DID TIBETANS RUN RIOT SPONTANEOUSLY?: Tibetan monks, nuns and activists protesting in neighbouring Nepal recently. -- PHOTO: REUTERS

The Western media has been very effective in mobilising world opinion to condemn China. Even the restrained control by the Chinese authorities of the rioters who committed burning and killing was made to appear unjustified.

The central question is whether Tibet belongs to China. In 1246, Tibet was formally incorporated into the Mongol Empire which later became the Yuan Dynasty of China. Subsequent Chinese dynasties and governments have claimed Tibet to be part of China. In the Qing Dynasty, Chinese troops repeatedly entered Tibet to quell internal wars and dispel British-backed invasions. In 1907, Britain and Russia acknowledged Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.

In this unjust world where might is right, one can righteously say that China has no territorial right over Tibet. But by the same token, perhaps the Americans and the Australians should also leave their countries.

The title 'Dalai Lama' was bestowed by Mongolian ruler Altan Khan in 1578, and subsequent Dalai Lamas were derived from 'reincarnation'.

One of three Tibetans is a monk. The numerous monasteries own large areas of arable land and pastures and used to command thousands of unpaid farming serfs and slaves. With an overwhelming preoccupation in Buddhist religiosity, time had stood still in Tibet for several centuries. One would be hard pressed to find any trace of democracy, civil rights or social progress in that system by Western standards.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the communist government of China was high-handed and often brutal in dealing with Tibet, as it was to all other parts of China. In the past few decades, however, China has done much to modernise the province and benefit the Tibetans. Slavery has been abolished. All children can now have free secular education. Professions and occupations other than the restrictive traditional religious undertakings are now open to educated Tibetans. Living standards and life expectancy have improved greatly. With better health care, infant mortality has fallen. Improved communications with the construction of roads and a railway have spurred economic development.

Westerners seem to think that the traditional 'charming' social system of Tibet should continue undisturbed even though any respectable Western nation would be horrified to have such a system installed in its country. The Western media are obviously unable to appreciate the misery of living an impoverished life in a backward land.

Dr Ong Siew Chey

CHEW ON THIS

'Does the tourist who comes to experience the Singapore Flyer support the ban on chewing gum?'

LOH WEIWEN, who argues that the Olympics is about a global gathering of sportsmen and athletic camaraderie and not a platform to be exploited for personal political views. Just as foreigners who visit Singapore may not agree with the ban on chewing gum, he asks: 'Is the world supporting the oppression of Tibet by supporting the Olympics in China?' He says the protests hold a lesson for younger Singaporeans about the danger of unrestrained freedom of speech. 'They grow up in a world where slogans like 'just do it' and 'whatever your thing' are flashed as advertisements on TV; encouraging youth to 'rebel' and just do what they want without thinking of the consequences,' he says.

SELECTIVE BASHING

'I would like to ask Reporters Without Borders - why pick on China?'

JONATHAN TOH, who wants to know why the Paris-based media watchdog singled out China but did not push for a boycott of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics over the excessive use of police force in the US against black criminals that led to the Los Angeles riots in 1992. He further asks the watchdog group: 'Why didn't you propose boycotting the Sydney Olympics in 2000 over the marginalisation of Australia's aborigines? Why didn't you propose boycotting the Tour de France (French-organised premier world cycling race) over the nuclear testing at the Pacific Atolls? Why pick on China?'