#52 interview: what tibetans want

Of late, I found self taken in…and  I do not want to dwell on this happening in Tibet but a sense of imbalance overwhelmed on hype created by human rights groups and advocates using the Olympic Games as platform for ill-intent(?) — mixing sports with politics!

I read this interesting interview — Robert Barnett, director of the Modern Tibetan Studies Program at Columbia University, ended with these words:

RB: We have to put aside these questions that fascinate some people, such as, “Is the Dalai Lama losing his power?” That’s the opposite of the issue here. The exile complaints are not about power. And we have to put aside suggestions that the protests in Tibet are because people are unhappy about economic loss. That really is reductive. And I think we have to get over any suggestion that the Chinese are ill-intentioned or trying to wipe out Tibet. It’s obviously horrible that people are being savagely beaten up and killed. But crucially, this is a historic change in the profile of Tibetan politics. We’re looking at something much larger than any immediate anxiety about Olympics, or whether somebody planned one of these things, or whether people are upset about economic disadvantage. Historians are going to tell us that we missed the big picture if we didn’t notice that this is the big story here. All the party cadres are going to be sent to the countryside areas to listen to the Tibetans’ complaints and find out what has gone so wrong with the policy machine in China.

For full interview…http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4238

Do we know what others want? Do we know what we want?

#51

Dalai Lama is seeking the world community to help resolve… How does he propose the world community to help when this is an internal matter?

Did the EU leaders stand in solidarity not to boycott the forthcoming Olympic Games on objective grounds or, because Dalai Lama had not called for a boycott? What if Dalai Lama decided to boycott? Would I see the world boycott the Olympics then?

In the latest issue of Times magazine (ending March), the writer haloed how enlightened and magnanimous Dalai Lama is. Yet impressing me his slant at demonising China on human rights issue, a legacy of the past, on the present lot of China leaders.

If I understand correctly, each province is made up of local leaders. Are the local leaders in Tibet stooges of the Central Committee? Are these local leaders not given the autonomy to see fit the province ought to be governed? What is freedom of thought and speech? Are the monks being persecuted in their saffron robes or practising their religion? Criticisms made that Chinese flood the land but are Chinese nationals not gracing their presence in every developing countries especially the West?

I’m not a China watcher or a Tibet watcher. But pardon me and don’t get me wrong, I’m not pro China but — pressure-cooking or putting the human rights issue on the present lot of leaders in China is as fair as wondering if the Dalai Lama in exile is the one encouraging the recent protests and unrests. Surely the monks would not take on or initiate the protest by themselves.

Where was Dalai Lama when the Tibetans burnt the China flag? Did he call for restraint? If the monks revered and treated the Dalai as their leader, surely they would have acted in a non-violent manner. Where is the credibility of the Dalai then?

The US rallied coalition forces to enter Iraq as a result of the 911 attack on World Trade Center in New York. Surely the sole purpose was to fight terrorism and not liberating Iraq from their tyrant ruler Saddam to eventually build up that nation.

#50

Alamak! So many new faces in the cabinet! What interesting changes!

Some go up the ladder, some come down…some on showcase? More back scratching?

Hm…why the increase in numbers? One way to produce more millionaires using the taxpayers’ money? I’m sure this is nothing new…we have the highest paid politicians. Where are the good and efficient results?

In the West, you’ve got to be a millionaire first, then politics.

Are the younger leaders becoming less competent? I thought modern gadgets help in productivity and easy access…

Or like one of the local banks — most efficient when manually operated — became the most inefficient on computerisation. Was this a case of modernising too quickly without much thought and understanding? Or no smart personnel to cope with changes? Good at board rooms but… Excellent at churning out wonderful reports and plans but…