Green Party co-leader Russel Norman should be congratulated on successfully winning the game of name recognition.
When Dr Norman dangled the Tibetan flag in front of the visiting Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping, repeating the words “freedom for Tibet, freedom for the people of Tibet”, wide debate instantly raged within the Chinese community in New Zealand.
Chinese community leaders demanded an apology from the Greens co-leader. Jerry Yang, editor-in-chief of Auckland-based United Chinese Press (published in both Chinese and English) said Dr Norman should apologise for abusing his position as an MP and stretching the boundaries of freedom of expression.
Based on the take of the opinion leaders there are two approaches to help us understand the relevant issues – a selfish approach and conversely, an open approach.
For some, they care more about the living standard and well-being of ordinary New Zealanders than the Dalai Lama, who lives thousands of miles away on the other side of the world. In that regard, how much damage has been done to our relationship with China, our second largest trading partner, due to Dr Norman’s actions remains to be assessed.
For the others, the real essence of human rights and freedom of speech should be argued.
In that vein, when National MP and Minister for Ethnic Affairs Hon Pansy Wong expressed her view in the Chinese media that Dr Norman’s actions were disgraceful, it struck a chord among the Kiwi-Chinese community.
“Freedom for Tibet, freedom for the people of Tibet”.
To understand this politically-laden slogan, there are at least three intrinsic issues that need to be evaluated.
Firstly, does Dr Norman mean free Tibet from the People’s Republic of China?
China established what is now known as Tibetan Autonomous Region in the early 1950s, which put an end to the notoriously cruel system of serfdom on Tibet.
There are two versions of the Dalai Lama. For those of his followers his Holiness is a saint. For others, he is viewed as the leader who supported a system of slavery in Tibet which the Chinese authorities put an end to in the 1950s.
What Westerners do not know, or do not want to know, as argued by the other party, is what level of cruelty the Theocratic Serfdom under Dalai Lama had to offer. An exhibition in New Lynn in 2009 displayed:
• Tibetan Lamaism instruments for worship ceremony made by human parts including human skin drum and a necklace made of finger bones,
• A “gandong” (a flute made of human leg bone)
• Skin from serfs (including children) for religious purpose
• Serf’s eyes gouged out for punishment
Or when Dr Norman says ‘Free Tibet’, does he mean to say free Tibet from the Dalai Lama? The Dalai Lama was both a religious and political leader that ruled the region with great influence over its entire people – is this who the Tibetan people need freeing from?
Thirdly and closely related to the second part, free Tibet from which Dalai Lama? The Dalai Lama Dr Norman so cared about is “His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama” which means, literally, there were 13 such chief monks before the current one who all as leaders of both politics and religion were grand owners of serfs.
In fact according to statistics in the early years of the 17th century Qing Dynasty the serf owners, nobles and the upper-temple monks made up of less than 5% of the population but occupied and owned all Tibet’s farmland, pastures, forests, mountains, livestock and rivers as well as the serfs.
Wikipedia explains the origin of the title of Dalai Lama as such:
“in 1578 the Mongol ruler Alan Khan bestowed the title Dalai Lama on Sonam Gyatso. The title was later applied retrospectively to the two predecessors on his reincarnation line, Gendun Drup and Gendun Gyatso. Gendun Gyatso was also Sonam Gyato’s predecessor as abbot of Drepung monastery…”
And the relationship between Tibetans and the Han Chinese dated back as early as the Tang dynasty from the 7th to the 10th century A.D.
We don’t know how accurate the history is but the history is complicated enough for us to appreciate that the Tibetan issue is not as simple as what Dr Norman tried to chant.
The problem Dr Norman has – as argued by the Chinese community here in New Zealand – is that he wanted to teach the visiting Chinese leader a lesson but without understanding the history of the region.
Dr Norman may believe that his supporters don’t care about history. It is true that for too long many Kiwis were exposed to only one side of the story.
And sometimes it is painful to see that some of Dr Norman’s supporters have just enjoyed sticking to the one sided story and could not be bothered to look at the other side. Indeed it is sometimes difficult to even initiate a quality debate on sensitive issues such as that of Tibet.
Prejudice originated from ignorance and ignorance often enhances prejudice. In that vein Dr Norman’s action has made freedom of speech an oxymoron.
