On Tibet

From today's ST forum, thought it made alot of sense to me:

Tibet's current violence smells of a Western agenda


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

THE violent riots in Tibet that occurred after more than 40 years of quiescence curiously coincides with the approach of the Beijing Olympics. It is difficult to believe that they were spontaneous and had no backing.
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