| |
| >> Back to the article | |
| April 22, 2008 | |
|
The tragedy of Tibet
|
|
| I REFER to the letter, 'Tibet's current violence smells of a Western agenda" (April 11). Dr Ong Siew Chey posits, in his letter, that the central question is whether Tibet belongs to China. I disagree: that is already a reality.
Rather, it is about how the communist leadership reconciles itself on how best to govern the country. Deng Xiaoping was more pragmatic in the late 1970s, paving the way for the accommodating approaches of Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang in the next decade. The modern struggle for Tibet dates back to the late 1980s with the Strasbourg Proposal. After years of exploratory talks, the Dalai Lama posed genuine autonomy as a settlement, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But the Tiananmen Massacre saw the hardliners sidelining the liberal faction in Beijing. To realpolitiks, China was cornered because the proposal highlighted the crux of the dilemma. Any solution must involve all of old Tibet: Xizang or Tibetan Autonomous Region, plus Amdo and Cham in neighbouring provinces. To the hardliners, self-governship was not a viable concession. Ditto acknowledging Tibet's traditional borders, which meant admitting their historical legitimacy. Even the liberal faction didn't care to address this during the talks. The hardliners have ruled ever since, obstinately demonising the Dalai Lama to confute any compromise sentiments internally. Co-opting new military and technocratic elites, they are hoping regional modernisation and Chinese migration can render the Tibet issue redundant after the Dalai Lama's death. But if the disaffected end up radicalising themselves, then history will record disregarding the Dalai Lama's non-violent initiatives as a wasted opportunity. Let's emphathise more with the Tibetans' plight too. They were one of the vanquished populaces after World War II, unlike many Asians who broke free from colonialism. Singaporeans, who still relate to the Japanese Occupation, can surely recognise the trauma that haunts their consciousness. In truth, the Himalayan region saw its own share of protracted conflicts. Fiefdoms and tribes which were absorbed by their larger neighbours must still be delicately managed by the central governments today. The tragedy of Tibet is that, at the advent of the Industrial Age, they went through a century of fractious regent rule instead without any Dalai Lamas surviving into adulthood. By contrast, the wise Thai kings of the same era were able to transform their Buddhist serf society while preserving their sovereignty. When China annexed Tibet, it also conquered a people. While touting national unity is a righteous cause, its minorities policies remain very dogmatic, ideological and are always in Beijing's interests. Daryl Hong Shyh Long | |
| Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access |