Lama, who had by then become the spiritual and temporal ruler of Tibet, agreed to become the spiritual guide of the Manchu emperor. He accepted patronage and protection in exchange. This "priest-patron" relationship, which the Dalai Lama also maintained with numerous Mongol Khans and Tibetan nobles, was the only formal tie that existed between the Tibetans and Manchus during the Qing dynasty. It did not, in itself, affect Tibet`s independence.
On the political level, some powerful Manchu emperors succeeded in exerting a degree of influence over Tibet. Thus, between I720 and I792 the Manchu emperors Kangxi, Yong Zhen and Qianlong sent imperial troops into Tibet four times to protect the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people from foreign invasion or internal unrest. It was these expeditions that provided them with influence in Tibet. The emperor sent representatives to the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, some of whom successfully exercised their influence, in his name, over the Tibetan government, particularly with respect to the conduct of foreign relations. At the height of Manchu power, which lasted a few decades, the situation was not unlike that which can exist between a superpower and a neighboring satellite or protectorate. The subjection of a state to foreign influence and even intervention in foreign or domestic affairs, however significant this may be politically, does not in itself entail the legal extinction of that state. Consequently, although some Manchu emperors exerted considerable influence over Tibet, they did not thereby incorporate Tibet into their empire, much less China.
Manchu influence did not last for very long. It was entirely ineffective by the time the British briefly invaded Tibet in I904, and ceased entirely with the overthrow of the Qing dynasty in I9II, and its replacement in China by a native republican government. Whatever ties existed between the Dalai Lama and the Qing emperor were extinguished with the dissolution of the Manchu Empire.
1911 - 1950
From I911 to I950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in every respect, as a fully independent state. The I3th Dalai Lama emphasized his country's independent status externally, in formal communications to foreign rulers, and internally, by issuing a proclamation reaffirming Tibet's independence and by strengthening the country's defenses. Tibet remained neutral during the Second World War, despite strong pressure from China and its allies, Britain and the U.S.A. The Tibetan government maintained independent international relations with all neighboring countries, most of whom had diplomatic representatives in Lhasa.
The attitude of most foreign governments with whom Tibet maintained relations implied their recognition of Tibet's independent status. The British government bound itself not to recognize Chinese suzerainty or any other rights over Tibet unless China signed the draft Simla Convention of I9I4 with Britain and Tibet, which China never did. Nepal's recognition was confirmed by the Nepalese government in I949, in documents presented to the United Nations in support of that governments application for membership.
The turning point in Tibet's history came in I949, when the People's Liberation Army of the PRC first crossed into Tibet. After defeating the small Tibetan army, the Chinese government imposed the so-called "I7-Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" on the Tibetan government in May I951. Because it was signed under duress, the agreement was void under international law. The presence of 40,000 troops in Tibet, the threat of an immediate occupation of Lhasa and the prospect of the total obliteration of the Tibetan state left Tibetans little choice.
It should be noted that numerous countries made statements in the course of UN General Assembly debates following the invasion of Tibet that reflected their recognition of Tibet's independent status. Thus, for example, the delegate from the Philippines declared: "It is clear that on the eve of the invasion I950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country." The delegate from Thailand reminded the assembly that the majority of states "refute the contention that Tibet is part of China." The US joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese "aggression" and "invasion" of Tibet.
In the course of Tibet's 2,000-year history, the country came under a degree of foreign influence only for short periods of time in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries. Few independent countries today can claim as impressive a record. As the ambassador for Ireland at the UN remarked during the General Assembly debates on the question of Tibet,"[f]or thousands of years, or for a couple of thousand years at any rate, [Tibet] was as free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after its own affairs than many of the nations here."
From a legal standpoint, Tibet has to this day not lost its statehood. It is an independent state under illegal occupation. Neither China's military invasion nor the continuing occupation has transferred the sovereignty of Tibet to China. As pointed out earlier, the Chinese government has never claimed to have acquired sovereignty over Tibet by conquest. Indeed, China recognizes that the use or threat of force (outside the exceptional circumstances provided for in the UN Charter), the imposition of an unequal treaty or the continued illegal occupation of a country can never grant an invader legal title to territory. Its claims are based solely on the alleged subjection of Tibet to a few of China's strongest foreign rulers in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries. If other countries were to make such tenuous claims based on their imperial past, how seriously would they be taken? Are we not, in even considering the merits of China's arguments, accepting the right of powerful modern rulers to invade foreign countries in order to recreate lost empires of their ancestors?
At what point in history, then, did Tibet cease to exist as a state to become an integral part of China? Tibet's history is not unlike that of other states. At times, Tibet extended its influence over neighboring countries and peoples and, in other periods, came itself under the influence of powerful foreign rulers - the Mongol Khans, the Gorkhas of Nepal, the Manchu emperors and the British rulers of India.
It should be noted, before examining the relevant history, that international law is a system of law created by states primarily for their own protection. As a result, international law protects the independence of states from attempts to destroy it and, therefore, the presumption is in favor of the continuation of statehood. This means that, whereas an independent state that has existed for centuries, such as Tibet, does not need to prove its continued independence when challenged, a foreign state claiming sovereign rights over it needs to prove those rights by showing at what precise moment and by what legal means they were acquired.
China's present claim to Tibet is based entirely on the influence that Mongol and Manchuk emperors exercised over Tibet in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries, respectively.
As Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire expanded toward Europe in the west and China in the east in the thirteenth century, the Tibetan leaders of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism concluded an agreement with the Mongol rulers in order to avoid the otherwise inevitable conquest of Tibet. They promised political allegiance and religious blessings and teachings in exchange for patronage and protection. The religious relationship became so important that when Kublai Khan conquered China and established the Yuan dynasty, he invited the Sakya Lama to become the Imperial Preceptor and supreme pontiff of his empire.
The relationship that developed and still exists today between the Mongols and Tibetans is a reflection of the close racial, cultural and especially religious affinity between the two Central Asian peoples. To claim that Tibet became a part of China because both countries were independently subjected to varying degrees of Mongol control, as the PRC does, is absurd. The Mongol Empire was a world empire; no evidence exists to indicate that the Mongols integrated the administration of China and Tibet or appended Tibet to China in any manner. It is like claiming that France should belong to England because both came under Roman domination, or that Burma became a part of India when the British Empire extended its authority over both territories.
This relatively brief period of foreign domination over Tibet occurred 700 years ago. Tibet broke away from the Yuan emperor before China regained its independence from the Mongols with the establishment of the native Ming dynasty. Not until the eighteenth century did Tibet once again come under a degree of foreign influence.
The Ming dynasty, which ruled China from I368 to I644, had few ties to and no authority over Tibet. On the other hand, the Manchus, who conquered China and established the Qing dynasty in the seventeenth century, embraced Tibetan Buddhism as the Mongols had and developed close ties with the Tibetans. The Dalai Lama, who had by then become the spiritual and temporal ruler of Tibet, agreed to become the spiritual guide of the Manchu emperor. He accepted patronage and protection in exchange. This "priest-patron" relationship, which the Dalai Lama also maintained with numerous Mongol Khans and Tibetan nobles, was the only formal tie that existed between the Tibetans and Manchus during the Qing dynasty. It did not, in itself, affect Tibet`s independence.
On the political level, some powerful Manchu emperors succeeded in exerting a degree of influence over Tibet. Thus, between I720 and I792 the Manchu emperors Kangxi, Yong Zhen and Qianlong sent imperial troops into Tibet four times to protect the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people from foreign invasion or internal unrest. It was these expeditions that provided them with influence in Tibet. The emperor sent representatives to the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, some of whom successfully exercised their influence, in his name, over the Tibetan government, particularly with respect to the conduct of foreign relations. At the height of Manchu power, which lasted a few decades, the situation was not unlike that which can exist between a superpower and a neighboring satellite or protectorate. The subjection of a state to foreign influence and even intervention in foreign or domestic affairs, however significant this may be politically, does not in itself entail the legal extinction of that state. Consequently, although some Manchu emperors exerted considerable influence over Tibet, they did not thereby incorporate Tibet into their empire, much less China.
Manchu influence did not last for very long. It was entirely ineffective by the time the British briefly invaded Tibet in I904, and ceased entirely with the overthrow of the Qing dynasty in I9II, and its replacement in China by a native republican government. Whatever ties existed between the Dalai Lama and the Qing emperor were extinguished with the dissolution of the Manchu Empire.
1911 - 1950
From I911 to I950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in every respect, as a fully independent state. The I3th Dalai Lama emphasized his country's independent status externally, in formal communications to foreign rulers, and internally, by issuing a proclamation reaffirming Tibet's independence and by strengthening the country's defenses. Tibet remained neutral during the Second World War, despite strong pressure from China and its allies, Britain and the U.S.A. The Tibetan government maintained independent international relations with all neighboring countries, most of whom had diplomatic representatives in Lhasa.
The attitude of most foreign governments with whom Tibet maintained relations implied their recognition of Tibet's independent status. The British government bound itself not to recognize Chinese suzerainty or any other rights over Tibet unless China signed the draft Simla Convention of I9I4 with Britain and Tibet, which China never did. Nepal's recognition was confirmed by the Nepalese government in I949, in documents presented to the United Nations in support of that governments application for membership.
The turning point in Tibet's history came in I949, when the People's Liberation Army of the PRC first crossed into Tibet. After defeating the small Tibetan army, the Chinese government imposed the so-called "I7-Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" on the Tibetan government in May I951. Because it was signed under duress, the agreement was void under international law. The presence of 40,000 troops in Tibet, the threat of an immediate occupation of Lhasa and the prospect of the total obliteration of the Tibetan state left Tibetans little choice.
It should be noted that numerous countries made statements in the course of UN General Assembly debates following the invasion of Tibet that reflected their recognition of Tibet's independent status. Thus, for example, the delegate from the Philippines declared: "It is clear that on the eve of the invasion I950, Tibet was not under the rule of any foreign country." The delegate from Thailand reminded the assembly that the majority of states "refute the contention that Tibet is part of China." The US joined most other UN members in condemning the Chinese "aggression" and "invasion" of Tibet.
In the course of Tibet's 2,000-year history, the country came under a degree of foreign influence only for short periods of time in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries. Few independent countries today can claim as impressive a record. As the ambassador for Ireland at the UN remarked during the General Assembly debates on the question of Tibet,"[f]or thousands of years, or for a couple of thousand years at any rate, [Tibet] was as free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after its own affairs than many of the nations here."
From a legal standpoint, Tibet has to this day not lost its statehood. It is an independent state under illegal occupation. Neither China's military invasion nor the continuing occupation has transferred the sovereignty of Tibet to China. As pointed out earlier, the Chinese government has never claimed to have acquired sovereignty over Tibet by conquest. Indeed, China recognizes that the use or threat of force (outside the exceptional circumstances provided for in the UN Charter), the imposition of an unequal treaty or the continued illegal occupation of a country can never grant an invader legal title to territory. Its claims are based solely on the alleged subjection of Tibet to a few of China's strongest foreign rulers in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries. If other countries were to make such tenuous claims based on their imperial past, how seriously would they be taken? Are we not, in even considering the merits of China's arguments, accepting the right of powerful modern rulers to invade foreign countries in order to recreate lost empires of their ancestors?
China-Tibet
China and Tibet
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
Lodi Gyari, the Dalai Lama’s representative in Washington, has a good op-ed in the South China Morning Post (by subscription only). In particular, he makes two points that I think Beijing just doesn’t “get.” First:
The third mindset is that China should wait until the passing away of the present Dalai Lama, when the Tibetan issue will naturally disappear. This thinking is based on the belief that a leaderless and disoriented movement would fragment into pieces and eventually become irrelevant. This is a misplaced mindset for many reasons, and very counterproductive to China’s own future. Those who subscribe to this view do not understand that fragmentation today no longer means irrelevance; it means radical unpredictability and vastly greater risk. Far from fading away, the Tibetan political movement will reinvent itself in the absence of the current, Fourteenth Dalai Lama, and become something far more complex and unmanageable in the process.
That’s exactly right. China is waiting for the Dalai Lama to die, so that Tibetans will lose their leader and cohesion. But the result is not that Tibet will be easier to dominate; rather, it is likely to become more violent. There already are many, many young Tibetans who think the Dalai Lama has been too patient, too conciliatory, too pacifist. This is particularly true of the exiles; Tibetans actually in China tend to be more pragmatic and willing to work things out. But overall, my hunch is that we’ll see more violent resistance after the Dalai Lama goes.
Many Chinese, outraged by the violence against ethnic Han in Lhasa during the last protests, blame the Dalai Lama — and it’s true that he was too slow to condemn the violence. But overall there is no question about it: His Holiness has been a huge restraining force, working against violence.
So my hunch is that after the Dalai Lama dies, Tibet will come to look more like Xinjiang. Human rights abuses will get less attention, because the Dalai Lama isn’t there to call attention to them. But protests will be more violent and more common, and there’ll be some genuine terrorists bringing in weapons from abroad.
The other problem with the Dalai Lama dying is that any kind of a solution to the Tibetan issue is going to require painful concessions on both sides. It’s not clear that the Dalai Lama is willing to make the kind of concessions necessary, but if he is he could probably carry the Tibetan people behind him. In contrast, after he is gone, there is simply no one who could unite Tibetans and persuade them to accept the necessary concessions. The chance of a peaceful political solution will die with the Dalai Lama.
I outlined what a deal would look like in this 2008 column. Essentially, Tibetans would accept unequivocal Chinese rule in exchange for real autonomy, greater linguistic, cultural and religious freedom, and brakes on Chinese migration into ethnic Tibetan areas.