If New Zealand as a country is an open court, in the name of justice or for the sake of Buddhism – a religion Dalai Lama represents – at least we can agree that it is warranted that we hear what the other party or parties have to say on this issue.
Human rights and freedom of speech are about truth and should not be calculated for instant media exposure.
More information: www.huo.co.nz
Thank goodness we live in a country where people like Russel Norman can protest. Sure some people are offended by this, but free speech is a good thing. The people who are offended by Norman’s actions also have this luxury.
“Human rights and freedom of speech are about truth”.
No they aren’t. They’re about human rights and freedom of speech.
That includes the freedom to say things you don’t like, the freedom to contest versions of history, even the freedom to say the moon is made of cheese if you want. Nobody is forced to agree with the free.
There is no difference between the freedom to say the Dalai Lama is wonderful, or terrible, or anything in between. Raymond Huo’s failure to understand this is pretty disturbing.
Haha awesome me and another guy asked for a comment from Raymond when Darien made a post about this – Instead we got a whole post
‘China established what is now known as Tibetan Autonomous Region in the early 1950s, which put an end to the notoriously cruel system of serfdom on Tibet.’
AFTER Britain had occupied it and left …
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200408/07/eng20040807_152183.html theres a webpage about it and a wee insight to how cruel the British where to them
And Before Britain occupied Tibet, Tibet had been a part of China for hundreds of years.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3156.shtml
They were first unified under the Yuan dynasty.
Good on you for posting this Raymond I’m really glad you take this point of view and it’s a view that need’s to be expressed more because of how widespread this free tibet thinking is – to me it just show’s the lack of understanding many people have of Chinese history.
So tell us Mr Huo…did any mention of this ‘incident’ make it past the Great Firewall of China?
Yes I was left with mixed feelings about Dr Norman’s action. On the one hand I think that freedom of speech is important in a democracy, and on the other I think it is simplistic to treat the tensions in other countries as ahistorical facts involving our conceptions of good guys and bad guys. America is often criticised for acting like world’s policeman, and we have a tendency to act like the world’s hall monitor.
Raymond, I don’t share your assumption that New Zealanders, and those who raise the issue of human rights in Tibet, are ignorant of Tibetan history. You seem intent on listing a litany of brutalities committed by the Tibetans prior to the Chinese takeover. Well mate, others can play that game. The Chinese human rights record will make a compelling list. And we could make a similar list for most countries if we go back over a century or so.
You may not like it but the Dalai Lama is as far as I can tell the legitimate and widely recognised leader of Tibetans both in China and outside. He has become a symbol of their aspirations to self-determination, and a lightning rod for international concern about breaches of human rights by the Chinese government.
In the aftermath of “give me back my flag-gate” Phil Goff articulated Labour’s longstanding position of expressing concern to the Government of China about human rights in Tibet and elsewhere, and of defending Russel Norman’s right to protest as an essential democratic freedom.
@Dylan – I’m not ignorant of Chinese history and I have studied both China and Tibet, and have great admiration for both cultures and histories. I have also been a practising Tibetan Buddhist. Raymond’s comments about the exhibition overlook the fundamental precept of buddhism of impermanance – so a few bones and leftovers from bodies mean nothing – and I thought Raymond understood this. Better than some European countries that still worship bits of humans – just try a few cathedrals if you want to use that judgment. No country could withstand scrutiny about their human rights history if you go back far enough, including our own.
Raymond – interesting post.
To answer your question “does Dr Norman mean free Tibet from the People’s Republic of China”
In New Zealand this is without a doubt the most common interpretation of what Freedom for Tibet, freedom for the people of Tibet” means.
I find it incredible than as a kiwi-chinese MP you would write a post that implies the chinese government deserves support for the way they treat Tibetans.
Very interesting, but isn’t it great that you can write this post in a public and one of your colleagues respond with differing points of views.
Kudos to Labour for being able to do this.
Note also that I think for many New Zealanders the issue was about Dr Norman’s rather undignified protest rather than what he was protesting about….
Phil I don’t think Raymond Huo was defending China’s human right’s record, I think he was questioning the exact slogan ‘Free Tibet’. Free Tibet does imply arrogance of chinese history. Tibet has a long history as being a part of China and Tibet was oppressed by feudal lord’s and by the British during their occupation before China took it back. The slogan should be ‘Improove China’s human right’s policies’ rather than ‘Free Tibet.’
