FEBRUARY HUMAN RIGHTS UPDATE PART II
Corruption Bars Access to Higher Education for Promising Tibetan Students The latest Chinese White Paper on human rights was released in February of this year. It explicitly emphasises the rights to subsistence and development, and economic, social and cultural rights generally. Within this emphasis on development lies the promise of a 'better' life of prosperity and jobs for an increasing number of those living under Chinese rule. But despite China's claims to equality of access across nationalities and ethnic groups, there is increasing evidence that in Tibet many young Tibetan students are prevented from pursuing higher education and vocational training. The Chinese government in its White Paper argues that, "a multi-form and multi-layer vocational education and training system has been established, basically meeting the needs of economic construction." However, the following story of Namlang, a 24 year old nomad from Qinghai Province, raises questions about the ability of Tibetan students to access higher vocational training in the first place.
Namlang came into exile on 3 January 2000, leaving Tibet for education, like many other young Tibetans. He is an unusual case in that he was able to study at a middle school, and sit for teacher training exams, but his experience of corruption and discrimination illustrates the complex ways in which the education system in Tibet fails to offer a future or even basic employment, despite the figures of numbers of schools built in recent times. In 1998 the Chinese government stated that from 1991 to 1997, 580, 000 sq m of new schools were built in Tibet. Namlang's story goes beyond bricks and mortar to asking whether anyone is learning in these classrooms.
There was no village school where he grew up and so Namlang went to a primary school in the nearest Township. It is a government-funded school (shungtsug) and there are no school fees. As is often the case, each child has to contribute one sheep per student per year and 10 gyamas of butter in lieu of fees. Namlang joined this boarding school at the age of 12 and stayed for four years. He finished his primary school education during this time. In the school there were also a few Chinese students whose parents held government jobs in the area. There were 200 students in total, and 20 teachers, who were all Tibetan. While on paper, this school seems to support the Chinese government's argument that it is building schools in remote areas and that many students receive free education in modern Tibet, looked at substantively the picture is much greyer.
Namlang is dubious of the standard of education he received and talks of the lack of any structure within this school and the inadequate instruction given. The students used to bunk classes all the time and there was no discipline. The school curriculum focused on Tibetan, Chinese, science, maths and drawing. The medium of instruction is in Tibetan and this is the main subject of study. This is a double-edged sword, though, for while it is imperative that Tibetan remains the main language of instruction in schools within Tibet, the higher levels of study and vocational training are conducted in Chinese, and this can make it difficult for Tibetan students to compete for results and places. In other ways the fact that primary education is conducted in Tibetan, while higher study is in Chinese raises serious questions about institutional expectations for Tibetan students.
Indeed Namlang studied at the county middle school for a further three years after finishing his primary education and the instruction was all in Chinese; despite the Chinese government's claim in 1998 that it had "taken concrete measures to guarantee the freedom of the Tibetan people to use and develop both the spoken and written Tibetan language, which is a main course of study at all schools in Tibet." To get into the middle school students had to sit an entrance exam and receive a score of at least 70%. They did not have to pay for this exam. There were no school fees at the middle school either, but again each student had to contribute one sheep per year. This middle school, called 'Malo Dzong Mirig Lobta', was for Tibetan students only. There was a separate school for Chinese students. While Namlang doesn't know whether the standard of the Chinese middle school was better or worse than the school which he attended, the existence of 2 schools is troubling.
On the one hand, Namlang was able to receive some education beyond the primary
level, and this is certainly not the experience of all young Tibetans from remote
areas. But listening to his actual experiences disturbs the glowing picture
of the state of education in Tibet that the Chinese government puts forward.
In its 1998 White Paper, the Chinese government argued that it had:
"adopted many preferential policies to promote education in Tibet. Boarding
schools have been introduced in rural and pastoral areas, where Tibetan primary
and middle school students enjoy free food, clothing and accommodation. Stipend
and scholarship systems have been put in place step by step in primary and middle
schools above the town level."