Lodi Gyari’s second important point is this:
It is disheartening to see just how far China’s leaders have drifted from the early days of bold reform. The leaders I came to know in the early 1980s shared a conviction about their historic role in bringing about the difficult transition that was needed in post-Mao China. Leaders like Hu Yaobang understood that the greatness of China’s future lay in the responsible actions of its leaders to conduct the necessary groundwork for true stability. Hu called for courageous policies relating to Tibet. Because he was open and honest, dared to act, dared to face reality and dared to bear responsibility, he won the hearts of the Tibetan people.
What Lodi Gyari doesn’t acknowledge is the mismatch. In the early 1980’s, Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang were prepared to do a deal with the Dalai Lama — but it was His Holiness who balked. After the Cultural Revolution, the Tibetans just didn’t trust Beijing and thought time was on their side. They made a historic miscalculation in the 1980’s, and then the window for negotiation closed with the departure of Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang. Maybe it’ll reopen with some future leadership team, but today’s Politburo is just not prepared to make the concessions necessary. Instead, it operates under the delusion that things will get better after the Dalai Lama dies.
The Dalai Lama has been extraordinarily effective with global public opinion, but he has been spectacularly ineffective with the constituency that matters most — Chinese officials and the Chinese public. It’s not too late for him to devote himself to improving his Mandarin skills, speaking more to Chinese audiences, and seeking to move to China. That request to move to, say, Beijing would put China in a box. I don’t think Beijing would accept, but it would at least be a signal of the Dalai Lama’s desire to work things out with the Chinese leaders.
And the track we’re on is disastrous. More Han Chinese are moving to Tibet, destroying its traditional character so that it will be gone forever. A political deal is the only way to forestall that and avoid violence, but it’s hard to see such a deal coming. Your thoughts?
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
Lodi Gyari, the Dalai Lama’s representative in Washington, has a good op-ed in the South China Morning Post (by subscription only). In particular, he makes two points that I think Beijing just doesn’t “get.” First:
The third mindset is that China should wait until the passing away of the present Dalai Lama, when the Tibetan issue will naturally disappear. This thinking is based on the belief that a leaderless and disoriented movement would fragment into pieces and eventually become irrelevant. This is a misplaced mindset for many reasons, and very counterproductive to China’s own future. Those who subscribe to this view do not understand that fragmentation today no longer means irrelevance; it means radical unpredictability and vastly greater risk. Far from fading away, the Tibetan political movement will reinvent itself in the absence of the current, Fourteenth Dalai Lama, and become something far more complex and unmanageable in the process.
That’s exactly right. China is waiting for the Dalai Lama to die, so that Tibetans will lose their leader and cohesion. But the result is not that Tibet will be easier to dominate; rather, it is likely to become more violent. There already are many, many young Tibetans who think the Dalai Lama has been too patient, too conciliatory, too pacifist. This is particularly true of the exiles; Tibetans actually in China tend to be more pragmatic and willing to work things out. But overall, my hunch is that we’ll see more violent resistance after the Dalai Lama goes.
Many Chinese, outraged by the violence against ethnic Han in Lhasa during the last protests, blame the Dalai Lama — and it’s true that he was too slow to condemn the violence. But overall there is no question about it: His Holiness has been a huge restraining force, working against violence.
So my hunch is that after the Dalai Lama dies, Tibet will come to look more like Xinjiang. Human rights abuses will get less attention, because the Dalai Lama isn’t there to call attention to them. But protests will be more violent and more common, and there’ll be some genuine terrorists bringing in weapons from abroad.
The other problem with the Dalai Lama dying is that any kind of a solution to the Tibetan issue is going to require painful concessions on both sides. It’s not clear that the Dalai Lama is willing to make the kind of concessions necessary, but if he is he could probably carry the Tibetan people behind him. In contrast, after he is gone, there is simply no one who could unite Tibetans and persuade them to accept the necessary concessions. The chance of a peaceful political solution will die with the Dalai Lama.
I outlined what a deal would look like in this 2008 column. Essentially, Tibetans would accept unequivocal Chinese rule in exchange for real autonomy, greater linguistic, cultural and religious freedom, and brakes on Chinese migration into ethnic Tibetan areas.
Lodi Gyari’s second important point is this:
It is disheartening to see just how far China’s leaders have drifted from the early days of bold reform. The leaders I came to know in the early 1980s shared a conviction about their historic role in bringing about the difficult transition that was needed in post-Mao China. Leaders like Hu Yaobang understood that the greatness of China’s future lay in the responsible actions of its leaders to conduct the necessary groundwork for true stability. Hu called for courageous policies relating to Tibet. Because he was open and honest, dared to act, dared to face reality and dared to bear responsibility, he won the hearts of the Tibetan people.
What Lodi Gyari doesn’t acknowledge is the mismatch. In the early 1980’s, Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang were prepared to do a deal with the Dalai Lama — but it was His Holiness who balked. After the Cultural Revolution, the Tibetans just didn’t trust Beijing and thought time was on their side. They made a historic miscalculation in the 1980’s, and then the window for negotiation closed with the departure of Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang. Maybe it’ll reopen with some future leadership team, but today’s Politburo is just not prepared to make the concessions necessary. Instead, it operates under the delusion that things will get better after the Dalai Lama dies.
The Dalai Lama has been extraordinarily effective with global public opinion, but he has been spectacularly ineffective with the constituency that matters most — Chinese officials and the Chinese public. It’s not too late for him to devote himself to improving his Mandarin skills, speaking more to Chinese audiences, and seeking to move to China. That request to move to, say, Beijing would put China in a box. I don’t think Beijing would accept, but it would at least be a signal of the Dalai Lama’s desire to work things out with the Chinese leaders.
And the track we’re on is disastrous. More Han Chinese are moving to Tibet, destroying its traditional character so that it will be gone forever. A political deal is the only way to forestall that and avoid violence, but it’s hard to see such a deal coming. Your thoughts?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Human rights in Tibet
Human rights in Tibet, hundreds of Tibetans have been incarcerated for peacefully expressing their political and religious beliefs. Conditions in prisons are reported to be dismal, with numerous accounts of torture and ill-treatment. In particular, PRC law enforcement officials have perpetrated violent acts against Tibetan women in detention centers and prisons. Buddhist nuns and lay women have been subject to torture or violent, degrading and inhuman treatment, including assault, rape and sexual abuse. In June 1994, one Tibetan nun died while in custody, reportedly as a result of a beating by guards. PRC authorities also have severely restricted religious practice; out of the 6,000 Buddhist monasteries that were destroyed by the PRC since its 1949 invasion of Tibet, only a few hundred have been rebuilt.
PRC policies, including population transfers of hundreds of thousands of Chinese into Tibet, threaten to make Tibetans a minority in their own land and to destroy Tibetans' distinct national, religious and cultural identity.
PRC policies, including population transfers of hundreds of thousands of Chinese into Tibet, threaten to make Tibetans a minority in their own land and to destroy Tibetans' distinct national, religious and cultural identity.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Kalon Tripa for next 5 years
DR. LOBSANG SANGAY
Dr. Lobsang Sangay is a Research Associate at Harvard Law School.
EDUCATION: He attended the Central School for Tibetans (CST) in Sonada and Darjeeling and completed his B.A. (Honors) in English Literature (1988-1991) and his Bachelor in Law (LLB 1991-1994), from Delhi University.
In 1995, Dr. Sangay was selected as a Fulbright Scholar and obtained his Masters degree at Harvard Law School. His thesis was on Buddhism and Human Rights. In the summer of 1996, he received a fellowship from the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, Switzerland and helped research the report Tibet: Human Rights and Rule of Law, which was published in 1997. In 1996, he received a prestigious Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the Pacific Basin Research Center and wrote a chapter on the Tibetan Educational System for a book titled Human Rights and Human Values in Asia-Pacific Region.
In 1997, Tibet Fund and the Fulbright Program supported his pursuit for Ph.D. degree and Harvard Law School provided scholarship. In 2004, he earned his Doctorate in Law from Harvard Law School, becoming the first Tibetan to receive this degree. His Doctorate dissertation, titled Democracy and History of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile from 1959-2004 was awarded the Yong K. Kim' 95 Prize for excellence.
In 2004, he informed the Education Department about completion of his doctorate degree, ongoing projects and sought guidance. On 17-6-2005, the Sherig Lekhung responded by recognizing his academic work as equivalent to the community service, thereby waiving his bond. The Fulbright Program strongly supported the decision and on 13-2-2007, the US State Department granted him a visa waiver. Harvard Law School appointed him as a Fellow and promoted to Senior Fellow in 2008. He still carries his IC (Identity Certificate).
ACTIVISM: Dr. Sangay served as the Vice-President, Gen. Secretary and President of the Regional Tibetan Youth Congress in Delhi from 1988-91. One of the highlights as an activist was serving more than a week in Tihar Jail in Delhi for disruptive protests in front of the Chinese Embassy demanding for explanation surrounding the unexpected passing away of the Panchen Lama. Also along with four colleagues of RTYC, he confronted agents of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and handed over the seized documents to the Tibetan Government in Exile. In 1992, the General Body Meeting elected him as the youngest executive member of the Central Executive of the Tibetan Youth Congress where he served in the capacity of Information Secretary (CENTREX). From 1995-97, he participated in conferences at Harvard, Oberlin and Brown University in launching the Students for a Free Tibet. In 1997, Dr. Sangay along with local Tibetans and 24 activist groups coalition organized the largest protest since Vietnam era against the Chinese president Jiang Zemin during his visit to Harvard University.
He received a Diploma in Environmental Law from the World Wide Fund and also a Diploma from the Fletcher Summer Institute for the Advanced Study of Non-Violent Conflict.
CHINESE OUTREACH: In the last fifteen years, he has interacted, discussed and debated various aspects of Tibet from historical status, occupation, to the present colonialism, His Holiness advocacy of Middle Way and diverse views within the society with numerous Chinese scholars from top universities in China. He is well versed in contemporary Chinese politics and legal issues. In an effort to promote Track II Diplomacy, Dr. Sangay has organized seven major conferences among Chinese, Tibetan, Indian and Western scholars, on contemporary Tibet. He organized two unprecedented meetings between HH the Dalai Lama and Chinese scholars: in 2003 where 35 Chinese scholars participated, and another in May 2009 when His Holiness met with more than hundred scholars from China at Harvard University. Dr. Sangay trains Tibetan youth and students on effective interaction with Chinese students/people.
INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH: In 2007, he was selected as one of the twenty-four Young Leaders of Asia by the Asia Society, the New York-based global organization promoting understanding between North America and Asia. In recent years, Dr. Sangay has participated in Young Asian Leaders Summit in South Korea; Singapore; Japan; Thailand, Malaysia, and India.
He was given a Leadership Award by Regional New England Amnesty International, Peace and Justice Award by the Peace Commission of City of Cambridge, and is an Advisory Board member of the Asian American Civic Association. He is a regular participant of the World Justice Forum where top legal experts, judges and officials from around the world congregate in Vienna, Austria.
In April 2008, he testified as an expert before the US Senate Foreign Relations Sub-committee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs, along with the United States Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, Special Envoy of the Dalai Lama Lodi Gyari, and Actor Richard Gere. The Washington DC-based think tank Woodrow Wilson Center organized an event where Dr. Sangay debriefed Congressional staff members on the issue of Tibet.
As an expert on Tibet, international human rights law, democratic constitutionalism, and conflict resolution, Dr. Sangay has given lectures on Sino-Tibet issues in various universities, think tanks and other public forums in Europe, Asia and North America such as Ecole des Hautes Etudes En Sciences Sociales in Paris, University of Westminster, London, University of Deakin, Melbourne, University of Madrid, IIT Madras, Taiwan University, Peking University, Carter Center, Woodrow Wilson Center, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and many other institutes in the US.
He has been consulted by the news media, including The New York Times, The London Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC, Newsweek, TIME Magazine, Washington Post, USA Today, the Boston Globe, Harvard Crimson, among others. His articles about Tibet have been published in the Harvard Asia Quarterly, Journal of Democracy, East Asia and International Law and chapters in several books.
TIBETAN OUTREACH: Dr. Sangay continues to interact with Tibetan students and scholars from Tibet in the US. He helped his late uncle with a project to plant 400,000 fruit and income generating trees (Walnut, Apple, Peach) in a deforested area of Tibet. Also helped train a dozen Tibetan medicine doctors for villages in Tibet.
Dr. Sangay coordinated two visits by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in New England area (2003 & 2009). He is an editorial consultant for Radio Free Asia and continues his popular weekly radio program on Democracy and Rule of Law, for the past thirteen years. He authored a book on Introduction to Human Rights in Tibetan language.
In completing his Ph.D dissertation, for seven years he spent long hours interviewing and compiling testimonies of around 100 Tibetans, including Kundeling Kunho, Kunho Tara, Sandhutsang Rinchen, Lobsang Thargay, many chitues, activists and not to mention Samdhong Rinpoche and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. His doctorate dissertation covered 45 years of exile history including an evolution of duality of Tibetan movement on the one hand and democratic initiatives on the other, parliamentary process, election mechanism, constitutional drafting, secularism and non-sectarianism, and formation of NGOs like the Tibetan Youth Congress and Tibetan Women Association. He has published and given numerous talks on these issues around the world.
He regularly visits Dharamsala, and interacts with Tibetan officials at every level. He is consulted by and has given numerous workshops and lectures over the years to the Tibetan government officials, the Parliamentarian Conclave (Chitue), members of Tibetan Youth Congress, Tibetan Womens Association, students, activists and various other institutions in Dharamsala and beyond. Before and since coming to the US, he has visited more than three dozen Shichaks, schools and monasteries. He also gives lectures and workshops for Tibetan organizations around the world to create awareness about Tibet and encourage younger
generation to commit to education. Dr. Sangay also coordinates a Tibetan Nutrition Project helping dozen CST schools in India under the supervision of the Department of Education, Dharamsala.