Yes China has a bad record with human rights especially in Tibet, I don’t think anybody is testing that. The question I think Raymond is getting at is does that justify Tibetan independence? It’s kind of ethnocentric to compare other countries current human rights records to Chinas treatment of Tibet’s record instead of comparing how things were previously in Tibet to how they are today (like a chronological internal comparison rather than external which is ethnocentricism)
Also remember that the Chinese government has 1 billion people to deal with. While that doesn’t excuse the Chinese government’s behaviour you have to give them some leniency. It’s easy for you to say these things as a politician of a young country of 4 million. India does have 1 billion people with not as bad a human right’s record but their Government hasn’t achieved the astonishing feat of lifting 700 million people above the poverty line as the communist party did throughout the second half of the last century.
So while it’s fair to say China needs to improove it’s human right’s record I don’t think it’s fair to say Tibet need’s independence from China, China has done alot of good in Tibet in comparison to things that have gone on in Tibet in the past. I think Raymond is saying something simular.
Darien re “I have also been a practising Tibetan Buddhist” – that is fascinating. Btw, while I have got you, Tony Friedlander wrote a very interesting article in the latest Truck & Driver magazine….it may be worth your while to have a nose….
@Darien
Same thing, are you criticising Chinas human right’s record or the fact that there should be a free tibet which is what I think Raymond is getting at more.
‘Better than some European countries that still worship bits of humans’
Yeah I thought the part about the human body parts was kind of wierd You still have ritualistic cannibalism in christianity (eating the flesh of christ and drinking his blood)
@Dylan – there’s no demand for a “free Tibet” or independence from Tibetans or the Dalai Lama. They seek to preserve their unique culture, language and environment within what they describe as the “Middle Way”. I support that. I could criticise China’s human rights record, but I won’t. I think that gets us nowhere in this debate.
@Rebecca – thanks – will have a look.
Thanks my good friends and colleagues Phil and Darien for those comments – that’s what the freedom of speech is all about.
There are a number of related and separate issues on Tibet which should not be confused.
Firstly, Dr Norman has every right to protest and Labour’s position on this is absolutely right.
Secondly, China’s human rights record (not an issue as far as this posting is concerned) should not be seen as something to legitimise what the Theocratic Serfdom under Dalai Lama had to offer.
Further, what reeks of mockery is that on one hand Dalai Lama has positioned himself as a human rights fighter and a “poor-me” good guy. On the other, he seems to be content that those Serfs under his watch were suffering in such a manner.
Next time when he is in New Zealand, I wish you two could ask him to comment on the “litany of brutalities” under his system of slavery. I’ll respect him more if he could shed some light on those brutalities or his intention to introduce reformation to put an end to them. When I interviewed him couple of years ago while a journalist I did not get a chance to ask him those questions.
Or maybe I don’t understand him as much as I do Nelson Mandela.
‘there’s no demand for a “free Tibet”’
Ok come on yes there is it’s what Russel Norman shouted out to the Chinese VP and what is on the slogan of that whole movement.
@Dylan – I don’t think Russel Norman is Tibetan or the Dalai Lama. But good you are arguing history and human rights.
@Darien ok you are saying that Tibetans and the Dalai Lama are saying they don’t want a free tibet but Russel Norman did, and many people agree with what he sais and that’s what the post is about, what Russel Norman said on that day
@Dylan – not responsible for Russel Norman, thank goodness. I thought the post was about a bit more than that.
Ok so the Free Tibet movement isn’t about the Freedom of Tibet? I got some serious rethinking to do
But anyway I’m not trying to say things have to stay within the blog topic I was just trying to justify my argument against Phil… You worshipped as a tibetan buddhist? That’s absolutely fascinating can you share with us some of your experiences?
Raymond 5:34 – I’m glad we are agreed on your first point. On the second, I am puzzled as to why you think China’s human rights record could be used to legitimise what went on in Tibet prior to the Chinese takeover. That wasnt my point. I was responding to your apparent determination to discredit the Dalai Lama as a spokesperson for Tibetan self-determination. Do you disagree that he is the widely recognised cultural leader of Tibetans? Do you disagree that his advocacy for more autonomy for Tibetans is supported by the great majority of Tibetans inside and outside the country? Do you disagree that China has committed significant human rights abuses in Tibet that are worthy of comment?
