As an envoy of H.H. the Dalai Lama you have attended all 9 rounds of dialogue with the Chinese government. Apparently, the dialogue so far was not fruitful. When would you consider this very process as having failed? Do you see any other political strategies for the Tibetan government in exile, other than the sino-tibetan dialogue?
The motto of the First European Tibetan Youth Parliament is: We are Tibet. In your view, what do you consider the essence of the cohesion that clings together all Tibetans in these difficult times?
«I do not believe that the Tibetan political leadership under the guidance of His Holiness the Dalai Lama will change the path of direct dialogue with the Chinese government in order to resolve the issue of Tibet. His Holiness has mentioned again and again in many public talks that ultimately the solution of the Tibet problem must be found through dialogue and mutual agreement between the Tibetans and Chinese. This matter of fact can′t be denied and I do not see any other way. Therefore, I am convinced that the Tibetan leadership in exile will continue to follow this path to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Nevertheless, as much tolerant and accommodating His Holiness is, the Chinese government has not responded positively and not appreciated the approach by His Holiness yet. But I feel that there are many ways and possibilities how we could dispose the Chinese government to respond positively to that approach.
One way is that we improve our contacts to the Chinese people and explain them the Middle Way Approach of His Holiness that is not seeking independence and separation of Tibet.
Furthermore, since we are living in Europe and many European countries are keeping contacts to the Chinese government, we should strengthen our activities to press these governments in order to accomplish a mutually acceptable solution for Tibetans and Chinese.
There are many ways to bring about improvements in the Sino-Tibetan dialogue and I feel, we are not taking advantage of all possibilities. Tibetan organisations in Europe and especially the youth organisations can make a major contribution to the dialogue process through cooperation and participation based on well-prepared strategies
I feel Tibetans involved in our struggle have many different reasons and backgrounds for their participation. It′s not possible to declare one reason better than the other. But, the most important factor is that we all do not accept the present situation of the Tibetan issue. It is obvious that the present status is not based on truth and in breach of international laws and systems. It is our responsibility to react and speak out against the repressions inside Tibet and do the necessary in order to change the present situation.
It is important to envision that the living conditions the Tibetans can enjoy in Europe are inherently linked to the present situation inside Tibet and the hardships and oppression that our fellow countrymen and women are living with. Because of this tragic condition, we had the privilege that the European countries and governments had given us refuge. It is not because we possessed special capabilities or qualifications.
Therefore, we as Tibetans living in Europe should not forget the daily difficulties and sufferings of our fellow countrymen. Thus in order to resolve this situation, we need to do everything in our power. This is the responsibility of all Tibetans.»
(translated and summarized from the original Tibetan video version)
Kalon Tripa, Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche
The clergy has a double vote. Isn′t this a contradiction to the democratic principle «One man, one vote»?
«In my capacity as Kalon Tripa I would like to convey my best wishes to the Conference of Young Tibetans in Europe as well as say my prayers for it′s success.
Your question is: The clergy within the exile Tibetan community has two votes whereas the laity has only one. Is this not in contradiction with the fundamental democratic principle of «one man, one vote»?
It's hard to tell straightaway and with certainty wether it contradicts the fundamental principle. It requires a thorough research, as I believe, that after the first general impression it is hard to say, Yes, it contradicts or No, it does not contradict.
It is a reality with prevailing electoral system in democratic countries that an electorate has only one vote and a repeated casting is not permitted.
But it depends upon the mandate of the election as is prevalent in many democratic countries both in the West and East. Let us take India as an example. In some states of India graduates from Universities or specialists can elect their own representation both in the Upper and Lower houses.
So these electors have in addition to the general election the right to elect their own representatives. Such practice is not seen as contradiction to the basic principle of «one man, one vote».
Similarly, in some countries in the West you have the right to elect your own religious or social representatives. This practice bears resemblance to our system.
So we can see straightaway at a superficial observation that in our electoral system there is no equality of chances. If we view this as inequality of chances, then we also have to view critically the number of candidates in our current electoral system too. The Tibetans in India can elect up to 12 candidates whereas the Tibetans in Europe only up to two and the Tibetans in America can elect only one candidate. That looks a bit strange. Therefore, I am of the opinion that we need a thorough research to get a clear answer to it.
At the time of the 1st Legislative Period it was assumed that there is no Tibetan who is not follower of a religious school and therefore, all Tibetans could elect their representation both for the religious school as well as for their region. It is beyond my knowledge, when the distinction of representation between religious schools and the region was introduced.
It was probably introduced during the 3rd or 4th Legislative Period so that the clergy (monks, nuns and Ngagpas) could elect their own religious representation. I do not know the background of this matter but it is my firm conviction that there was a reason for it. If we can analyze this background information, I am sure that we will have a better understanding of the issue.
So I cannot straightaway and with certainty say that our electoral system contradicts the fundamental democratic principle of «one man, one vote» or not.»
Thank you.
Tendor, Students for a free Tibet
Chungdak Koren, Ex Representative of H. H. the Dalai Lama