He continues to engage with Indian scholars, officials and friends from India.
PERSONAL: Dr. Lobsang Sangay was born in a village in Darjeeling in 1968 with a typical Shichak background amidst fields, cows, chicken, fetching wood in the forest and helping his parent’s small business including winter sweater selling. Presently, he lives in greater Boston area in the US. His mother Kelsang Choden from Chamdo lives with him and his father passed way in 2004. He is married to Kesang Yangdon Shakchang, whose parents were from Lhokha and Phare. They have been together for 13 years and have a three-year-old daughter.
Dr. Lobsang Sangay speaks Tibetan, English, Hindi, Nepali and rudimentary Pema Koepa and some Chinese. When not working tirelessly for Tibet, he can be seen frequenting gyms, swimming, and reading.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Tibetan 'living Buddha' Phurbu Tsering Rinpoche jailed by China
Tibetan 'living Buddha' Phurbu Tsering Rinpoche jailed by China
China has sentenced a revered Tibetan living Buddha to eight-and-a-half years in jail on charges of illegally occupying government land and possession of weapons.
The court in the western town of Kangding handed down the conviction more than eight months after Phurbu Tsering Rinpoche’s trial. It marked the first time a Tibetan arrested after last year’s riots had been allowed to select his own defence lawyers.
He had faced a maximum of 15 years in prison on the two charges and it is possible that the presence of his lawyers persuaded the judges from imposing an even longer term. The judges may also have been wary of handing down a lengthier sentence for fear of renewed outbreaks of anti-Chinese unrest among supporters in the mainly ethnically Tibetan region that is his home. He commands thousands of disciples in Tibet as well as in other areas of China.
The court sentenced him to seven years in prison on the charge of illegally occupying government land and to an additional year for possession of bullets, Tibetan sources told The Times.
However, his lawyers could not be present for the sentencing since both men – prominent for their willingness to handle sensitive human rights cases — were disbarred earlier this year.
Phurbu Rinpoche, a tulku or reincarnation, had been enabled by his ability to speak Chinese to find legal help.
The monk was arrested on March 28 last year, four days after nuns from two religious houses over which he presides took to the streets in demonstrations shortly after deadly rioting erupted in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa.
A police search of the home of the living Buddha, who presides over several religious houses and runs an old people’s home, turned up an imitation pistol and 100 rounds of ammunition that police said could cause severe injury or even be fatal.
Local officials, unaware that his lawyers had a background in human rights, had told them when they arrived that the leaders had decided that the living Buddha must be jailed as an example to prevent other reincarnations from using their influence to stir up anti-Chinese unrest.
His family said that the court appeared to have failed on charges of possession of illegal weapons. One relative, who declined to be identified, said: “It seems they couldn’t make the charge about a gun stand up so they used the bullets. As for illegally occupying land, this land was given to the living Buddha himself to build an old people’s home so there is no question of it being illegal.”
At the time of his trial the court had made no attempt to investigate the weapons charges, his lawyer said. As for the illegal occupation of public land, his lawyer argued that the monk had spent 70,000 yuan (£7,000) of his money to buy the plot on which he built the old people’s home.
His lawyer had said: “The living room of such a venerated monk is a public place with people coming and going every day. Someone could have put the weapons there. His wife has said she had never seen them before when cleaning the house.”
Phurbu Rinpoche is the fifth incarnation of a revered Buddhist teacher, known by the title of Burongma. He was identified as a reincarnation when he was seven months old. Now 53, he did not formally become a monk until after the chaotic ultra-leftist Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 when all Tibetan monasteries were closed. By the time he took religious orders he was already married with two sons.
China has sentenced a revered Tibetan living Buddha to eight-and-a-half years in jail on charges of illegally occupying government land and possession of weapons.
The court in the western town of Kangding handed down the conviction more than eight months after Phurbu Tsering Rinpoche’s trial. It marked the first time a Tibetan arrested after last year’s riots had been allowed to select his own defence lawyers.
He had faced a maximum of 15 years in prison on the two charges and it is possible that the presence of his lawyers persuaded the judges from imposing an even longer term. The judges may also have been wary of handing down a lengthier sentence for fear of renewed outbreaks of anti-Chinese unrest among supporters in the mainly ethnically Tibetan region that is his home. He commands thousands of disciples in Tibet as well as in other areas of China.
The court sentenced him to seven years in prison on the charge of illegally occupying government land and to an additional year for possession of bullets, Tibetan sources told The Times.
However, his lawyers could not be present for the sentencing since both men – prominent for their willingness to handle sensitive human rights cases — were disbarred earlier this year.
Phurbu Rinpoche, a tulku or reincarnation, had been enabled by his ability to speak Chinese to find legal help.
The monk was arrested on March 28 last year, four days after nuns from two religious houses over which he presides took to the streets in demonstrations shortly after deadly rioting erupted in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa.
A police search of the home of the living Buddha, who presides over several religious houses and runs an old people’s home, turned up an imitation pistol and 100 rounds of ammunition that police said could cause severe injury or even be fatal.
Local officials, unaware that his lawyers had a background in human rights, had told them when they arrived that the leaders had decided that the living Buddha must be jailed as an example to prevent other reincarnations from using their influence to stir up anti-Chinese unrest.
His family said that the court appeared to have failed on charges of possession of illegal weapons. One relative, who declined to be identified, said: “It seems they couldn’t make the charge about a gun stand up so they used the bullets. As for illegally occupying land, this land was given to the living Buddha himself to build an old people’s home so there is no question of it being illegal.”
At the time of his trial the court had made no attempt to investigate the weapons charges, his lawyer said. As for the illegal occupation of public land, his lawyer argued that the monk had spent 70,000 yuan (£7,000) of his money to buy the plot on which he built the old people’s home.
His lawyer had said: “The living room of such a venerated monk is a public place with people coming and going every day. Someone could have put the weapons there. His wife has said she had never seen them before when cleaning the house.”
Phurbu Rinpoche is the fifth incarnation of a revered Buddhist teacher, known by the title of Burongma. He was identified as a reincarnation when he was seven months old. Now 53, he did not formally become a monk until after the chaotic ultra-leftist Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 when all Tibetan monasteries were closed. By the time he took religious orders he was already married with two sons.