Really Raymond, so the Chinese community of whom you speak believe that two wrongs make a right? That doesnt speak of advancing civilizations to me.
Do you deny than Tibetans and neighbouring nomadic groups gret separated from their families and animals and livelihood and sent to cities as part of “poverty eradication”?
@Dylan – it’s not “worshipping” in buddhism, its following teachings. It’s just one of many of my interesting former lives and happy to share them with you – but not everyone else!
@Darien Ok I’ll email you if that’s alright
D.F. “former lives” – lol, n1
Every one has covered all the issues raised pretty well. My 2 cents –
Tibetan Buddhism does have some aspects to it which would be peculiar to westerners unfamiliar to it. Meditation contemplating actual corpses and body parts would not be considered unusual, for instance to reflect upon the material and transitory aspects of the body. Far from being uncivilised, this is a spiritual practice of extreme civilisation. (Thanks again to you D.F. for clarifying this earlier, also that Buddhists do not tend to ‘worship’ the path, they ‘practice’ the path instead))
Secondly, neither the British nor the Chinese intervened or exercised influence in Tibet in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries for humanitarian reasons.
Thirdly, saying “free Tibet” would be about the same as saying “free the Foreshore and Seabed”: not what it sounds like at all. Many native Tibetans would like the right to self governance and self determination. Not separating from China, not becoming a sovereign state, still being part of China but having more control and independence regarding local affairs. Perhaps as part of a federalist set up. I suppose some in the west find the idea of “Freeing Tibet” more romantic.
Interesting busy thread.
Thanks Tracey 5:55pm. Good points. No, two wrongs do not make a right. Our job here (if only our comments have any impact) is to urge all responsible parties to right their wrongs. In that regard, I want to know more about Dalai Lama’s take on the system of slavery. I’ll be surprised if someone suggests that a human rights fighter does not need to respect human rights himself or herself.
Phil 5:55pm: did my posting go that far as discrediting this and discrediting that?
According to my limited knowledge of Tibet, Dalai Lama is regarded as “Sun” while Panchen Lama “Moon” by their followers. Dalai and Panchen are the two most influential leaders of Tibet.
Back to my early university days in Beijing, I had a good friend who’s from Tibet. She was the first Tibetant who gained a PhD in medical science from a very good university in Beijing. She’s beautiful too.
The other argument to look for is how the colonial powers viewed their occupation of China in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They were there to bring free trade, modern civilisation and new technology to benefit the backward Chinese culture. At the time I’m sure that they felt that the pesky Chinese locals were completely unappreciative of their colonial generosity and just didn’t get it.
‘I’ll be surprised if someone suggests that a human rights fighter does not need to respect human rights himself or herself.’
That’s what it’s about… I saw MP’s sometimes disregard other MP’s comments through accusing them of hypocracy by throwing back a simular accusation on parliament t.v, I don’t watch it alot but I’ve seen it happen. I even saw the speaker Lockwood Smith say yes I accept this tactic.
@Darien – that’s so cool that you practise Budism
What the hell? Is this really a Labour MP suggesting that the Chinese should not be criticised for their brutal regime? Because apparently, the Tibetans didn’t have an ideal form of government? I’m horrified. Maybe Raymond you are in the wrong party. Or on the wrong planet.
Just to clarify too, Raymond, it is good you have free speech so we can hear about your beliefs. Tibet doesn’t have free speech. Is that important to you? Whatever mistakes Tibet made as a free country, at least they were Tibet’s own mistakes.
This post of yours is worrying, (and confusing actually too). I’d love to hear Russel Norman’s response to you. Are you reading this Russel??
I can see Raymond’s post taking a life of its own. No doubt Chinese officials have already noted it. (Hi!)
I have been trying to keep an eye on these events in NZ because I find it quite disturbing that so many Kiwi commentators seem to be thirsty for the Chinese version of this story, which a little investigation suggests is utterly wrong. I find this disturbing because, let’s be honest with ourselves, the PRC has an abominable record of human rights abuses and punitive laws that have prevented people from living the sort of lives that many of us in the rest of the world enjoy.
Now here we have an article (and comment after comment) supporting the nonsense peddled by Chinese officials, it’s outright scary.
First and foremost- the 14th Dalai Lama did not rule over a theocratic serfdom. He was prematurely handed power at the age of 16 just in time for the PRC to consolidate control of his country. His time as undisputed leader of Tibet? A year and a half at best, while his country was being invaded! When and under what circumstances was he supposed to take the time to abolish serfdom. Mao, in his efforts to bring local leadership around, did not immediately dismantle serfdom either by the way.
Secondly- Many of you here are saying that Tibet has been part of China since time immemorial AND that the other 13 Dalai Lama’s ruled a cruel theocratic serfdom….as part of China… under China’s watch. So who was presiding over a theocratic serfdom?
Third- Like it or not Tibet was de facto independent from 1913 to 1950. If not, why did an occupying army cross the borders?
Dylan- the free Tibet movement IS about the freedom of Tibet: The freedom to have some representation by leaders they see as their representatives within the PRC (as they have consistently argued for over 20 years), freedom from reeducation programs for those who practice a centuries old religion, freedom not to have their cultural practices held ransom by people who do not share that culture (think Panchen Lama) and freedom to perhaps stage a protest about living conditions every now and again as is possible in most of the PRC today. And Loota nails that other development argument on the head- whether it’s actual occupation or economic bullying, history is littered with examples of bigger, stronger powers doing what’s best for the ‘natives’ without ever asking them if it’s what they want.
Tibet is not a black and white issue and there is no doubt that the free Tibet movement has done itself no favors by white washing parts of its history. That doesn’t mean you should blindly accept the PRC version of events. Norman’s protest may damage economic ties in the short term, but it is definitely, definitely worth it to argue for the rights of the marginalized because someday the boot could be on the other foot and any one of us could find ourselves wishing someone would stand up for us.
@ Loota
You’d better find out was ‘Hi’ means in Chinese? Could be something quite different
I’m sure the Tibetans are very thankful for being freed from their ‘Feudal Theocracy’ by the Chinese Communist Party.
I’m sure they are also grateful to the People’s Liberation Army for destroying most of Tibet’s 6000 or so monasteries and murdering and torturing the monks that inhabited them.
If some of the Chinese-Kiwi community don’t like what an MP says or does they could perhaps reflect on the fact that they have the ability to criticise a government official, something that they could not do in China for fear of reprisals.
Here’s another fine example of protest!
http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10655508
Anne, you’re lucky, you don’t get done for chatting.
I get kicked in the guts 
After my 13 months here 
Though on the face of it, this ‘dissertation’ is probably the right word because it is written in that style, might seem an intelligent analysis. It is in reality, a fine piece of propagandist twaddle.
The examination of history has little or no relavance to what Russell norman did, his motivations for doing so and little to do with the situation, present day. What the Chinese have done and continue to do in Tibet is appalling.
I feel strongly that the National Party does not want to win the next election, but probably will because Labour has completely lost it’s way and presents a weak alternative. Buck your ideas up and stop writing rubbish like this.
Deleted. Offensive. Clare
Your best post yet Raymond! I’d like to see the taxpayer freed from the ETS before worrying about Tibet.
Thank you for deleting part of my post as offensive. It seems my rights to free speech is subjective, dependent on your allowance Ms moderator. Not one swear word did I use and I was at least creative with my insult. A good deal less insulting to free speech than the Chinese were on our parliament steps and less insulting to intelligence than this article is. Gee, thanks Labour for turning your red even redder. Love the star bottom left of page
Seems to fit the theme.
Nice post Bdejong. I’m almost inclined to push for an apology from Raymond now…
The nature of the previous regime in Tibet is irrelevant to whether Tibetans should be able to run their own affairs their own way now. As far as I’m concerned that’s what Norman was advocating, and he is free to advocate it.
Your ideas about what constitutes legitimate free speech are extremely concerning to me. Every censorship regime justifies itself with the same language of responsibility, relevancy and harm. To hear this same strain of thought coming from a Labour MP is worrying. I’m a Labour party member.
I’m glad to hear you have warm feelings for good-looking intelligent Tibetan women, but this is also irrelevant and patronising. “Some of my best friends are X” is no more convincing when X is “Tibetan.”
