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
“badmouthing NZ’s tradition of free speech by association with Russel Norman (my hero)”
That’s quite amusing. Russel ‘gimme my flag back’ Norman is now a hero for suffering a grazed knuckle?
Hahaha – the guy is more like an embarrassment – such an embarrassment in fact that not one senior Green Party MP came out with explicit support of him – his co-leader Meteira Turei included.
That’s a pity, I personally have new found respect for the dude!
Abusive deleted Trevor
Wayne said:
you raise a good point. Why are there so few voices for Hispanic secession in Texas, California and New Mexico?
Could it be that Hispanics have the freedom to practice their own culture and language on US soil, and that they experience many varied benefits of belonging to the larger whole while being able to lead the lives that they want? While their own community members have risen to positions of power in both local and national Government?
There’s a lesson here eh?
Is this what you suggest for Tibetans in China then, Wayne?
Because if this happens in China, using California/Texas etc as a model, I suggest that a lot of Tibetans would be happy to stay within the PRC.
It’s your own example. What say you?
@-John Chapman
Well, I see the difference may come from our cultural background. I understand and agree that “Criticism of the Chinese Government is not a criticism of the Chinese people”. What I was saying that, if Dr. Norman choose a smarter way, which not only being supported by NZers but also understood by even Chinese, to protest/express his view, it would probably be more effective in term of educating a senior leader from another country.
Remember, we need to be realistic about the fact that both the government and people in china have only exposed to democracy of westen style for the last couple of decades. It takes time to absorb, understand and execise it. I think what most people from china as well as many foreigners are actually asking to be given more time and patience, as we are no doubt on the way of gradually forming modern a democratic system.
Come back to our discussion, I’ve read and reviewed the original blog several times, as I was afraid that I could misunderstand some of other contributors’ comments so far. And I think I insist on my point that if someone’s suggestion can help improve the way communication between NZ and other party and enhance the effectiveness of conveying message, he/she should be seen as a person that well-served kiwis’ interest. On the other hand, if someone give out words which satisfying locals however have the potential to cause some unnecessary loss to NZ, these people may get more votes in short term, however, also deserved to be criticised by whoever sees the risk to people.
Abusive deleted Trevor
Abusive deleted Trevor
@-Charles
I still suggest that you don’t have to waste your time on this. Just look at the number of comments that been deleted previously, It explains all. I think you deserve to discuss with some decent people. The better we can bring the level of this discussion up, the more respect both the blogger and the labour party will get.
Offensive deleted Trevor
Liam – you’re insightful. IF one is interested in winning an audience over to a specific point of view (or at least having them see the merits of it) then alienating and disparaging that same audience at the start is a bad opening strategy. For instance, implying or stating explicitly that the members of your audience are ignorant, prejudiced, hypocritical, racist, colonial etc. will lose your argument an unrecoverable number of points from the very start.
My opinion only.
In fact, we don’t care whatever western people and their goverments had done and said, only one point is important.
The independent of Tibet is not an option……
Defamatory deleted Trevor
@-Loota
Well said. And back to my start to this discussion, I think I’ve been promoting a couple of extremely well-acknowledged historic books and very evidence based vedio to those who would like to comment on this topic(I see I’m circuling back to where I was). And the reason I’m doing this is that I see much of our disagreement is due to the different info. source. Now many chinese like me have been travelling away from our homeland and families, studying another language(not just english, but also french, spanish, etc), learning their history and living in their culture as indigenous people do. We would like to see some effort to be put by you and others as well, together to narrow the gap and bring us closer.
I also encourage people who interested in commenting/criticising today’s china to do some decent homework, not only to satisfy chinese community, but for your own benefits to get the communication flows and gain respect from your enemy if you like(or special friend as what Mr Key refers to). I’ve been consistent with what I’m posting here and I don’t see anything I’m saying now conflicts with my previous posts
Wayne I’d never asume that because 79% of a readers poll support something that its a snapshot of New Zealand opinion. Its just a snapshot of people who read the Herald online and can be bothered to make a couple of mouse clicks…
as to:
Mr Chapman: I’m sure Americans would be outraged if members of the Chinese government in China supported radical Hispanic seccessionist movements in respect of Texas, California, and New Mexico, and further the President Hu met with the leaders of such a movement on a regular basis.
Unlikely. The Hispanics there are by all acounts there precisely because they want to in the United States. The issue seems to centred around keeping Hispanic economic migrants out of those States. My understanding of Tibetan aspiration is that they are seeking cultural and religious autonomy. Chinese hegemony in the region is an accepted fact. Unless of course you take the view that the Dalai Lama is lying terrorist which I don’t…
Loota says:
July 8, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Liam – you’re insightful. IF one is interested in winning an audience over to a specific point of view (or at least having them see the merits of it) then alienating and disparaging that same audience at the start is a bad opening strategy. For instance, implying or stating explicitly that the members of your audience are ignorant, prejudiced, hypocritical, racist, colonial etc. will lose your argument an unrecoverable number of points from the very start.