西藏，无处不在的是恐惧
BBC中文网 - 7月29日
BBC北京记者: 顾求真
房顶上蹲着的中国士兵----持枪的狙击手
最近，“人权观察”组织的报告指责中国军警两年前曾毫无选择地向西藏示威人群开枪，中国当局酷刑折磨被捕藏人。北京否认上述指控。BBC记者顾求真获准在如影随形的护卫陪同下进入西藏报道。他发现，恐惧、担心渗透进各个层面。
最开始，你可能不会注意到房顶上蹲着的中国士兵----持枪的狙击手。眼前是成群的藏人，络绎不绝地来到他们心中最神圣的殿堂祈祷。
位于拉萨中心的大昭寺外，信徒排成长龙，缓缓地向前挪动。
人龙中，有上了年纪的藏族妇女。带着传统的念珠、项链，手中摇着法轮。来自山区的穷苦牧民，饱受寒冷的冬日、灼热的夏日煎熬，皮肤被晒得黝黑，脸上布满了皱纹。健硕的年轻人，留着长发，裹着藏袍。喇嘛身上披着酒红色的袈裟。
然后，你可能就会看到军人了。他们在屋顶上俯视朝拜的人群，持枪的身影映衬着高原的蓝天。警察手持望远镜扫描人群，高处的摄像机拍摄着一举一动。
拉萨市军警巡逻
在拉萨中心的大昭寺外有更多的警察
沿着大昭寺围墙绕过去，你会看到更多的警察。有些穿着制服，有些穿着便衣。坐在椅子上，抱着自动枪，监视着人群。
让人心惊肉跳的军人、警察无处不在，好像是为了故意显示自己的实力强大，让信徒想躲也躲不开。
就是在这里，在拉萨街巷崎岖的老城、石头建成的房屋之间，2008年的抗议示威演变成暴力冲突。藏人攻击汉人，放火焚烧他们的商店。大约有20人、其中大多数为汉人，被打死或者烧死。
部队进入拉萨。但是，抗议活动继续扩散，覆盖了西藏大片地区。
投资改善生活水平
此后，中国当局基本上对记者关闭了西藏。我们是获准进入西藏的为数不多的几个记者团之一。
我们一行大约三十人被带到西藏，目的是让我们亲眼看到中国注入大笔投资，发展和改变西藏。
中国当局表示，要努力改善藏民的生活水平。当局说，五十年前，中国把西藏从达赖喇嘛统治下的农奴制度中解放出来。中国希望藏民收入水平在十年之内赶上中国其他地区。
造价昂贵的藏京铁路
造价昂贵的藏京铁路，并不是所有藏人都欢迎。
我们被带去参观几个声名显赫的项目：造价昂贵的藏京铁路；包装雪山矿泉水的工厂；上海人捐建的一所学校；以及为藏族牧民、农民修建的新家。
在一所新居中，主人杜布杰（音译）指着一幅招贴画对我们说，“他们可是为西藏作了很多事”。招贴画上，是从毛泽东到胡锦涛的中国领导人以布达拉宫为背景的照片。布达拉宫曾经是达赖喇嘛的故居。
但是，当我们想方设法摆脱了当局派来的陪同之后，听到的是另外一个故事。
“我该说什么”
便衣警察随时随地跟踪我们。在小巷中，我们在夜幕的掩护下摆脱了陪同，但却看到更多的中国警察在黑暗中无声地等待着。我们摆脱他们的视线，赶快走了过去。
在匆匆忙忙的交谈中，藏人告诉我们，军警不停地骚扰他们。一个藏人说，铁路线把太多的汉人带入西藏。另外一个人神神秘秘地说，我告诉你一个秘密吧，“中国人统治着我们的土地，但我们藏人还是都相信达赖喇嘛”。说完这番话，他赶快就逃走了。另外一个人摇摇头说，“到处都是间谍，我可不敢谈论这样的话题”。
有一个藏人非常勇敢，愿意和我们公开交谈。
在被陪同带进大昭寺后，我们问他，暴乱之后，一群年轻的喇嘛罕见地当着一群外国记者的面抗议示威，高呼西藏没有自由，他们的近况如何呢？
喇嘛诺加
当喇嘛诺加强调他敬仰达赖喇嘛时，官方翻译却忽略诺加的话。
这个名叫诺加的喇嘛被带到我们面前，陪同的官员不停地告诉他该怎样回答我们的提问。有记者问诺加，你怎样看两年前的示威？坐在诺加身旁的官员说，“那样作不对”。诺加眼睛盯着地板，忠实地回答说，“那样作不对”。
记者又问，“你们高呼西藏没有自由，到底是什么意思”？很明显，诺加很害怕。他用藏语小心地问上司，“我该说什么”？
后来，当有记者问他，你是否敬仰达赖喇嘛？诺加的脸上露出笑容，他回答说，“当然了”。这个答案不在准备好的草稿当中，所以，官方翻译说，诺加说他不敬仰达赖喇嘛。但是，诺加补充说，“我没说我不敬仰赖喇嘛，我真的很敬仰达赖喇嘛”。翻译对他的补充忽略不计。
诺加的回答既勇敢、也很诚实。他是否因此受到了惩罚，我无从得知。
终身监禁的可能
但是，这可以说是一个例外。
所到之处，我们接触到西藏人，包括那些亲近当局的人，由于恐惧，都不敢直言。害怕间谍，害怕保安，害怕由于谈论暴乱、达赖喇嘛或是中国的西藏政策而受到控罪。
想一想，这样做可能意味着终身监禁，你可能就不吃惊了。
其实，中国官员看起来也很害怕。害怕我们和当地人交谈，害怕我们听到和官方版本不同的故事。官方说了，西藏人热爱共产党，热爱共产党给西藏带来的变化。害怕爆发新一轮的动乱，因此才安置了我前面提到的狙击手。
在高入云端的西藏高原，有明媚的蓝天映衬，西藏的表象之下，隐藏着不安、沉默与监控。恐惧渗透进方方面面。
[发表回复REPLY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC北京记者: 顾求真
房顶上蹲着的中国士兵----持枪的狙击手
最近，“人权观察”组织的报告指责中国军警两年前曾毫无选择地向西藏示威人群开枪，中国当局酷刑折磨被捕藏人。北京否认上述指控。BBC记者顾求真获准在如影随形的护卫陪同下进入西藏报道。他发现，恐惧、担心渗透进各个层面。
最开始，你可能不会注意到房顶上蹲着的中国士兵----持枪的狙击手。眼前是成群的藏人，络绎不绝地来到他们心中最神圣的殿堂祈祷。
位于拉萨中心的大昭寺外，信徒排成长龙，缓缓地向前挪动。
人龙中，有上了年纪的藏族妇女。带着传统的念珠、项链，手中摇着法轮。来自山区的穷苦牧民，饱受寒冷的冬日、灼热的夏日煎熬，皮肤被晒得黝黑，脸上布满了皱纹。健硕的年轻人，留着长发，裹着藏袍。喇嘛身上披着酒红色的袈裟。
然后，你可能就会看到军人了。他们在屋顶上俯视朝拜的人群，持枪的身影映衬着高原的蓝天。警察手持望远镜扫描人群，高处的摄像机拍摄着一举一动。
拉萨市军警巡逻
在拉萨中心的大昭寺外有更多的警察
沿着大昭寺围墙绕过去，你会看到更多的警察。有些穿着制服，有些穿着便衣。坐在椅子上，抱着自动枪，监视着人群。
让人心惊肉跳的军人、警察无处不在，好像是为了故意显示自己的实力强大，让信徒想躲也躲不开。
就是在这里，在拉萨街巷崎岖的老城、石头建成的房屋之间，2008年的抗议示威演变成暴力冲突。藏人攻击汉人，放火焚烧他们的商店。大约有20人、其中大多数为汉人，被打死或者烧死。
部队进入拉萨。但是，抗议活动继续扩散，覆盖了西藏大片地区。
投资改善生活水平
此后，中国当局基本上对记者关闭了西藏。我们是获准进入西藏的为数不多的几个记者团之一。
我们一行大约三十人被带到西藏，目的是让我们亲眼看到中国注入大笔投资，发展和改变西藏。
中国当局表示，要努力改善藏民的生活水平。当局说，五十年前，中国把西藏从达赖喇嘛统治下的农奴制度中解放出来。中国希望藏民收入水平在十年之内赶上中国其他地区。
造价昂贵的藏京铁路
造价昂贵的藏京铁路，并不是所有藏人都欢迎。
我们被带去参观几个声名显赫的项目：造价昂贵的藏京铁路；包装雪山矿泉水的工厂；上海人捐建的一所学校；以及为藏族牧民、农民修建的新家。
在一所新居中，主人杜布杰（音译）指着一幅招贴画对我们说，“他们可是为西藏作了很多事”。招贴画上，是从毛泽东到胡锦涛的中国领导人以布达拉宫为背景的照片。布达拉宫曾经是达赖喇嘛的故居。
但是，当我们想方设法摆脱了当局派来的陪同之后，听到的是另外一个故事。
“我该说什么”
便衣警察随时随地跟踪我们。在小巷中，我们在夜幕的掩护下摆脱了陪同，但却看到更多的中国警察在黑暗中无声地等待着。我们摆脱他们的视线，赶快走了过去。
在匆匆忙忙的交谈中，藏人告诉我们，军警不停地骚扰他们。一个藏人说，铁路线把太多的汉人带入西藏。另外一个人神神秘秘地说，我告诉你一个秘密吧，“中国人统治着我们的土地，但我们藏人还是都相信达赖喇嘛”。说完这番话，他赶快就逃走了。另外一个人摇摇头说，“到处都是间谍，我可不敢谈论这样的话题”。
有一个藏人非常勇敢，愿意和我们公开交谈。
在被陪同带进大昭寺后，我们问他，暴乱之后，一群年轻的喇嘛罕见地当着一群外国记者的面抗议示威，高呼西藏没有自由，他们的近况如何呢？
喇嘛诺加
当喇嘛诺加强调他敬仰达赖喇嘛时，官方翻译却忽略诺加的话。
这个名叫诺加的喇嘛被带到我们面前，陪同的官员不停地告诉他该怎样回答我们的提问。有记者问诺加，你怎样看两年前的示威？坐在诺加身旁的官员说，“那样作不对”。诺加眼睛盯着地板，忠实地回答说，“那样作不对”。
记者又问，“你们高呼西藏没有自由，到底是什么意思”？很明显，诺加很害怕。他用藏语小心地问上司，“我该说什么”？
后来，当有记者问他，你是否敬仰达赖喇嘛？诺加的脸上露出笑容，他回答说，“当然了”。这个答案不在准备好的草稿当中，所以，官方翻译说，诺加说他不敬仰达赖喇嘛。但是，诺加补充说，“我没说我不敬仰赖喇嘛，我真的很敬仰达赖喇嘛”。翻译对他的补充忽略不计。
诺加的回答既勇敢、也很诚实。他是否因此受到了惩罚，我无从得知。
终身监禁的可能
但是，这可以说是一个例外。
所到之处，我们接触到西藏人，包括那些亲近当局的人，由于恐惧，都不敢直言。害怕间谍，害怕保安，害怕由于谈论暴乱、达赖喇嘛或是中国的西藏政策而受到控罪。
想一想，这样做可能意味着终身监禁，你可能就不吃惊了。
其实，中国官员看起来也很害怕。害怕我们和当地人交谈，害怕我们听到和官方版本不同的故事。官方说了，西藏人热爱共产党，热爱共产党给西藏带来的变化。害怕爆发新一轮的动乱，因此才安置了我前面提到的狙击手。
在高入云端的西藏高原，有明媚的蓝天映衬，西藏的表象之下，隐藏着不安、沉默与监控。恐惧渗透进方方面面。
[发表回复REPLY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, July 26, 2010
揭开达然萨拉 “西藏流亡政府 ” 辛密
发布者：中国论坛 - 7月24日
来源：中国论坛
作者: 主流,
2010-7-23
２０１０年3月８号至１３号，我们受流亡印度的达赖流亡政府邀请，参加了“达然萨拉参访团”。从新德里到北部山区的达然萨拉（Dharmsala），每天只有一架２０座的小飞机往返。多数团员都先飞到新德里，再
里，再坐１２个小时的公共汽车到达然萨拉汇合。西藏流亡政府“外交部”派出专车，负责接送到旅馆。
各团员的车旅费自理，西藏流亡政府只提供当地住宿和交通，大家被安排在一个叫做“绿色宾馆（Green Hotel）”的简陋旅馆，离达赖住的大昭寺很近。每天由流亡政府“外交部”出车，两个藏族女翻译映真（汉语）及嘎拉（英语）带队，安排活动。
达然萨拉（印度语意为“休息室”）是印度北部喜马偕尔邦山区的一个小镇，散布在印度北部一座小山腰部和顶部，缠绕在几处狭窄山路旁边。
1959年，西藏发生叛乱后，达赖带领8万跟随他的藏民仓惶出逃到印度，被印度政府安置在北部这个山区小镇。经过40多年的繁衍，加上陆续出逃的少数藏民，目前流亡海外的藏人共约13万人，其中在印度有10万人，其余的3万多人主要分布在尼泊尔、不丹、欧洲和美洲等地。现在，约有１万流亡藏人住在这里。
达然萨拉：古老与现代混淆的奇特风景
目前，小镇仍是贫困落后、穷乡僻壤，道路崎岖，基础建设破烂不堪。当地普通人的平均收入月薪只有２０００印度卢比（约３００人民币，这只相当于西藏平均收入的三分之一）。镇上有６０００多藏人和达赖的流亡政府，另外还有４０００多国际藏族村（西方救助）的中小学生，以及藏族难民的成人学校。这里还住着很多当地印度人，但印度人比藏人更贫困、肮脏。
弯曲的山路边到处是印度人摆的摊点，卖些中国制造、辗转贩运来的廉价哈达，当地产的工艺品及水果蔬菜。残破简陋的小镇建筑物中，隐约其间几座高大的藏传佛教寺庙。拥挤的山路上，到处遛达的牛驴，与肮脏的乞丐，穿着红色袈裟的和尚，还有很多西方来的“义工”和访问者，形成古老与现代混淆错乱的奇特风景。
我们在达然萨拉期间，参观了藏人国际学校和儿童村，接受“西藏受政治迫害者协会”的晚宴；参加了3.10西藏起义５１周年法会；参观大昭寺、会见达赖喇嘛；参加“西藏殉国者”纪念碑（中文名称就显露“藏独”心态），和西藏纪念馆揭幕；参观西藏佛学院，会见大宝法王；参观藏传手工艺作坊，藏医藏药工厂等（照片附后）。
３月１０日，在大昭寺广场“纪念西藏起义５１周年”法会上，我们被安排在主席台左侧最显眼的位置。达赖演讲时，当着数千外国宾客和记者，邀请大家集体站立接受鼓掌。达赖数度赞扬这帮来访的“中国人”：代表中国未来，“维系西藏前途”。法会结束时，达赖不顾保安阻拦，转身走进我们中间，与所有人一一握手、合手致谢。现场所有藏人一齐起立，热烈欢呼，一些藏人更是泪水盈眶。
会见达赖：交流大藏区与藏人自治
达赖住在座落在一个小山头上的“大昭寺”内，寺内戒备森严，外有荷枪持弹的印度士兵，内有流亡政府“安全部”人员。晋见达赖者被层层把关、安检搜身；不准带相机、钥匙、钢笔等任何“危险器物”。
３月１０日下午，访问团在接见室外等了两个小时，才等到达赖的会见。陪同会见的还有流亡政府总理桑东仁波切，达赖办公室主任阿旺等人。
与达赖交流对话时，多数人只说些赞美之词，客气之话。轮到我发言，我提出几个问题：
首先，西藏问题国际化，是否有利于汉藏互信？及双方通过真诚谈判，切实解决问题？
第二，流亡政府要求把四川、青海、贵州、甘肃、云南、新疆等地一部分，也划入“大藏区”，您是否知道绝大多数汉人老百姓无法接受？
第三、既然您提倡中庸之道，要求尊重６００万藏人的人权，难道１３亿汉人的人权就不值得尊重？
第四、您提出除了国防和外交，其他权力都属于藏人的“高度自治”。现在的藏人实际上就在闹独立，如果藏人拥有了财力人力的绝对控制权，如何保证西藏不会独立出去？
他的汉语翻译，以“时间不够”为由想打断发言，并建议“以英语发言”。这被达赖发言阻止。达赖坚持要回答这些问题，他共花了半个小时作出解释。
达赖说：不是我要搞大藏区，是CCP（中共）要搞大藏区；不是我们要搞“西藏问题国际化”，是CCP要搞国际化。中国外交部每天在国际场合批评我，国际上当然要评论是非，这是谁在搞国际化？达赖说：我们承认，中国给了西藏很多援助，但只给现在的西藏自治区，自治区外的青海、四川、甘肃、新疆、云南、贵州，还有四百万藏民，得不到公平照顾，成为二等、甚至三等公民。
达赖说：实际上，这里的藏族精英都是现行自治区以外来的，包括我自己，是青海来的，他（达赖指着办公室主任）是四川来的，达然萨拉的多数人都来自西藏之外。说大藏区占了中国的四分之一的土地，可是这些土地还是呆在中国之内，属于中华人民共和国。我们说高度自治，主要是经济、文化和宗教，不是外交或军事。我本人将来不会担任政府要职。所有的藏人在呆一起，有什么不好呢？
达赖接着说：我告诉你一个内部消息，最近中国国务院召开的“西藏工作会议”，已经按照我们的提议，把西藏以外藏区的“经济发展”也规划在内，这不就是大藏区吗？这是个好消息。有利于将来统一和藏人自治。
达赖说：接着说下一个问题，除了国防和外交归中央，其他经济、文化、宗教、司法、行政都归藏人，也不是绝对的。比如教育，藏区要普及义务教育，我们没有足够的老师，就要从中国要，从内地要，这都可以谈嘛！提出条件不是最后底线，双方可以协商。
会见大宝法王“噶玛巴”
３月１２日我们会见了，前几年逃出中国的第三号西藏宗教领袖“大宝法王”阿玛巴。他就住在达然萨拉的“佛学院”内的法王寺。这个学院培养从１到１８年级所有佛学班，直到获得最高的“格西”，成为可以传教的活佛。目前，全院约有２０００多名男女佛学徒。
通过层层严密的保安和搜身检查、“抵押”了来访者的护照后，终于见到这个年轻的法王（见照片）。他现年２３岁，高大微胖。除了进修佛法外，他还在学英语、日文、法文和拉丁四门外语；能说台湾口音的流利汉语。
阿玛巴说话直率，口无遮拦。当有人问他对西藏前途看法时，他说：“我们没有能力治理西藏，将来可能要靠周边国家帮助治理”。有人问：你与达赖喇嘛有什么不同？他说：我们在达赖喇嘛的领导下，共同为藏人祈福。达赖喇嘛需要领导整个西藏，我则专心藏传佛教。希望将来在西藏问题获得满意解决后，我能回到中国内地传教。
在访问“阿玛巴”时，也遇到几位从中国内地来朝见的汉人，他们拿着信徒名单跪拜大宝法王，并捐出随身所有财物（几百美元），使这位年轻活佛，感动不已。据流亡政府的人说，达赖圆寂后，新转世灵童的培养至少需要十多年，这期间藏人面临一个权力空窗，也许大宝法王可以接替达赖权力，现在大宝法王就是达赖培养的接班人。
在会见达赖和阿玛巴后，我们与流亡政府总理桑东仁波切和议长边巴次仁，用英语交流（二人似乎不懂汉语）。我提出更尖锐和具体的“大藏区”问题：流亡政府要求停止汉人移居藏区，你们是否知道这在世界上都违反基本人权？你们是否知道在“大藏区”内，还有汉族２０００多万人。例如青海省，因为是达赖出生地就要划为大藏区，但那里藏人只有１００万，汉人却有３００万。凭什么４００万藏人要统治多倍汉人呢？如果汉人也要自治或独立，那该怎么办？
总理和议长以流利英语罗列出一大堆理由，大意是说：按照国际法规，大藏区内汉族占多数的地区，汉人也可以自治。郭岩华接着问：“大藏区”数千年来，都是汉藏回羌各族，混居互婚，安居乐业。现在，往往城镇内多是汉族，乡镇以下多是藏族，犬牙交错，怎么可能划分清楚或“各族自治”？因为土地、人口、资源各种权益争执起来，岂不又成了另一个巴尔干式“火药桶”？众人哑口无言。
免费学校：藏人偷渡来此的主因
前些年，从西藏偷渡来印度和尼伯儿的藏人，每年都有４－５千人，也有的藏人把孩子留在国际儿童村或学校，就回西藏工作或经商去了。导游介绍：从西藏或其他省份的藏区逃到尼伯尔再辗转到印度，要走上２０天至一个月，很多藏民夜行昼伏，一路要饭乞讨，翻过大雪山和国界时，很多人冻饿而死。更多的人被警察抓住，坐一阵牢后，被遣送回老家。
一个刚从西藏逃来的藏民说：这里管吃管住，学费全免，每月发给零用钱，谁听说了不跑来呢？ 其实，这类由西方国家捐助及监管的“免费学校”，正是藏人偷渡来此的主要原因。目前，这些儿童村和成人学校主要教授英语、藏文和印度文，还有藏族手工艺、技工、电脑等工作培训。虽然流亡政府议会通过法案，在小学四年级以上也教汉语，但因“没有汉族老师”（这个借口显然太过牵强），至今没有实施。
但是，自２００８年西藏发生暴乱后，从中国来这里的藏人越来越少，目前每年只有几百人。流亡政府的人说有几个原因：一是，边境管理更严格了；二是，西藏也实行“免费教育和医疗”；三是，中国政府不再允许公务员的孩子来这里受教育，否则开除公职。流亡政府的人哀叹道：还是达赖喇嘛有先见之明，当初我们在全球掀起抗议中国高潮时（也引起华人强烈反弹），他就忧虑说：这样的对抗对我们可能不利......