And yet according to Namlang, "there was no chance of study beyond this level for the great majority of Tibetan students." After all this study, Namlang did not get any jobs, though he would have liked to have been a teacher. To do this normally he would have had to finish high school and then received teacher training. None of his fellow Tibetan students at the middle school were able to go to high school or beyond. As he remarked, "the main impediment to their further education was the test which Tibetans would not be able to qualify for. The way the system worked in practice was that if a Chinese student and a Tibetan student both sat for such an entrance test, and the Tibetan student got better results, in any case the place would be reserved for the Chinese student and the Tibetan student would fail to qualify." Again while on paper, it might appear that such young students were in an equal position to compete for jobs and vocational training, in practice, however, discrimination and corruption prevented Namlang's Tibetan classmates from taking up their places in higher education. Still hopeful, Namlang sat for the teacher training exam, as this was still allowed even though he was not able to attend high school. There were 25 Chinese students who sat for this test and 36 Tibetans. Of this number 12 Chinese were allowed into the course and only three Tibetans. According to Namlang, "the Tibetans who passed this exam for higher study all had parents who worked in the Chinese government and administration." As a general practice Chinese students would pay bribes and buy the certificate needed for passing this entrance test. Also the Chinese students took the examining teachers to a restaurant to treat them to a free meal before the results were published. There seems to be no open or transparent process in place and Namlang states that, "these kind of bribes and inducements were necessary to pass. Chinese and Tibetan students were also expected to buy expensive gifts for the examining teachers such as mattresses, whisky and cigarettes. They had to pay cash bribes on top of this." The picture put forward by the Chinese government in 1998 is that: "The principle of "giving priority to people of local ethnic groups" has been adopted by all schools while recruiting students in Tibet..." Such statements mask spreading corruption and lack of process and transparency in the Tibetan education system.
Basically in Namlang's experience, "you need to have money before you can get such a job." For example at 'Mirig Gethun Labtha', the County teacher training college in question, just the bribes involved to become a teacher would amount to 10 000 yuan and this is just for the entrance test. Per year the fees for this college are 1200 yuan and the course takes four years to complete. Instruction at the teacher training college is again in Chinese, and there are separate classes for Tibetan students and Chinese students. Few Tibetans are able to be admitted in the first place. Such cases illustrate the ways in which even those young Tibetans who have access to some level of education, are unable to share in the progress which China claims to have made in the areas of development and higher education and vocational training. Namlang hopes to be able to continue his studies in exile.
Sonam Phuntsok released, new information on the demonstration Unofficial information eminating from Tibet indicates that Sonam Phuntsok was released. There are no details as to when this happened. He is reportedly in Karze County but no further details are available. TCHRD has been given further information by a recent arrival (anonymous for security reasons) from Karze 'Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture' (Sichuan Province). He arrived in Dharamsala on 2 February 2000. He was one of the participants during the Karze demonstration (refer to Human Rights Update, November 1999).
In a complete account of the incident, the informant reported that there were two demonstrations that took place as a result of the arrest of Sonam Phuntsok, Agyal Tsering and Sonam Choephel.
On 31 October 1999 when Sonam Phuntsok was in a religious retreat Karze County Public Security Bureau officers came in two vehicles and arrested him. There were approximately ten officers. While he was being arrested, people confronted the officers and demanded reasons for his arrest. The officers tried to reason with the people saying that he (Sonam Phuntsok) was indulging in 'political activities'. The people responded that he was merely performing his monastic duties and that if that was illegal, then there is no freedom of religion. There were approximately 1,000 people at the time. The PSB officers transported Phuntsok in their vehicle. However, the people obstructed a second police vehicle in which there were six officers and locked them in a nearby barn. They demanded the immediate release of Phuntsok or else the officers would remain detained in the barn. The officers had no choice but to comply. The next morning before dawn, Phunstok was quietly arrested. When the people learnt about it, another larger protest began where there were approximately 3,000 Tibetans participating. Many people were immediately arrested. The whole incident was filmed and reviewed, which resulted in subsequent arrests and fines. The arrested protestors were beaten, some were imprisoned and some were fined and released. The demonstration took place in front of the police office. Although they did not specifically call for Tibetan freedom, Sonam Phuntsok was associated with the cause of independence and by calling for his release their demand was placed within the broader context of the Tibetan freedom movement.
From the informant's village 19 people faced severe penalties for their involvement in the Karze demonstration. Four people were imprisoned following the incident. The informant could identify only two of them. They are Pema Phuntsok and Tserug Orug. Pema Phuntsok is in his mid 30's and has a wife and two small children aged five and three. Pema is the head of village #3 in Golok town. His imprisonment has gravely affected the livelihood of the family. He was imprisoned for three years. Tserug Orug received two years and nine months' imprisonment. He is around 44 years old and has a wife and children.