Raymond your post and followup comments have left me feeling sick. You have consistently used Tibets fuedal past to ignore China’s brutal human rights record in Tibet. I don’t have all day but a few points which jump out.
Firstly the current Dalai Lama was fifteen at the time of the Chinese invasion of Tibet if you want his opinion on Tibets feudal history send his office a bloody email. Secondly I think your dislike of Tibet’s feudal past has no relevance to Russel Normans protest. Many human rights activists are able to criticize human rights abuses whilst not offering unquestioning support to local opposition movements.
“Human rights and freedom of speech are about truth and should not be calculated for instant media exposure.”
I’m sure Russel Norman would love nothing more than to sit down on prime time and have a detailed discussion on the path Tibet could take to a free democratic future. I’m sure he wouldnt be pushing for a theocratic feudal system. The only way these kinds of debates happen is if attention is focused on an issue. Acts such as Norman’s are effective because they go beyond the normal and may be disruptive. Blaming Norman for any possible lack of critical debate around Tibets future is a sickening excuse to ignore what is happening on the ground right now.
All of the arguments you present to justify China’s occupation of Tibet have been used by colonial power to justify the Genocide of indigenous peoples across the globe. To hear these arguments coming from a Labour party Mp is truly disgusting.
“In that regard, how much damage has been done to our relationship with China, our second largest trading partner, due to Dr Norman’s actions remains to be assessed.”
This post reminds me why I spent the past few years protesting against the Labour party.
@Bdejong at 9:37 pm
“I have been trying to keep an eye on these events in NZ because I find it quite disturbing that so many Kiwi commentators seem to be thirsty for the Chinese version of this story, which a little investigation suggests is utterly wrong.” Well here we are talking about a story highly/unseparately relevant to Chinese. And it should be appreciated that many Kiwi commentators are at least trying to get some opinion from the other side of the story –to me it’s a progress of approaching a better understanding over this sensitive issue than being brain-to-toe washed by the one-side romantic ‘free Tibet’slogan or his majesty Dalai Lama. Why seeking a Chinese version could be so disturbing to you when you are talking about Chinese-Tibet issue? Or there’s a pre-judged and self-righteous base?
You’re assuming the Dalai Lama would reinstate the serfdom that you are discussing. Which is, from what I am aware of, false. I have heard and read several things from the man which say that he would not return to that way of rule. So in essence you are blowing smoke here.
What he wants for his people, who are culturally quite different from PRC, is the continuation of that culture and their self-determination, not to conform to China’s ideological imperialism and be settled en-masse.
I love China, truly, I’ve been there a couple of times, I love the history, philosophy and spirituality that comes from it. I know several mainland chinese people who are wonderful people. I also love Tibet’s take on things, as it is different, significantly, and I believe they should have self-determination, like we do from England.
I do not, however, love the way the country is run or the NZ Govt’s kowtowing to them with free trade agreements and such. My opinion, and it is an opinion mind you, is that it like giving the A-OK to their human rights violations.
Yes, they’re huge, they’re powerful, they have nuclear weapons. But it doesn’t make them right, and it doesn’t mean we can’t say no to them occasionally.
And personally, I’d love to have my body turned into historical and/or spiritually significant artifacts. Much better than taking up room in graveyards.
I gotta say Raymond that I’m a bit shocked at your parroting of CCP propaganda. Next you’ll be saying that 80% of what Mao did was good and he backstroked up the Yangtze to the three gorges in record time.
@John Darroch, please don’t blame the rest of the Party for Raymond’s views. His view is repellent to most, if not all, others.
Yeah, I don’t share his views, glad he is able to freely express them.
the fact that soo many non kiwis declare that the Chinese are being offended by Dr Normans protest tell us that most of those complaining have no idea or understanding of new zealand culture and should without delay either go back to their own country and choose to propagate their monotheistic culture there or start learning about kiwi culture and stop trying to socially engineer new zeland into some type of police state.
i will say it again for those who may be confused,
if you are offended by Dr Normans protest and oppose it then you oppose new zealand culture and you really should go find another country to live in.
Anne, Nee Hao!
Yea I realise his view are an anomaly, I really dont think this kind of material should be coming from anyone linked with the Labour party let alone an MP though.