随着中国的持续繁荣，西藏流亡政府搞的“国际化”，除了赚些口水外，结果很可能只是一场颗粒无收的无奈和尴尬。
西藏前途：应由当地中国人自己决定
目前，生活在这里的藏人并不比内地幸福，他们即使出生在印度，也永远都是难民，无法获得印度的身份或护照，更不能随便出国。即使流亡政府内部官员，也受印度政府严密监视，常与中国内地联系者就会被怀疑。现在，甚至连二号宗教领袖阿玛巴，印度都不信任，连出国访问都不被准许。
近年来，中国政府已采取务实做法：只要没有刑事罚罪记录，流亡藏人都可以申请“中国旅行证”，自由回国探亲访友，做生意。很多藏人现在就往来于中印各地，靠从西藏及内地采购商品，在这里贩卖赚钱致富。
随着中国经济高速发展，现在不仅印度各地，连这个小镇上到处都是中国生产的衣服、玩具和电器等产品。正如达赖所说：我们的宗教是印度学来的，我们的饮食是从中国学来的。藏人在印度到处开设的“藏餐馆”，实际上就是“口味差点”的传统中餐。某种意义上说，藏族商人正成为一种润滑剂，促进着中印贸易发展。
从中国的长远利益看，中国应加快西藏经济和社会建设，特别是那些落后农牧区，实现公路水电“村村通”；实施完全免费的“汉藏双语”义务教育，并把义务教育逐渐提高到１２年；促进民族融合，配合全面社会福利，实施免费“成人教育”，对那些贫困的农牧民进行双语和技术培训；收留那些失业和无业游民，管吃管住，发零用钱，并进行针对性的职业培训，直到他们找到工作。
维护西藏稳定同时，全力促进西藏经济发展，从根本上消除藏人偷渡境外的“经济动因”。随着西藏越来越繁荣发达，时间将站在绝大多数当地中国人一边；而西藏的前途，也只能由当地的中国人自己决定
来源：中国论坛
作者: 主流,
2010-7-23
２０１０年3月８号至１３号，我们受流亡印度的达赖流亡政府邀请，参加了“达然萨拉参访团”。从新德里到北部山区的达然萨拉（Dharmsala），每天只有一架２０座的小飞机往返。多数团员都先飞到新德里，再
里，再坐１２个小时的公共汽车到达然萨拉汇合。西藏流亡政府“外交部”派出专车，负责接送到旅馆。
各团员的车旅费自理，西藏流亡政府只提供当地住宿和交通，大家被安排在一个叫做“绿色宾馆（Green Hotel）”的简陋旅馆，离达赖住的大昭寺很近。每天由流亡政府“外交部”出车，两个藏族女翻译映真（汉语）及嘎拉（英语）带队，安排活动。
达然萨拉（印度语意为“休息室”）是印度北部喜马偕尔邦山区的一个小镇，散布在印度北部一座小山腰部和顶部，缠绕在几处狭窄山路旁边。
1959年，西藏发生叛乱后，达赖带领8万跟随他的藏民仓惶出逃到印度，被印度政府安置在北部这个山区小镇。经过40多年的繁衍，加上陆续出逃的少数藏民，目前流亡海外的藏人共约13万人，其中在印度有10万人，其余的3万多人主要分布在尼泊尔、不丹、欧洲和美洲等地。现在，约有１万流亡藏人住在这里。
达然萨拉：古老与现代混淆的奇特风景
目前，小镇仍是贫困落后、穷乡僻壤，道路崎岖，基础建设破烂不堪。当地普通人的平均收入月薪只有２０００印度卢比（约３００人民币，这只相当于西藏平均收入的三分之一）。镇上有６０００多藏人和达赖的流亡政府，另外还有４０００多国际藏族村（西方救助）的中小学生，以及藏族难民的成人学校。这里还住着很多当地印度人，但印度人比藏人更贫困、肮脏。
弯曲的山路边到处是印度人摆的摊点，卖些中国制造、辗转贩运来的廉价哈达，当地产的工艺品及水果蔬菜。残破简陋的小镇建筑物中，隐约其间几座高大的藏传佛教寺庙。拥挤的山路上，到处遛达的牛驴，与肮脏的乞丐，穿着红色袈裟的和尚，还有很多西方来的“义工”和访问者，形成古老与现代混淆错乱的奇特风景。
我们在达然萨拉期间，参观了藏人国际学校和儿童村，接受“西藏受政治迫害者协会”的晚宴；参加了3.10西藏起义５１周年法会；参观大昭寺、会见达赖喇嘛；参加“西藏殉国者”纪念碑（中文名称就显露“藏独”心态），和西藏纪念馆揭幕；参观西藏佛学院，会见大宝法王；参观藏传手工艺作坊，藏医藏药工厂等（照片附后）。
３月１０日，在大昭寺广场“纪念西藏起义５１周年”法会上，我们被安排在主席台左侧最显眼的位置。达赖演讲时，当着数千外国宾客和记者，邀请大家集体站立接受鼓掌。达赖数度赞扬这帮来访的“中国人”：代表中国未来，“维系西藏前途”。法会结束时，达赖不顾保安阻拦，转身走进我们中间，与所有人一一握手、合手致谢。现场所有藏人一齐起立，热烈欢呼，一些藏人更是泪水盈眶。
会见达赖：交流大藏区与藏人自治
达赖住在座落在一个小山头上的“大昭寺”内，寺内戒备森严，外有荷枪持弹的印度士兵，内有流亡政府“安全部”人员。晋见达赖者被层层把关、安检搜身；不准带相机、钥匙、钢笔等任何“危险器物”。
３月１０日下午，访问团在接见室外等了两个小时，才等到达赖的会见。陪同会见的还有流亡政府总理桑东仁波切，达赖办公室主任阿旺等人。
与达赖交流对话时，多数人只说些赞美之词，客气之话。轮到我发言，我提出几个问题：
首先，西藏问题国际化，是否有利于汉藏互信？及双方通过真诚谈判，切实解决问题？
第二，流亡政府要求把四川、青海、贵州、甘肃、云南、新疆等地一部分，也划入“大藏区”，您是否知道绝大多数汉人老百姓无法接受？
第三、既然您提倡中庸之道，要求尊重６００万藏人的人权，难道１３亿汉人的人权就不值得尊重？
第四、您提出除了国防和外交，其他权力都属于藏人的“高度自治”。现在的藏人实际上就在闹独立，如果藏人拥有了财力人力的绝对控制权，如何保证西藏不会独立出去？
他的汉语翻译，以“时间不够”为由想打断发言，并建议“以英语发言”。这被达赖发言阻止。达赖坚持要回答这些问题，他共花了半个小时作出解释。
达赖说：不是我要搞大藏区，是CCP（中共）要搞大藏区；不是我们要搞“西藏问题国际化”，是CCP要搞国际化。中国外交部每天在国际场合批评我，国际上当然要评论是非，这是谁在搞国际化？达赖说：我们承认，中国给了西藏很多援助，但只给现在的西藏自治区，自治区外的青海、四川、甘肃、新疆、云南、贵州，还有四百万藏民，得不到公平照顾，成为二等、甚至三等公民。
达赖说：实际上，这里的藏族精英都是现行自治区以外来的，包括我自己，是青海来的，他（达赖指着办公室主任）是四川来的，达然萨拉的多数人都来自西藏之外。说大藏区占了中国的四分之一的土地，可是这些土地还是呆在中国之内，属于中华人民共和国。我们说高度自治，主要是经济、文化和宗教，不是外交或军事。我本人将来不会担任政府要职。所有的藏人在呆一起，有什么不好呢？
达赖接着说：我告诉你一个内部消息，最近中国国务院召开的“西藏工作会议”，已经按照我们的提议，把西藏以外藏区的“经济发展”也规划在内，这不就是大藏区吗？这是个好消息。有利于将来统一和藏人自治。
达赖说：接着说下一个问题，除了国防和外交归中央，其他经济、文化、宗教、司法、行政都归藏人，也不是绝对的。比如教育，藏区要普及义务教育，我们没有足够的老师，就要从中国要，从内地要，这都可以谈嘛！提出条件不是最后底线，双方可以协商。
会见大宝法王“噶玛巴”
３月１２日我们会见了，前几年逃出中国的第三号西藏宗教领袖“大宝法王”阿玛巴。他就住在达然萨拉的“佛学院”内的法王寺。这个学院培养从１到１８年级所有佛学班，直到获得最高的“格西”，成为可以传教的活佛。目前，全院约有２０００多名男女佛学徒。
通过层层严密的保安和搜身检查、“抵押”了来访者的护照后，终于见到这个年轻的法王（见照片）。他现年２３岁，高大微胖。除了进修佛法外，他还在学英语、日文、法文和拉丁四门外语；能说台湾口音的流利汉语。
阿玛巴说话直率，口无遮拦。当有人问他对西藏前途看法时，他说：“我们没有能力治理西藏，将来可能要靠周边国家帮助治理”。有人问：你与达赖喇嘛有什么不同？他说：我们在达赖喇嘛的领导下，共同为藏人祈福。达赖喇嘛需要领导整个西藏，我则专心藏传佛教。希望将来在西藏问题获得满意解决后，我能回到中国内地传教。
在访问“阿玛巴”时，也遇到几位从中国内地来朝见的汉人，他们拿着信徒名单跪拜大宝法王，并捐出随身所有财物（几百美元），使这位年轻活佛，感动不已。据流亡政府的人说，达赖圆寂后，新转世灵童的培养至少需要十多年，这期间藏人面临一个权力空窗，也许大宝法王可以接替达赖权力，现在大宝法王就是达赖培养的接班人。
在会见达赖和阿玛巴后，我们与流亡政府总理桑东仁波切和议长边巴次仁，用英语交流（二人似乎不懂汉语）。我提出更尖锐和具体的“大藏区”问题：流亡政府要求停止汉人移居藏区，你们是否知道这在世界上都违反基本人权？你们是否知道在“大藏区”内，还有汉族２０００多万人。例如青海省，因为是达赖出生地就要划为大藏区，但那里藏人只有１００万，汉人却有３００万。凭什么４００万藏人要统治多倍汉人呢？如果汉人也要自治或独立，那该怎么办？
总理和议长以流利英语罗列出一大堆理由，大意是说：按照国际法规，大藏区内汉族占多数的地区，汉人也可以自治。郭岩华接着问：“大藏区”数千年来，都是汉藏回羌各族，混居互婚，安居乐业。现在，往往城镇内多是汉族，乡镇以下多是藏族，犬牙交错，怎么可能划分清楚或“各族自治”？因为土地、人口、资源各种权益争执起来，岂不又成了另一个巴尔干式“火药桶”？众人哑口无言。
免费学校：藏人偷渡来此的主因
前些年，从西藏偷渡来印度和尼伯儿的藏人，每年都有４－５千人，也有的藏人把孩子留在国际儿童村或学校，就回西藏工作或经商去了。导游介绍：从西藏或其他省份的藏区逃到尼伯尔再辗转到印度，要走上２０天至一个月，很多藏民夜行昼伏，一路要饭乞讨，翻过大雪山和国界时，很多人冻饿而死。更多的人被警察抓住，坐一阵牢后，被遣送回老家。
一个刚从西藏逃来的藏民说：这里管吃管住，学费全免，每月发给零用钱，谁听说了不跑来呢？ 其实，这类由西方国家捐助及监管的“免费学校”，正是藏人偷渡来此的主要原因。目前，这些儿童村和成人学校主要教授英语、藏文和印度文，还有藏族手工艺、技工、电脑等工作培训。虽然流亡政府议会通过法案，在小学四年级以上也教汉语，但因“没有汉族老师”（这个借口显然太过牵强），至今没有实施。
但是，自２００８年西藏发生暴乱后，从中国来这里的藏人越来越少，目前每年只有几百人。流亡政府的人说有几个原因：一是，边境管理更严格了；二是，西藏也实行“免费教育和医疗”；三是，中国政府不再允许公务员的孩子来这里受教育，否则开除公职。流亡政府的人哀叹道：还是达赖喇嘛有先见之明，当初我们在全球掀起抗议中国高潮时（也引起华人强烈反弹），他就忧虑说：这样的对抗对我们可能不利......