In addition, five people were fined 3,000 yuan each, four people were fined 2,000 yuan, and some others were fined 1,500 yuan. There were consequences for the families of those punished or imprisoned. The families would have the burden of paying the fine. Shongpa Khedrup escaped detention, but was required to pay a fine of 3,000 yuan and since he did not have the money he had to sell his animals. The variation in the fines was based on the degree of participation during the demonstration.
Sonam Phuntsok was a prominent figure in the county and he has many followers. His followers were told they could not follow his teachings and were ordered to sign a statement against him. The interviewee was unable to sign such a statement and fled to India.
The informant is gravely concerned for the well-being of Sonam Choephel and Agya Tsering whose whereabouts continue to remain unknown. ]
Solitary Confinement and increased sentence due to Drapchi Incident Kelsang Phuntsok (religious name Ngawang Ngonkhen) is a 25 year-old from Lhasa City village # 1, Chushul County. He was a former monk of Tashigang Monastery. There are eight members in his family and he is the second oldest amongst his siblings. His sister is a former nun from Ani Tsangkhung Nunnery and the youngest son of the family is currently a monk of Tashigang Monastery. Phuntsok's family are farmers by occupation, and apart from a brief period of schooling for two years, Phuntsok mainly helped his parents in the field. In 1990, when he joined Tashigang Monastery, there were approximately 18 monks.
The local Tibetans renovated Tashigang Monastery during the liberalisation period after the monastery was completely destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. Kelsang was one of the first monks to join the monastery after its renovation by the local Tibetan Community. In the initial period of his time at the monastery, he was a cook and then became a caretaker, before permanently studying scriptures.
On 15 February 1994, Kelsang and Nyima Tsering, his 25 year-old friend from the same monastery, left for Lhasa. Upon reaching Lhasa around 10 am that same day, the two monks staged a peaceful demonstration in front of the Jokhang Temple (Central Cathedral). They produced the forbidden Tibetan national flag, held it from both sides and started shouting slogans like, "Free Tibet", "Chinese Quit Tibet" and "Long Live His Holiness the Dalai Lama."
Approximately 10 minutes into their demonstration, officers of the Public Security Bureau arrested them. The officers handcuffed the monks, threw them in a vehicle and took them to Gutsa Detention Centre. Upon reaching Gutsa, they were placed in different cells where they were interrogated. The monks were repeatedly beaten and interrogated because of their refusal to divulge details of their monastic background. This also earned them additonal harsh treatment and prolonged their period of detention.
A month after their detention in Gutsa, six PSB officers visited their monastery to investigate and search their rooms. The monks were detained in Gutsa for over a year and for the initial ten months of their detention, they were not allowed any visitors. They were subjected to constant harassment and to unusually lengthy interrogation.
In October 1995, the Lhasa City Intermediate People's Court passed their sentences. Kelsang Phuntsok was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and three years' deprivation of political rights. Nyima Tsering was sentenced to four years and two years' deprivation of political rights. After their sentencing, the monks were transferred to Drapchi Prison. Three years into his prison term, in May 1998, Phuntsok participated in a peaceful demonstration at Drapchi Prison. This protest, started by a non-political prisoner, coincided with a visit by European Union delegations at Drapchi Prison. The protest was vehemently repressed resulting in the death of ten political prisoners and in severe injuries to many others. Those who were injured were denied medical treatment. There were reports of prisoners confined to incommunicado detention and of others being transferred to different units. Some prisoners had their sentences extended as a result. Phuntsok was held in solitary confinement for two months after which his sentence was extended by an additional four years in October 1998, bringing his total sentence to ten years. After the extension of his prison term, he was transferred to the fourth unit which is a separate unit for non-political prisoners. His friend Nyima was released in 1998. ]
An Appeal
The 56th session of the Commission on Human Rights is scheduled to be held from
20 March to 28 April 2000 in Geneva. The Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and
Democracy strongly appeals to the United Nations member countries to condemn
the ongoing Chinese human rights violations in Tibet. Support us and you will
help safeguard the human rights of Tibetans facing deprivation of rights in
all spheres of life.
***********end**************