Much as I appreciate the history tidbits of Tibet, his suggestion implies that what China has done to quell the riots is justified based on what it has done for Tibet. In my opinion, this is akin to a defence lawyer presenting mitigating evidence of a defendant's past to diminish the charge against him. While Western media may not have been entirely balanced in its reporting, this in no way changes the fact that China has been heavy-handed in how it has handled the riots.

More than just about Tibet, the protests are also a statement of human rights, no matter how flawed a method of argument they are. They draw attention to a fundamental principle the United Nations recognises in its famous Article 19 Declaration. Although some may say the Olympic Games should not be politicised in this cause, the reality is that China has pulled out all the stops for the Games. This only implies how much of a public relations opportunity it regards them as. By its own actions therefore, it has already politicised the Games.

Undeniably, the West's own human rights record is not flawless, as the controversies over the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba suggest. But the ironic fact is, we are often quicker to recognise another's mistakes, and slower to recognise our own. Perhaps one can see it as a system of checks and balances, a system that ensures no country is left to do entirely as it pleases.

In the same letter, Dr Ong suggests the riots in Tibet were curiously timed with the Olympics in Beijing and are unlikely to have been spontaneous. Dr Ong points to the Western media, China points to the Dalai Lama. At best, who the perpetrators are at this point is still unclear. But this is a timely occasion to think about where China stands on its human rights record, as it takes on a ever-growing role on the world stage. No matter who instigated the riots, China alone is responsible for its reaction. After all, its reaction to the riots sparked off the protests we see now.

Chong Yew Mun