My opinion only.
Yes, Loota, I strongly agree with you on these points. This speech strategy you recommended is widely used when a candidate try to persurade the audience to vote for him in the short term. However, from a long term, only the truth and fact speaks. If it at last turns out to be someone’s ignorance to have some prejudices, he should confess it. But unfortunatly most people cannot, even if they have known that.
It is not some person to say some other people are ignorant of some history. It is this person who point out the fact that some other people are ignorant of the history. But most people are not aware of that, and thus reject it. That’s alriht. This is human being. Nevertheless, only truth and fact speak during a period of time, maybe long, but it is true.
I like this strategy when I did my academic work. But when people use it in political aera, it is hard to say, sometimes looks really hypocritical.
John Chapman
While you can’t accept figures as published by the newspaper with probably highest level of nz readership engagment, I’d very like to know your understanding of Dalai Lama’s “middleway” and how is that going to benefit people in Tibet from all aspects and benefit 1.3 billion people in China? All ears
Chinese educated in China have a habit of claiming that anyone who disagrees with them “doesn’t know the history of Tibet”. This is a transparent lie. People educated in China generally don’t know anything about the history of Tibet, since there is very little history written in Chinese other than CCP propaganda. For example, anyone who has read the accounts of the last travellers to Tibet before the 1950 invasion closed it off could answer the following; most Chinese could not.
- Who built the Chaksam bridge at Chushul?
- Who built the bridge over the Trisum in 1937?
- What was the result of the 1918 war between China and Tibet?
- Who destroyed the Rongshar Dzong, and when?
- In 1949, what was the usual Lhasa-Calcutta travel time?
- In 1949, what was the usual Lhasa-Peking travel time?
- Was paper money or coins used in Lhasa in 1949?
- What punishment was the pretext for Tsarong’s demotion in 1925?
- Who brought the first motor-car to Tibet, and how and when?
- What was generally called “the dirtiest town in Tibet” and why?
- What did Teichman record about the torture of Tibetans in Chinese-occupied Eastern Tibet in 1916?
Reading the last pre-invasion travellers is very important, because after the invasion many of the areas they visited have never been opened to outsiders again, and much of the society, monasteries and dzongs have been destroyed by Red Guards. So keep that in mind when you get guff from Chinese about Tibetan history. Try the following if you’re interested in understanding Tibet better:
McKay, Alex – “The History of Tibet: The medieval period, c. 850-1895″
Norbu, Dawa – “Red star over Tibet”
Thomas, Lowell Jr – “Out of this world: Across the Himalayas to Forbidden Tibet”
Ford, Robert – “Captured in Tibet”
Norbu, Jamyang – “Shadow Tibet”
Snellgrove and Richardson – “A Cultural History of Tibet”
Jamyang Norbu also has an excellent work available in full on the web, “Buying the Dragon’s Teeth” (2005) about how you can avoid supporting the Chinese totalitarian regime, and why: http://www.igfm-muenchen.de/tibet/ctc/2005/dragontext.pdf
Further warning New material only and no abuse. All other comments deleted Trevor
@-Stuart
Honestly, I certainly can’t answer many of these questions from what I’ve been reading. And I’ve marked your suggested books down for my future reading selection.
However, you need to be fair that given there are thousands of yrs of history China has associated with even more complex issues, our general education can not cover every part of the history into great details.
I noticed that the questions you threw out are all during the period that China were in its weakest time and were either being invaded by other modern countries at that time or having civil war until 1949. I see you intention is to giving evidence based on your wording that Tibet was never a part of China. To me it’s no longer a question. Most of us here are standing on a commonly agreed view that Tibet is currently a part of China(Again verify this on UN web). Things coule be arguble is why China suddently lost its control to Tibet for such a long period before 1949.
You are making serious mistakes if you think you can use such questinos to prove that Chinese do not know the history of Tibet. Because it would be extremely easier for me to use the same approach, asking many detailed questions about China and prove you(and even a senior NZ scholar) don’t know China at all(you are quite welcome to take this challenge), which is not true. I think we need to acknowledge that people here have different levels of understanding about Tibet and it’s history, and not assuming anyone is lying here, otherwise this discussion can turn into pointless.
Deleted. Clare
Here is the summary of those ‘frogs in the well’:
Equation #1 : USA = white = democracy = freedom = good
Equation #2 : China = colour = no democracy = no freedom = bad
You will be surprised as how many kiwis in NZ cannot read or write simple English and yet it’s supposed to be their mother-tongue!
Their general knowledge is limited to what they can see from the bottom of the well.
It’s pointless to argue with those frogs that the world is far, far larger than they could see from the well.
Just let them stay in the well if they decide to be there forever or maybe it’s beyond their ability to jump out of the well.
????????
Deleted. Clare
Deleted. Clare