An April circular by the Chinese Ministry of Education on student admission criteria at Tibetan universities has been harrowing and discriminating to say the least.
The circular said that prospective students must state their “political attitude and ideological morality” to be considered for admission.
It also said that students should not be involved in religious movements and students who are proficient in Marxist theory should be preferred.
Since Beijing started occupying Tibet, it has meticulously introduced policies to dismantle the Tibetan education system, which is closely tied to its rich monastic tradition, and has even pulled students from Afghanistan and eastern Europe to Tibet.
Initially, Beijing mainly targeted primary education, including by preventing Tibetans to even linger near monastic institutes, and it continues to do so to this day.
Now Beijing’s attention has shifted toward higher education, and it is launching a relentless attack on universities, including through policy changes that highlight its negligence toward authentic Tibetan education, with the ultimate goal of depriving Tibetans of their identity and language.
The initial attack on the Tibetan education system began during the Cultural Revolution, when the monastic system, recognized as the cornerstone of Tibet’s education system, was wiped out in terms of its physical structure and personnel. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seized on this vacuum to indoctrinate and culturally assimilate Tibetans.
Dawa Norbu, a former professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, wrote in his book Tibet: The Road Ahead that he and many other young Tibetans during the initial years of Chinese occupation were forcefully indoctrinated.
The CCP was to an extent successful, but its strategy proved to be a double-edged sword, as Tibetans now know that they are different from Chinese.
The end of the Cultural Revolution set the stage for the renaissance of Tibetan education. Great lamas and academics were able to continue their work at the few surviving monasteries.
Tibetans who remained in their homeland, led by the late 10th Panchen Lama and other charismatic individuals, wittingly used then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) drive to educate China to their benefit and introduced “modern education with Tibetan characteristics.”
However, even after their moderate success, the situation in Tibet’s education system remained dire. This was elaborated in the book Wangdu’s Diary, written by Wangdu, an exiled Tibetan who was part of a fact-finding delegation that in 1980 toured the region to appraise its education system.
He was shocked that most schools lacked basic facilities and was taken aback by the high number of ethnic Han teachers.
Since the beginning of the occupation, the leaders in Beijing have been referring to themselves as saviors and liberators.
The CCP started dismantling the Tibetan education system, which — except for the few modern schools set up in Lhasa by the late 13th Dalai Lama — was mainly centered on monastic institutes.
Beijing set up schools with the goal not to educate Tibetans, but rather to brainwash and indoctrinate them with Marxist thought, which morphed into Mao Zedong (毛澤東) thought and later the ideas of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平).
Beijing implemented a bilingual education policy in Tibet and other occupied regions (or, as Beijing calls them, “minority regions”).
Those policies refer to principles enshrined in the Chinese constitution, which stipulate that the languages of minority regions be protected and preserved.
However, the policies sought to achieve the exact opposite, and promote a deeper penetration of the Chinese language and Chinese narrative in those regions.
Since those policies’ inception, large numbers of Tibetans have gone through this indoctrination-focused education system.
An alarming report published by the Tibet Action Institute in December last year highlighted the grim reality.
Based on testimonies, the report, titled Separated From Their Families, Hidden From the World, showed that 78 percent of Tibetans have attended Beijing-run boarding schools where classes are primarily taught in Chinese, depriving them of their identity and language.
It is worrying to witness China’s colonial activities in Tibet, especially as China has its own traumatic colonial experience.
Chinese interference with the Tibetan education system has gained pace since Xi took office.
Xi has not only continued Beijing’s Tibet policy, but is enforcing it more strongly, including by introducing restrictions that prevent Tibetans from attending China’s best educational institutions.
Even Tibetans who complete their higher education are looked down upon, creating an apartheid-like environment where Tibetans are largely unemployed and remain segregated, even in Tibet.
The outdated, draconian practices Beijing is implementing in Tibet are concerning.
Tenzing Dhamdul, a Tibetan refugee, is a research associate at the New Delhi-based Foundation for Non-Violent Alternatives, a peace studies institute focused on Tibet, China, India and the larger Transhimalaya region.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS