Categories
Activism Liberty Photography

[1626] Of flags as red as the blood on their hands

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

The flags of tyranny shamelessly flew over the MERDEKA Square.

MERDEKA means independence.

Read Kuala Lumpur for a Free Tibet for the background story.

By Hafiz Noor Shams

For more about me, please read this.

17 replies on “[1626] Of flags as red as the blood on their hands”

abidin, you’re absolutely right.

But we cannot force liberty on others. It is up to them to embrace whatever system they like. But they must have an opportunity to be free to decide which system they like. Thus, a requirement for a referendum.

And Tibet if indeed becomes a theocracy, at least, it would be of their choosing. From then on, criticism could be directed to Tibet, and no longer China in this particular case. I believe it is easier to impress on the hypothetical administration of free Tibet after referendum on the importance of liberty than Tibet under China.

There is much to ponder here, and the conflict seems to be stemming from a conflation of liberty and (historical) sovereignty.

If the Free Tibet campaign is arguing for sovereignty, and if sovereignty is likely to lead to more liberty for Tibetans, then one ought to support the campaign. An increase of liberty should be the only criteria upon which this movement should be supported. The motives of anyone else are quite irrelevant.

A more pertinent argument from history is that breakaway polities often achieve independence merely to acquire new leaders who oppress the population. Less liberty. How can we be so sure that devolution/independence would necessarily increase Tibetans’ liberty? What political institutions would be established? Would it be a theocracy? How much executive power would the Dalai Lama have? etc.

I am all for lambasting PRC oppression, but details are lacking in the pro-Tibetan camp for me to be fully convinced.

PS. I take it from “Go Blue!” that you are supporting the Tories on 1 May?

It indeed was a scary experience, to be pounced on like that by violent Chinese students and not have the police come to my aid. What came as a bigger blow was being told to leave Dataran Merdeka because I had an ‘agenda’. How ironic. Imagine getting thrown out of Independence Square for helping a fellow countryman regain what was forcefully taken from him.

1. Like I said earlier, I don’t think history is helpful in solving this issue and I am not the one that brought history up. I totaly disagree with the statement “Tibet has always been part of China”. What I have done is proving that the statement is untrue. And why am I fixated with a particular point of time? Let me ask, who was the one that said Tibet has always been part of China but then ignore the fact that Tibet was free before the Mongol invasion? I’m not the one being selective about the timeline here. Like I said, my goal is to prove that “Tibet has always been part of China” is false. It only goes as far as Ming (Or the Mongols, if you insist) while in fact, China existed well before the Mongol invasion. Even then, the idea of modern Chinese nation comprising more than the Hans only came to existence in the 18th and the 19th century. Tibetans, Mongols and Uyghur have been known to reject the ROC/PRC equivalent of Bangsa Malaysia. Even in the early 19th century, the idea of Chinese nation actually wanted to boot the Manchus out because the Han believed that they were foreigners. And in fact, when the Qing collapsed, Tibetans and Mongols and even the Uyghur claimed that they owned their loyalty to the Qing, not to China. As their reasoning follows, the collapse of the Qing means Tibet was free. This is the reasoning behind Tibet’s unilateral declaration of independence in the 1910s.

Talking about “free southern China”, well, that’s just red-hearing. Do we hear a serious calls by the locals for an independent state? This is a proof that the sympathizers of Tibet are not in it just for the fun of breaking up China, like many conspiracy theorists out there are proposing.

And talking about “nobody disputed Tibet was part of the Ming”, well, not true. Since you have quoted Wikipedia earlier, let me quote it too. Practically, the argument is similar to whether Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah were Siam states or free states back in the 18th and the 19th century.

3. I apologize making it as if you believed in the lines of the PRC. My bad. Regardless, I’m confident because the PRC is afraid of having free speech and democracy. And we could only satisfying this contest through a fair referendum, which we know the PRC won’t do and that much I think we could agree on. Nevertheless, I would like to stress that the farther in the future a referendum is held, the more time the PRC has to suppress pro-Tibet voices.

2. Territories get taken by stronger territories during those days. Are we suppose to somehow expect our liberal mindsets to apply then and expect those Mongols to ‘conquer’ new territory, pat themselves on their backs, and then ‘release’ them after a while? This ain’t recreational fishing mate.

Your argument just seems to fixate on a certain period of time where you somehow draw an imaginary line where any conquests after after this by the Chinese Empire doesn’t count. Remember that China under its first Emperor Qin Shi Huang during the Qin Dynasty in 221 BC only consisted of North-Eastern parts of today’s China. Yet you obviously do not support a ‘Free Southern China’ campaign. My argument is that territorial gains were all legit, especially if we’re talking about a region where nobody disputed were part of the Ming Dynasty since the 14th century.

3. Please read what I wrote twice before on this point. At what point have I said what the CURRENT CCP regime says are true?

I said I want to see a referendum done by a POST-CCP regime (preferably a democratic party) on Tibet to get the true sentiments of ordinary Tibetans.

Both you and I do not have any confidence on what the current CCP’s statistics and reports on Tibet (or many other politically sensitive things for that matter) because we know Communist parties are notorious for unreliable data. But why then are you so confident in saying that we have to accept as gospel what a core group of diehard Tibetan Independence people are saying to be the will of the majority there without having a referendum?

1. China was part of the Mongol empire. The Mongol Empire however was not part of China. The relationship must be recognized correctly. And it was the Mongol that conquered Tibet first. Even if we consider Mongol and Yuan as exactly the same entity, before the annexation, Tibet was free. Thus, I return to the point of contention that it is not true that Tibet has always been part of China. This goes back to your first point in the first comment.

2. Or maybe it is akin to Malaysia giving up Singapore, which Malaysia did? Again, this is not about the west versus China. I’ve said that there are non-westerners that sympathize with Tibet. The west vs. China dichotomy, as I’ve maintained earlier, is a convenient labeling to dismiss criticism. It is a convenient way of dismissing point and appealing to anti-western sentiment.

3. Wait, are you saying that BN’s claims are BS because Malaysia under BN doesn’t have a transparent democracy but China’s claims are credible despite having no democracy at all and much less transparency?

1. The Mongolians do have their own Empire, but many historians have separated the Mongol Empire in China from the others and considered it to be a part of the Chinese Dynastic line. Wiki entry on this. Even if you maintain the Mongol Empire was not part of the proper Chinese Empire, then it still stands to reason that the Ming, the Qing, the ROC and then the PRC all have never given up the Chinese govt’s claim over Tibet. And mind you, even if you take the Ming Dynasty as a starting point, the ‘Han-Chinese’ have controlled Tibet since the 14th century. Invariably, as much as we don’t like admitting it now, modern nations today have been heavily influenced by past conquests. Darwinism meritocracy, if you will, before today’s more ‘enlightened’ period where countries can’t unilaterally expand anymore.

2. The problem with this point is the fundamental difference of our stands on Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. I never condoned China’s heavy-handedness over its handling of Tibetan separatists, or towards any of its dissidents for that matter. But my view on this is that Tibet is a region within the boundaries of China. To me (and most Mainland Chinese people) the West asking China to give up Tibet is akin to asking Malaysia to give up Sarawak. China simply would not entertain that, and nor would any other country (willingly at least, bloodbath did finally ensure the separation of East Timur from Indonesia).

3. That may be BN’s line, but its not wrong. That’s what democracy is for in the first place. To ascertain the true will of the majority. I’ve read from journal articles before that some Tibetan researchers have admitted that the Tibetan poorer class would probably back Chinese rule, due to what they see as the Chinese govt modernising and improving the economic situation there. BN’s claims are bumkus because the democratic system in Malaysia is not fully fair and transparent. I’m not letting anyone get away with anything. Note how I said I want China to first democratise itself and become a proper functioning democracy, and then hold a referendum in its more problematic provinces.

1. So, would that mean it is your position that the one that sacked Baghdad in 1258 was Chinese and not Mongol?

The Mongol Empire was not the Chinese Empire. The Mongol conquered the Chinese civilization.

2. This is not about the US. The concerns liberty are are genuine. In fact, many of human rights organizations that are criticizing China have criticized the US. There are non-western media that disagree with China. Painting all avenues that sympathizes with Tibet as pro-western is a convenient labeling done by pro-Beijing supporters. The US has done wrongs too but that does not absolve China from being criticized for their wrongs. I’ve always maintained that two wrongs don’t make a right.

3. Noisy segment? That was BN’s line before the Malaysian general election. If you haven’t noticed, a lot of lines used by the PRC were used by the BN government. Why is it that the BN should be condemned for saying that but the PRC gets away from it?

1. The Mongol empire is considered to be a subset of the umbrella ‘Chinese’ dynastic line. If you want to argue that the Mongols are distinct from the ethnic Han-Chinese, then to you what the Qing Dynasty had in terms of territory should also not be taken as being the Han-Chinese’s territory as well, which is not true. When the Republic of China under Sun Yet-Sen overthrew the Imperial system in China, it legitimately claimed all of the Qing dynasty as part of China. A further thing to note is that the UN did not object to the ROC’s territory claims, including Tibet. Its successor, the PRC merely continued its claim over a territory that has been integrated into China since the 13th century. You must remember that both the Mongols and the Manchus integrated themselves into the then present Chinese dynastic institution, since the formers both are a nomadic tribes people and their own cultures were not strong enough and they were not numerous enough to be imposed on the massively larger Han-Chinese population. If I’m not mistaken, there’s also the issue of prestige in this. The Chinese Empire then was akin to the Roman’s, ie high prestige. So these conquerers, far from wanting to impose their own monarchy traditions on China, did the opposite and took on the mantle of being ‘Chinese Emperors’. Hence to the Chinese historians now, and a large part of the world, these Mongols and Manchus are for all intents and purposes, recognised as being ‘Chinese dynasties’.

2. This issue I feel is very real, despite what some conservative right wing commentators might say. A quick trip down history lane can show us the the USA (and any country for that matter) don’t do something for nothing. For example, why is the prospects of engaging in wars in Arab countries seem much more appealing to the US politicians compared to say, North Korea? Or those non-oil rich African countries? Everyone has their own agendas. Nothing wrong with that, in terms of realpolitik. But that doesn’t mean we should allow the USA to get rationalise away all of their policies merely with the sanctimonious line of ‘bringing democracy and freedom to the rest of the world’.

3. I do agree with your third point about a referendum though. It should be held in Tibet by a democratic China to ascertain the true will of the majority. And not just the noisy segment of Tibetans who might or might not represent that will.

Tibet has not always been part of Tibet if you really want to argue this through historical point of view. (I must state that I think argument from history is useless, like what I wrote in an entry about Kosovo)

Tibet first came under foreign control when the Mongol conquered it. Not Chinese.

1. When the Mongol empire (this includes the Mongol Yuan dynasty) collapsed, the Ming rose to take its place and began to assert its authority over China and it insisted on controlling what Mongol had controlled in the eastern part of the former Mongol empire. This is despite the fact that the Mongols are not Chinese. And even when the Ming claimed sovereignty over Tibet, it had only nominal control. If you really want argue from history, then Mongolia would have the same right on Tibet as what China is claiming.

2. This is not about the west vs. China. It is about issues. There are non-westerners that oppose China occupation of Tibet. Trying to paint it as if it is between westerners vs. China ignore that opposition is more diverse than a false dichotomy.

3. This is never about the communist system in the first place though frankly speaking, I despise it. Instead, this is about Tibetans’ liberty. Regardless, the best answer to all this is to have a fair referendum. Let the Tibetans decide whether they was freedom, or association with China. It is only when they are free to choose without fear from coercion from the PRC are they truly free.

The final paragraph about China, if the PRC didn’t annex Tibet, why did it have to invade it in the first place?

My position on Tibet still remains:

1. That Tibet has historically always been part of China. Imperial archives can attest to Tibet as being more than just a tributary state and was in fact a part of China proper.

2. The West, lead by the USA has an agenda of its own. It wants Tibet to be its ally to its own agenda. Subsequently, the world (ie: Western) media coverage on this has been incredibly biased towards Tibet.

3. I don’t support the communist system in China. The one very obvious flaw of it is that without the democratic vote, no pressure valve exists for discontent and therefore Tibetans can only protest through violence. Which begets violence from China as that is the only way they know how to respond. China should democratise itself.

One thing I want to challenge is the idea floating around now that the Chinese Communist Party somehow formed today’s China and annexed Tibet in the process in 1949. Was this true? China in its present form was recognised as ‘China’ even before the CCP. So in effect the CCP did not annex Tibet. The Dalai Lama fleeing Tibet then was less because he was a sovereign leader of an independent Tibet and more because he was a spiritual leader which was not compatible with a secularist and atheist CCP.

Leave a Reply to mahendranCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.