随着中国的持续繁荣，西藏流亡政府搞的“国际化”，除了赚些口水外，结果很可能只是一场颗粒无收的无奈和尴尬。
西藏前途：应由当地中国人自己决定
目前，生活在这里的藏人并不比内地幸福，他们即使出生在印度，也永远都是难民，无法获得印度的身份或护照，更不能随便出国。即使流亡政府内部官员，也受印度政府严密监视，常与中国内地联系者就会被怀疑。现在，甚至连二号宗教领袖阿玛巴，印度都不信任，连出国访问都不被准许。
近年来，中国政府已采取务实做法：只要没有刑事罚罪记录，流亡藏人都可以申请“中国旅行证”，自由回国探亲访友，做生意。很多藏人现在就往来于中印各地，靠从西藏及内地采购商品，在这里贩卖赚钱致富。
随着中国经济高速发展，现在不仅印度各地，连这个小镇上到处都是中国生产的衣服、玩具和电器等产品。正如达赖所说：我们的宗教是印度学来的，我们的饮食是从中国学来的。藏人在印度到处开设的“藏餐馆”，实际上就是“口味差点”的传统中餐。某种意义上说，藏族商人正成为一种润滑剂，促进着中印贸易发展。
从中国的长远利益看，中国应加快西藏经济和社会建设，特别是那些落后农牧区，实现公路水电“村村通”；实施完全免费的“汉藏双语”义务教育，并把义务教育逐渐提高到１２年；促进民族融合，配合全面社会福利，实施免费“成人教育”，对那些贫困的农牧民进行双语和技术培训；收留那些失业和无业游民，管吃管住，发零用钱，并进行针对性的职业培训，直到他们找到工作。
维护西藏稳定同时，全力促进西藏经济发展，从根本上消除藏人偷渡境外的“经济动因”。随着西藏越来越繁荣发达，时间将站在绝大多数当地中国人一边；而西藏的前途，也只能由当地的中国人自己决定
Saturday, July 17, 2010
China and Starvation
Choni Tsultrim Gyatso
7/16/2010
Starvation in Chinese prisons is a way of torture and it has been brutally practicing on prisoners and specially Political prisoners.
This week, the Falun Dafa Information Center reported that wardens at Heilongjiang’s Daqing prison are preventing sixty-five Falun Gong practitioners detained there from eating. Falun Gong practitioners are not allowed to enter the dining hall or receive food from others—and they’re using this as a form of torture. More than three thousand Falun Gong practitioners have been killed since China crackdown on the spiritual practice but 400 of them were starved in prisons.
another fact is that About 20 million people are facing starvation in China because of droughts and floods across the country this year, China Daily reported today.
Another 80 million people in rural areas of at least 10 provinces are threatened with food shortages this winter because of the impact of the natural disasters on grain crops.
Over the last nine months, China has been hit with a wave of unusually severe natural disasters, including prolonged freezing temperatures in eastern and central China, extensive drought during the summer in several central provinces and widespread flooding of the Yangtze River.
More than 200 million rural residents were affected by these disasters, this information clearly posted on China Daily News.
Altogether, about 114 million acres of agricultural land were damaged by the disasters; Government officials now say that this year's grain production will be lower than last year's. That means starvation rate is going to go sky rock later this year.
In case of Karma Samdrup China's goal is so clear that they wanted to get rid of him. So who cares to feed him and lost weight in prison
I really believe that Karma's small and skinny health condition now is on the way to starvation
7/16/2010
Starvation in Chinese prisons is a way of torture and it has been brutally practicing on prisoners and specially Political prisoners.
This week, the Falun Dafa Information Center reported that wardens at Heilongjiang’s Daqing prison are preventing sixty-five Falun Gong practitioners detained there from eating. Falun Gong practitioners are not allowed to enter the dining hall or receive food from others—and they’re using this as a form of torture. More than three thousand Falun Gong practitioners have been killed since China crackdown on the spiritual practice but 400 of them were starved in prisons.
another fact is that About 20 million people are facing starvation in China because of droughts and floods across the country this year, China Daily reported today.
Another 80 million people in rural areas of at least 10 provinces are threatened with food shortages this winter because of the impact of the natural disasters on grain crops.
Over the last nine months, China has been hit with a wave of unusually severe natural disasters, including prolonged freezing temperatures in eastern and central China, extensive drought during the summer in several central provinces and widespread flooding of the Yangtze River.
More than 200 million rural residents were affected by these disasters, this information clearly posted on China Daily News.
Altogether, about 114 million acres of agricultural land were damaged by the disasters; Government officials now say that this year's grain production will be lower than last year's. That means starvation rate is going to go sky rock later this year.
In case of Karma Samdrup China's goal is so clear that they wanted to get rid of him. So who cares to feed him and lost weight in prison
I really believe that Karma's small and skinny health condition now is on the way to starvation
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Teaching Tibetan in Tibet: Bilingual Education is Survival
Author: Åshild Kolås
Models of Sovereignty and Survival In Alaska
The “Tibet Question” has become one of the focal points of disagreements between China and the international community, and the survival of Tibetan culture and language is one of the key topics of the debate. While both the Chinese authorities and exiled Tibetans have linked their political agendas to the question of protecting “cultural rights” in Tibet, these are also contentious issues within China.
The role of so-called “bilingual” teaching in schools for Tibetan children is one of the issues that are being debated by educators and bureaucrats in the People’s Republic of China. Current government policies give top priority to speeding up economic development in western China, including the Tibetan areas. Improving the quality of education is seen as one of several possible strategies toward reaching this goal. Within this context, officials in charge of education accept that Tibetan medium teaching may be necessary to help Tibetan students achieve better results. But education departments have limited resources, and the teaching of Tibetan as a second language represents an additional expenditure they may be unwilling or unable to cover.
Critics, including mainly Tibetan educators, administrators, and other cadres, agree that there is an urgent need to improve the quality of education in Tibetan areas. In addition, many argue that Tibetan language needs to be taught in schools as a means to preserve Tibetan culture. In their view, the Chinese education system currently contributes to the assimilation of Tibetans into the Chinese mainstream. Among the Tibetan critics who hold this view, Tenzin*, from Kham (eastern Tibet), insists that “more than anywhere else in society, the school is where a Tibetan child learns to become Chinese.”
On the other hand, even critics admit that it is vital to raise the education level of Tibetans and other minorities for them to be able to participate in the economic development of their regions. Both Tibetan and Han Chinese educators have argued that the added workload of learning two languages is a significant obstacle, making it difficult for Tibetan children in bilingual schools to compete for admission to higher education. Political concerns have guided the development of bilingual education in Tibetan areas of China, and numerous challenges confront Tibetan school children, their parents, and teachers.
Government Policies
Soon after the founding of Communist China in 1949, a number of public schools were set up in Tibetan areas, as well as in other areas inhabited by “minority nationalities.” Education was important to the new regime, to consolidate their control of the border areas and “civilize” the people living in China’s “frontier” regions. In the mid-1950s, newly established education departments in Tibetan areas issued their first guidelines on “bilingual education.” The use of Tibetan as the primary language of schools for Tibetans was the only feasible strategy at the time, since few people in these areas could understand Chinese.
In 1958 the process of developing bilingual education was interrupted by the Democratic Reforms campaign, which was followed by a series of radical political campaigns, including the devastating Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). Bilingual teaching was discontinued for about 20 years, and as a consequence, an entire generation of Tibetans failed to learn to read and write their Native language. When the development of bilingual education for “minority nationalities” was back on the agenda in the late 1970s, one of the difficulties was finding teachers who were able to teach Tibetan.
By the early 1980s, officials in the local government education departments were discussing how to develop educational programs suited to the “special characteristics of the nationalities.” Minority language education became the main focus of these discussions, and the initial trend was to support the use of minority languages in schools, to educate children in their Native language. Tibetan educators from the five provinces and regions that encompass “Tibetan” areas (Tibet Autonomous Region, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan) started cooperating to compile a series of textbooks to be used in all bilingual schools for Tibetan children.
During this period, a number of trial projects were carried out to test the benefits of Tibetan medium teaching in schools for Tibetans. (Bass) These projects generally received glowing reports, and new policies were subsequently drawn up to increase Tibetan medium teaching. In 1987 the People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) passed a resolution stipulating that by 1993, all junior middle schools were to teach in Tibetan, and by 1997, most subjects in senior middle schools were also to be taught in Tibetan.
In the 1990s the situation changed again, however, and bilingual education met with increasing disapproval. As a result of this backlash, the policies that were introduced in 1987 could not be implemented. Moreover, in 1997 a deputy secretary of the TAR Communist Party announced the reversal of the 1987 resolution. At the same time new policies were introduced, this time to increase the teaching of Chinese to Tibetan children starting at the first grade of primary school. (Bass) Considering the substantial evidence from educators in support of Tibetan medium teaching, what were the grounds for these policy reversals?
The Political Dimension
Decisions concerning Tibetan language instruction in schools are not just a question of what benefits students. In China, education is directed toward disseminating the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party. The standard curriculum in Chinese schools thus emphasizes lessons in patriotism and nationalistic sentiments, and patriotic education in one form or another constitutes a significant part of the curriculum along with politics, morals, and other subjects. Accordingly, the primary and middle-school curriculum includes lessons such as Marxist-Leninist ideology, the thoughts of Mao, respect for the revolutionary heroes, and love of the Chinese Communist Party.
The aim of “nationality education” is still described by education officials in Tibetan areas as “keeping up socialism.” One of the primary goals of education in Tibetan and other minority areas is to strengthen the “unity of the nationalities” and make minority children patriotic members of the Chinese “Motherland.” (Hansen) While actively promoting patriotism, textbooks also disseminate the notion that minorities are inferior and backward compared to the Han Chinese. Moreover, non-Han students frequently learn that their language, history, religion, and customs are considered useless or insignificant in the Chinese school system. (Hansen) Dorje, a teacher in a “nationalities middle school,” explains why Tibetan students at his school learn so little about their own language and culture:
“Tibetan is not taught at our school, although many of the Tibetan students are very interested in learning to read and write Tibetan, and would also like to learn about their culture and traditions. The guidelines of the provincial education authorities even say that we should publish our own textbooks on local history and culture, but in fact this has not been done. This is because both the students themselves and their teachers emphasize the kind of knowledge that students need for passing the standard national and provincial exams.”
Contrary to the rest of the curriculum, the Tibetan textbooks teach Tibetan students to value their own traditions. In addition, the trans-provincial scope of the Tibetan curriculum, with its emphasis on the unity of “plateau culture,” provides an important way to breach the provincial political boundaries that currently separate the Tibetan population into different administrative units. (Upton) In other words, the curriculum creates a space for the construction of a Tibetan identity that encompasses all Tibetan areas, and plays an important role in the reconstruction of Tibetan culture. For these reasons, some government officials and cadres regard Tibetan language education as a potential source of “local nationalism” and a threat to stability. These officials want to limit Tibetan medium teaching to a minimum, and disapprove of teaching Tibetan as a second language.
Market Forces
In addition to a more constrained political climate in recent years, economic reforms have also weakened the role of Tibetan language education in several ways. New policies introduced in 1985 gave local governments the final responsibility for funding their own primary and secondary education. The poorer counties, many of them located in minority areas, are unable to provide adequate funds for education. Although the Chinese government has adopted a nationwide policy of compulsory nine-year education, in some Tibetan areas local education authorities are struggling to make even a basic three-year education available to all children. Under these conditions, the provision of bilingual education inevitably becomes a second priority.
Market reforms not only influence the decisions made by local government officials, who have the choice between allocating funds for standard Chinese language education and bilingual education, but also the choices made by parents and students. Until 1998, middle school graduates were granted a stable job in a work unit through the so-called “job assignment” system. After this system was cancelled, the job market became increasingly competitive. Consequently, market forces became much more important for people’s choice of education. In this situation, many Tibetans feel that the advantages of learning Tibetan are few, while a good knowledge of Chinese is increasingly necessary for finding a job.
During the past decade, the expenses of schooling have increasingly been levied on parents, who have experienced a dramatic increase in the cost of educating their children. In rural areas, many parents now find it difficult to afford the expenses of schooling, which include the cost of textbooks and miscellaneous fees in primary schools, as well as tuition fees and boarding expenses in middle schools and colleges. Dolma, a college graduate from a family of farmers, describes the difficulties she and her parents experienced:
“During my three years of college, my family had to pay more than 6,500 RMB [about US$790] a year, in tuition, textbooks, boarding, and other expenses. This was a big expense, since my whole family only earns about 7,800 RMB [about US$950] a year. After my first year of college the job assignment system was brought to an end. Now I’m unemployed. I don’t have any relatives working for the government, so I don’t know how I’ll manage to find a job. It’s very difficult these days.”
In herding areas and remote villages, boarding may be necessary even in primary school. In these areas, many families cannot afford to even send their children to school. In some cases the official enrollment figures are as low as 28 percent, even for the primary school level. High dropout rates are also a problem. According to a source working in the Qinghai Province government, during the late 1990s approximately 30 percent to 50 percent of the pupils in Qinghai’s bilingual schools failed to complete a six-year education.
Tibetan medium schools are mainly located in rural areas where there are no Chinese-speaking inhabitants. While some of these areas lack schools altogether, others have scarce resources and teachers themselves are more or less uneducated. Schools in herding areas often have only one teacher, who may not be qualified, and usually offer only three to four years of basic education. In such schools the pupils at all levels are taught together in one class. Facilities are poor, often lacking desks, benches, and sometimes even a schoolhouse. Tibetan medium teaching under such conditions is not necessarily an explicit educational strategy, but may rather be a consequence of the incompetence of the local teachers in Chinese, lack of resources, and a general lack of attention to education. Although Chinese is one of the main subjects in the primary school curriculum, in some schools the children may not be able to learn Chinese at all. These children are seriously disadvantaged, and in most cases they will be unable to continue their education above the elementary level. Tenzin, a young man in his twenties, started his education in a small village school where Tibetan was the only subject taught on a regular basis:
“When I wasn’t herding or doing chores, I went to the village school, where we learned the Tibetan alphabet. Sometimes we also learned some Chinese, by singing patriotic songs such as “The East is Red.” One of the teachers knew a little Chinese, but we never learned to read or write.”
The pupils in this school were between seven and 16 years old, and were divided into two classes—a junior class and a senior class. Most of these pupils never received any further schooling, but Tenzin’s parents could afford to give him a better education:
“I was 13 years old when I moved in with relatives in the city, to go to school there. When I arrived I couldn’t speak a word of Chinese, but I had to attend a primary school where all the subjects were taught in Chinese. The first two years I had a very difficult time understanding what the teachers were saying, and I failed the exams in Chinese.”
Whereas the quality and cost of education may be the main causes of low attendance rates, a contributing factor is that the standard curriculum in Chinese schools is largely irrelevant for life in the Tibetan countryside. In rural areas few jobs require schooling. Because the boarding system separates children from their families for long periods, it becomes difficult for parents to pass on important knowledge and teach their children the skills necessary to continue a life of farming and herding. As a result, many parents in rural areas prefer to keep their children at home. Most parents, however, want to give their children the opportunity to go to school. When adequate schooling is unavailable where they live, some parents make the difficult decision to send their children to schools for Tibetan refugees set up in India by the Tibetan government-in-exile. Every year an average of 3,000 Tibetans trek for weeks across the borders to Nepal and India, risking their lives on the high passes of the Himalayas. According to the International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet, nearly one-third of these people are children. These figures indicate just how serious the lack of adequate and affordable schooling has become in Tibetan areas of China.
Challenges of Bilingual Schools
A core problem for Tibetan educators concerns the balance between Tibetan and Chinese in bilingual schools, and the question of which language to use as the medium of teaching. Many educators argue that Tibetan students who are taught in their Native language achieve better results than those who are taught in Chinese. On the other hand, some emphasize the problems these students face when continuing their studies in Chinese, and in exams where they compete with native Chinese-speakers. In many Tibetan areas, primary schools may be taught in Tibetan whereas middle schools are all Chinese medium. This shift in the medium of instruction creates difficulties for Tibetan students which native Chinese-speaking students do not experience. Since most higher education is currently offered in Chinese only, Tibetan students who wish to attend a college or university must sooner or later learn Chinese.
Chinese government education authorities have recognized that language is one of the main challenges for minority education. The national entrance exam for universities has thus been made available in several minority languages, including Tibetan. A number of vocational schools, colleges, and universities also offer one- or two-year preparatory courses for minority students. Preferential policies have been introduced to give minority students easier access to higher education through a system of quotas and differences in the scores required to be admitted. What the government policies fail to address is the problems experienced by minority children in primary and middle school, when they are introduced to new subjects in an unfamiliar language.
Tibetan students in bilingual schools face other challenges as well. They are required to study two very different languages, using two completely different scripts. For many students, the written Tibetan they learn in school is quite different from their Native spoken dialect. The rest of the curriculum has the same content as in ordinary schools, and the students follow the same schedule; because exams are standardized the curriculum must also be standardized. But without adding hours to the school day, the bilingual schools add a second language to the curriculum, putting an additional workload on Tibetan students and making it even more difficult for them to compete. Most Tibetan children have no opportunity to choose their medium of instruction in school, but in some areas a system of two parallel streams has been introduced—a Chinese medium and a Tibetan medium. This system enables many students to continue their education in Tibetan medium from the primary level all the way to university level. Despite the obvious advantages of being able to learn their own language, a significant problem for students who choose the Tibetan stream is the limited options available for them after graduating from middle school. In Yunnan Province, for instance, graduates from the Tibetan Middle School in Diqing are seriously disadvantaged. Dorje, who teaches middle school in Diqing, describes their situation:
“Their choices are very few. If they want to go to college or university, these students have to study in the Tibet Autonomous Region. Every year the Tibet University admits a certain number of students from the Tibetan Middle School, but the number varies. Some years it may be 10 or 20 students, and some years none at all.”
In the Chinese stream of the “nationalities institute” or “nationalities university,” students can study a range of subjects, including management, computer science, and law, whereas the Tibetan stream generally teaches only language and math. In addition, a wide range of college and university courses are taught only in Chinese, including subjects such as forestry, engineering, agriculture, and veterinary studies. Another problem is that the choice of Tibetan as a second language excludes Tibetan stream students from taking English classes when they are available. English is increasingly important for university studies and in the tourism sector. University entrance exams also demand a basic knowledge of English, and while many Chinese medium middle schools now include English on the curriculum, Tibetan medium students must often choose between Tibetan and English classes.
The Solutions
As many educators have recognized, Tibetan students are better off being taught in their Native language, at least during their first years of schooling. In order to prevent some of the problems these students now face when continuing their education, it is important to extend Tibetan medium teaching to higher levels of education, as well as to expand the use of Tibetan to a greater variety of subjects and fields of study. In addition to Tibetan and Chinese, English should also be included in a Tibetan medium education. However, this approach is only feasible if adequate funds are made available to educate teachers for bilingual schools and to improve educational facilities in general. In addition, bilingual schooling would have to be made as affordable—preferably more affordable—as any other option.
Lack of funding is the major obstacle for the development of bilingual schooling in Tibet. But in recent years international non-governmental organizations have made significant contributions to Tibetan language teaching in several Tibetan areas, particularly outside the TAR. These organizations have provided financial aid specifically for bilingual schools, and have established scholarships to sponsor students from poor families.
References & further reading
Bass, C. (1998). Education in Tibet. Policy and Practice Since 1950. London: Tibet Information Network & Zed Books.
Dwyer, A. (1998). The Texture of Tongues: Language and Power in China. In Nationalism and Ethnoregional Identities in China. Safran, W., Ed. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado Press.
Hansen, M.H. (1999). Lessons in Being Chinese. Minority Education and Ethnic Identity in Southwest China. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Harrell, S., Ed. (1995). Cultural encounters on China’s Ethnic Frontiers. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Upton, J. (1996). Home on the Grasslands? Tradition, Modernity, and the Negotiation of Identity by Tibetan Intellectuals in the PRC. In Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan. Brown, M. J., Ed., Berkeley, California: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California. Pp 98-124.
Upton, J. (1999). Schooling Shar-Khog: Time, Space and the Place of Pedagogy in the Making of the Tibetan Modern. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington.
Models of Sovereignty and Survival In Alaska
The “Tibet Question” has become one of the focal points of disagreements between China and the international community, and the survival of Tibetan culture and language is one of the key topics of the debate. While both the Chinese authorities and exiled Tibetans have linked their political agendas to the question of protecting “cultural rights” in Tibet, these are also contentious issues within China.
The role of so-called “bilingual” teaching in schools for Tibetan children is one of the issues that are being debated by educators and bureaucrats in the People’s Republic of China. Current government policies give top priority to speeding up economic development in western China, including the Tibetan areas. Improving the quality of education is seen as one of several possible strategies toward reaching this goal. Within this context, officials in charge of education accept that Tibetan medium teaching may be necessary to help Tibetan students achieve better results. But education departments have limited resources, and the teaching of Tibetan as a second language represents an additional expenditure they may be unwilling or unable to cover.
Critics, including mainly Tibetan educators, administrators, and other cadres, agree that there is an urgent need to improve the quality of education in Tibetan areas. In addition, many argue that Tibetan language needs to be taught in schools as a means to preserve Tibetan culture. In their view, the Chinese education system currently contributes to the assimilation of Tibetans into the Chinese mainstream. Among the Tibetan critics who hold this view, Tenzin*, from Kham (eastern Tibet), insists that “more than anywhere else in society, the school is where a Tibetan child learns to become Chinese.”
On the other hand, even critics admit that it is vital to raise the education level of Tibetans and other minorities for them to be able to participate in the economic development of their regions. Both Tibetan and Han Chinese educators have argued that the added workload of learning two languages is a significant obstacle, making it difficult for Tibetan children in bilingual schools to compete for admission to higher education. Political concerns have guided the development of bilingual education in Tibetan areas of China, and numerous challenges confront Tibetan school children, their parents, and teachers.
Government Policies
Soon after the founding of Communist China in 1949, a number of public schools were set up in Tibetan areas, as well as in other areas inhabited by “minority nationalities.” Education was important to the new regime, to consolidate their control of the border areas and “civilize” the people living in China’s “frontier” regions. In the mid-1950s, newly established education departments in Tibetan areas issued their first guidelines on “bilingual education.” The use of Tibetan as the primary language of schools for Tibetans was the only feasible strategy at the time, since few people in these areas could understand Chinese.
In 1958 the process of developing bilingual education was interrupted by the Democratic Reforms campaign, which was followed by a series of radical political campaigns, including the devastating Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). Bilingual teaching was discontinued for about 20 years, and as a consequence, an entire generation of Tibetans failed to learn to read and write their Native language. When the development of bilingual education for “minority nationalities” was back on the agenda in the late 1970s, one of the difficulties was finding teachers who were able to teach Tibetan.
By the early 1980s, officials in the local government education departments were discussing how to develop educational programs suited to the “special characteristics of the nationalities.” Minority language education became the main focus of these discussions, and the initial trend was to support the use of minority languages in schools, to educate children in their Native language. Tibetan educators from the five provinces and regions that encompass “Tibetan” areas (Tibet Autonomous Region, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan) started cooperating to compile a series of textbooks to be used in all bilingual schools for Tibetan children.
During this period, a number of trial projects were carried out to test the benefits of Tibetan medium teaching in schools for Tibetans. (Bass) These projects generally received glowing reports, and new policies were subsequently drawn up to increase Tibetan medium teaching. In 1987 the People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) passed a resolution stipulating that by 1993, all junior middle schools were to teach in Tibetan, and by 1997, most subjects in senior middle schools were also to be taught in Tibetan.
In the 1990s the situation changed again, however, and bilingual education met with increasing disapproval. As a result of this backlash, the policies that were introduced in 1987 could not be implemented. Moreover, in 1997 a deputy secretary of the TAR Communist Party announced the reversal of the 1987 resolution. At the same time new policies were introduced, this time to increase the teaching of Chinese to Tibetan children starting at the first grade of primary school. (Bass) Considering the substantial evidence from educators in support of Tibetan medium teaching, what were the grounds for these policy reversals?
The Political Dimension
Decisions concerning Tibetan language instruction in schools are not just a question of what benefits students. In China, education is directed toward disseminating the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party. The standard curriculum in Chinese schools thus emphasizes lessons in patriotism and nationalistic sentiments, and patriotic education in one form or another constitutes a significant part of the curriculum along with politics, morals, and other subjects. Accordingly, the primary and middle-school curriculum includes lessons such as Marxist-Leninist ideology, the thoughts of Mao, respect for the revolutionary heroes, and love of the Chinese Communist Party.
The aim of “nationality education” is still described by education officials in Tibetan areas as “keeping up socialism.” One of the primary goals of education in Tibetan and other minority areas is to strengthen the “unity of the nationalities” and make minority children patriotic members of the Chinese “Motherland.” (Hansen) While actively promoting patriotism, textbooks also disseminate the notion that minorities are inferior and backward compared to the Han Chinese. Moreover, non-Han students frequently learn that their language, history, religion, and customs are considered useless or insignificant in the Chinese school system. (Hansen) Dorje, a teacher in a “nationalities middle school,” explains why Tibetan students at his school learn so little about their own language and culture:
“Tibetan is not taught at our school, although many of the Tibetan students are very interested in learning to read and write Tibetan, and would also like to learn about their culture and traditions. The guidelines of the provincial education authorities even say that we should publish our own textbooks on local history and culture, but in fact this has not been done. This is because both the students themselves and their teachers emphasize the kind of knowledge that students need for passing the standard national and provincial exams.”
Contrary to the rest of the curriculum, the Tibetan textbooks teach Tibetan students to value their own traditions. In addition, the trans-provincial scope of the Tibetan curriculum, with its emphasis on the unity of “plateau culture,” provides an important way to breach the provincial political boundaries that currently separate the Tibetan population into different administrative units. (Upton) In other words, the curriculum creates a space for the construction of a Tibetan identity that encompasses all Tibetan areas, and plays an important role in the reconstruction of Tibetan culture. For these reasons, some government officials and cadres regard Tibetan language education as a potential source of “local nationalism” and a threat to stability. These officials want to limit Tibetan medium teaching to a minimum, and disapprove of teaching Tibetan as a second language.
Market Forces
In addition to a more constrained political climate in recent years, economic reforms have also weakened the role of Tibetan language education in several ways. New policies introduced in 1985 gave local governments the final responsibility for funding their own primary and secondary education. The poorer counties, many of them located in minority areas, are unable to provide adequate funds for education. Although the Chinese government has adopted a nationwide policy of compulsory nine-year education, in some Tibetan areas local education authorities are struggling to make even a basic three-year education available to all children. Under these conditions, the provision of bilingual education inevitably becomes a second priority.
Market reforms not only influence the decisions made by local government officials, who have the choice between allocating funds for standard Chinese language education and bilingual education, but also the choices made by parents and students. Until 1998, middle school graduates were granted a stable job in a work unit through the so-called “job assignment” system. After this system was cancelled, the job market became increasingly competitive. Consequently, market forces became much more important for people’s choice of education. In this situation, many Tibetans feel that the advantages of learning Tibetan are few, while a good knowledge of Chinese is increasingly necessary for finding a job.
During the past decade, the expenses of schooling have increasingly been levied on parents, who have experienced a dramatic increase in the cost of educating their children. In rural areas, many parents now find it difficult to afford the expenses of schooling, which include the cost of textbooks and miscellaneous fees in primary schools, as well as tuition fees and boarding expenses in middle schools and colleges. Dolma, a college graduate from a family of farmers, describes the difficulties she and her parents experienced:
“During my three years of college, my family had to pay more than 6,500 RMB [about US$790] a year, in tuition, textbooks, boarding, and other expenses. This was a big expense, since my whole family only earns about 7,800 RMB [about US$950] a year. After my first year of college the job assignment system was brought to an end. Now I’m unemployed. I don’t have any relatives working for the government, so I don’t know how I’ll manage to find a job. It’s very difficult these days.”
In herding areas and remote villages, boarding may be necessary even in primary school. In these areas, many families cannot afford to even send their children to school. In some cases the official enrollment figures are as low as 28 percent, even for the primary school level. High dropout rates are also a problem. According to a source working in the Qinghai Province government, during the late 1990s approximately 30 percent to 50 percent of the pupils in Qinghai’s bilingual schools failed to complete a six-year education.
Tibetan medium schools are mainly located in rural areas where there are no Chinese-speaking inhabitants. While some of these areas lack schools altogether, others have scarce resources and teachers themselves are more or less uneducated. Schools in herding areas often have only one teacher, who may not be qualified, and usually offer only three to four years of basic education. In such schools the pupils at all levels are taught together in one class. Facilities are poor, often lacking desks, benches, and sometimes even a schoolhouse. Tibetan medium teaching under such conditions is not necessarily an explicit educational strategy, but may rather be a consequence of the incompetence of the local teachers in Chinese, lack of resources, and a general lack of attention to education. Although Chinese is one of the main subjects in the primary school curriculum, in some schools the children may not be able to learn Chinese at all. These children are seriously disadvantaged, and in most cases they will be unable to continue their education above the elementary level. Tenzin, a young man in his twenties, started his education in a small village school where Tibetan was the only subject taught on a regular basis:
“When I wasn’t herding or doing chores, I went to the village school, where we learned the Tibetan alphabet. Sometimes we also learned some Chinese, by singing patriotic songs such as “The East is Red.” One of the teachers knew a little Chinese, but we never learned to read or write.”
The pupils in this school were between seven and 16 years old, and were divided into two classes—a junior class and a senior class. Most of these pupils never received any further schooling, but Tenzin’s parents could afford to give him a better education:
“I was 13 years old when I moved in with relatives in the city, to go to school there. When I arrived I couldn’t speak a word of Chinese, but I had to attend a primary school where all the subjects were taught in Chinese. The first two years I had a very difficult time understanding what the teachers were saying, and I failed the exams in Chinese.”
Whereas the quality and cost of education may be the main causes of low attendance rates, a contributing factor is that the standard curriculum in Chinese schools is largely irrelevant for life in the Tibetan countryside. In rural areas few jobs require schooling. Because the boarding system separates children from their families for long periods, it becomes difficult for parents to pass on important knowledge and teach their children the skills necessary to continue a life of farming and herding. As a result, many parents in rural areas prefer to keep their children at home. Most parents, however, want to give their children the opportunity to go to school. When adequate schooling is unavailable where they live, some parents make the difficult decision to send their children to schools for Tibetan refugees set up in India by the Tibetan government-in-exile. Every year an average of 3,000 Tibetans trek for weeks across the borders to Nepal and India, risking their lives on the high passes of the Himalayas. According to the International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet, nearly one-third of these people are children. These figures indicate just how serious the lack of adequate and affordable schooling has become in Tibetan areas of China.
Challenges of Bilingual Schools
A core problem for Tibetan educators concerns the balance between Tibetan and Chinese in bilingual schools, and the question of which language to use as the medium of teaching. Many educators argue that Tibetan students who are taught in their Native language achieve better results than those who are taught in Chinese. On the other hand, some emphasize the problems these students face when continuing their studies in Chinese, and in exams where they compete with native Chinese-speakers. In many Tibetan areas, primary schools may be taught in Tibetan whereas middle schools are all Chinese medium. This shift in the medium of instruction creates difficulties for Tibetan students which native Chinese-speaking students do not experience. Since most higher education is currently offered in Chinese only, Tibetan students who wish to attend a college or university must sooner or later learn Chinese.
Chinese government education authorities have recognized that language is one of the main challenges for minority education. The national entrance exam for universities has thus been made available in several minority languages, including Tibetan. A number of vocational schools, colleges, and universities also offer one- or two-year preparatory courses for minority students. Preferential policies have been introduced to give minority students easier access to higher education through a system of quotas and differences in the scores required to be admitted. What the government policies fail to address is the problems experienced by minority children in primary and middle school, when they are introduced to new subjects in an unfamiliar language.
Tibetan students in bilingual schools face other challenges as well. They are required to study two very different languages, using two completely different scripts. For many students, the written Tibetan they learn in school is quite different from their Native spoken dialect. The rest of the curriculum has the same content as in ordinary schools, and the students follow the same schedule; because exams are standardized the curriculum must also be standardized. But without adding hours to the school day, the bilingual schools add a second language to the curriculum, putting an additional workload on Tibetan students and making it even more difficult for them to compete. Most Tibetan children have no opportunity to choose their medium of instruction in school, but in some areas a system of two parallel streams has been introduced—a Chinese medium and a Tibetan medium. This system enables many students to continue their education in Tibetan medium from the primary level all the way to university level. Despite the obvious advantages of being able to learn their own language, a significant problem for students who choose the Tibetan stream is the limited options available for them after graduating from middle school. In Yunnan Province, for instance, graduates from the Tibetan Middle School in Diqing are seriously disadvantaged. Dorje, who teaches middle school in Diqing, describes their situation:
“Their choices are very few. If they want to go to college or university, these students have to study in the Tibet Autonomous Region. Every year the Tibet University admits a certain number of students from the Tibetan Middle School, but the number varies. Some years it may be 10 or 20 students, and some years none at all.”
In the Chinese stream of the “nationalities institute” or “nationalities university,” students can study a range of subjects, including management, computer science, and law, whereas the Tibetan stream generally teaches only language and math. In addition, a wide range of college and university courses are taught only in Chinese, including subjects such as forestry, engineering, agriculture, and veterinary studies. Another problem is that the choice of Tibetan as a second language excludes Tibetan stream students from taking English classes when they are available. English is increasingly important for university studies and in the tourism sector. University entrance exams also demand a basic knowledge of English, and while many Chinese medium middle schools now include English on the curriculum, Tibetan medium students must often choose between Tibetan and English classes.
The Solutions
As many educators have recognized, Tibetan students are better off being taught in their Native language, at least during their first years of schooling. In order to prevent some of the problems these students now face when continuing their education, it is important to extend Tibetan medium teaching to higher levels of education, as well as to expand the use of Tibetan to a greater variety of subjects and fields of study. In addition to Tibetan and Chinese, English should also be included in a Tibetan medium education. However, this approach is only feasible if adequate funds are made available to educate teachers for bilingual schools and to improve educational facilities in general. In addition, bilingual schooling would have to be made as affordable—preferably more affordable—as any other option.
Lack of funding is the major obstacle for the development of bilingual schooling in Tibet. But in recent years international non-governmental organizations have made significant contributions to Tibetan language teaching in several Tibetan areas, particularly outside the TAR. These organizations have provided financial aid specifically for bilingual schools, and have established scholarships to sponsor students from poor families.
References & further reading
Bass, C. (1998). Education in Tibet. Policy and Practice Since 1950. London: Tibet Information Network & Zed Books.
Dwyer, A. (1998). The Texture of Tongues: Language and Power in China. In Nationalism and Ethnoregional Identities in China. Safran, W., Ed. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado Press.
Hansen, M.H. (1999). Lessons in Being Chinese. Minority Education and Ethnic Identity in Southwest China. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Harrell, S., Ed. (1995). Cultural encounters on China’s Ethnic Frontiers. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Upton, J. (1996). Home on the Grasslands? Tradition, Modernity, and the Negotiation of Identity by Tibetan Intellectuals in the PRC. In Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan. Brown, M. J., Ed., Berkeley, California: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California. Pp 98-124.
Upton, J. (1999). Schooling Shar-Khog: Time, Space and the Place of Pedagogy in the Making of the Tibetan Modern. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington.
CHINA MUST HALT PERSECUTION OF AWARD-WINNING TIBETAN ENVIRONMENTALIST FAMILY
8 July 2010
Amnesty International is calling for the release of three award-winning Tibetan environmental activist brothers, two of whom were recently given lengthy prison sentences within a week of each other.
Karma Samdrup, named ‘philanthropist of the year’ in 2006 by China’s state broadcaster CCTV for his work on river preservation, was sentenced last week to 15 years for ‘inciting the stealing of cultural relics’ from tombsites, a charge that had been dropped in 1998.
He has made detailed allegations of torture in detention to extract a forced confession. When he appeared in court in June, he had lost so much weight in six months that his wife could barely recognise him.
Karma Samdrup’s arrest took place in January after he lobbied for the release of his two detained brothers Rinchen Samdrup and Chime Namgyal. The pair were arrested in August 2009 after their award-winning anti-poaching and reforestation NGO threatened to uncover corrupt officials illegally hunting endangered wildlife.
Rinchen was sentenced on Saturday to five years after a cursory trial for ‘inciting splittism’, having been in detention without trial for almost a year. The key piece of evidence was an article mentioning the Dalai Lama that he insisted someone else had posted on his website.
The trials of the two brothers have been grossly unfair. Their lawyers have been repeatedly denied access to their clients and to key evidence.
Chime is already serving 21 months of ‘Re-education Through Labour’ imposed without charge or trial, on allegations of ‘harming social stability’ by illegally collecting local information about the environment and religion, and organizing ‘irregular petitioning’ by local residents.
Rinchen and Chime’s NGO had received wide praise in Chinese state media, as well as support from the Ford motor company and from actor Jet Li’s One Foundation.
“Rinchen’s activism has been celebrated by state newspapers, citing local Communist Party officials, while he was actually in detention,” said Catherine Baber, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Asia-Pacific.
“The targeting of this apolitical family sends worrying signals that the authorities are engaged in an ever-widening crackdown. Such prosecutions could also threaten the growing environmental activism that the country so desperately needs.”
The brothers’ extended family is also being targeted by authorities. A cousin, Sonam Choephel, is serving one and a half years of `Re-education Through Labour` after organizing a group to petition in Beijing for justice for Rinchen Samdrup.
Another cousin, Rinchen Dorje, who had acted as an interpreter for Karma Samdrup, was arrested in March and his whereabouts are currently unknown.
The International Campaign for Tibet has stated that Karma Samdrup’s mother, in her 70s, was beaten unconscious by police under the authority of a Communist Party official, and that 20 villagers from the brothers’ home area were detained, interrogated and tortured after further petitioning in Beijing.
Cultural and intellectual leaders in the Tibetan community have been increasingly targeted by Chinese security forces since the 2008 protests and unrest in the Tibet Autonomous Region, and in other Tibetan areas of China.
Amnesty International is calling for the release of three award-winning Tibetan environmental activist brothers, two of whom were recently given lengthy prison sentences within a week of each other.
Karma Samdrup, named ‘philanthropist of the year’ in 2006 by China’s state broadcaster CCTV for his work on river preservation, was sentenced last week to 15 years for ‘inciting the stealing of cultural relics’ from tombsites, a charge that had been dropped in 1998.
He has made detailed allegations of torture in detention to extract a forced confession. When he appeared in court in June, he had lost so much weight in six months that his wife could barely recognise him.
Karma Samdrup’s arrest took place in January after he lobbied for the release of his two detained brothers Rinchen Samdrup and Chime Namgyal. The pair were arrested in August 2009 after their award-winning anti-poaching and reforestation NGO threatened to uncover corrupt officials illegally hunting endangered wildlife.
Rinchen was sentenced on Saturday to five years after a cursory trial for ‘inciting splittism’, having been in detention without trial for almost a year. The key piece of evidence was an article mentioning the Dalai Lama that he insisted someone else had posted on his website.
The trials of the two brothers have been grossly unfair. Their lawyers have been repeatedly denied access to their clients and to key evidence.
Chime is already serving 21 months of ‘Re-education Through Labour’ imposed without charge or trial, on allegations of ‘harming social stability’ by illegally collecting local information about the environment and religion, and organizing ‘irregular petitioning’ by local residents.
Rinchen and Chime’s NGO had received wide praise in Chinese state media, as well as support from the Ford motor company and from actor Jet Li’s One Foundation.
“Rinchen’s activism has been celebrated by state newspapers, citing local Communist Party officials, while he was actually in detention,” said Catherine Baber, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Asia-Pacific.
“The targeting of this apolitical family sends worrying signals that the authorities are engaged in an ever-widening crackdown. Such prosecutions could also threaten the growing environmental activism that the country so desperately needs.”
The brothers’ extended family is also being targeted by authorities. A cousin, Sonam Choephel, is serving one and a half years of `Re-education Through Labour` after organizing a group to petition in Beijing for justice for Rinchen Samdrup.
Another cousin, Rinchen Dorje, who had acted as an interpreter for Karma Samdrup, was arrested in March and his whereabouts are currently unknown.
The International Campaign for Tibet has stated that Karma Samdrup’s mother, in her 70s, was beaten unconscious by police under the authority of a Communist Party official, and that 20 villagers from the brothers’ home area were detained, interrogated and tortured after further petitioning in Beijing.
Cultural and intellectual leaders in the Tibetan community have been increasingly targeted by Chinese security forces since the 2008 protests and unrest in the Tibet Autonomous Region, and in other Tibetan areas of China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)