Annual Report, 1999 - Tibet: Tightening of Control
"Tibet is not allowed to break away from the motherland
and remain poor for a prolonged period of time."
-- Jiang Zemin, President of the People's Republic of China.
A recurrent theme which appears in the official discourse
on Tibet is that of development and growth. It has been
stated by official Chinese reports that "[t]he Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) of the"TAR"was 3 billion yuan in
1992 and 3.6 billion yuan in 1993. But by 1997 it was 7.35
billion yuan, an increase of 83.57 per cent since 1993
in adjusted terms and representing an annual increase of
12.9 per cent. Grain production increased from 500,000
tons in the early 90's to 820,00 in 1997. Tibetans enjoy
a per capita grain share of over 350 kg; most farmers and
herders have enough to eat and wear; and the number of
those considered as poverty stricken has dropped to some
200,000 since 1994. Tibet's revenue has risen from 109
million yuan in 1992 to 250 million yuan in 1997."
One of the tragedies of official history is the fact that
it records itself only in round figures thereby omitting
all the untold tales which lie by the wayside of official
history. If the claims of the Chinese government are to
be believed then Tibet is one of the most economically
developed regions in China. However the growing number
of refugees escaping the "good life" in Tibet and their
testimonies seem to indicate that while there has been
tremendous economic growth in Tibet especially in the urban
areas, it has benefited only the Chinese settlers. There
is also evidence to suggest a systematic marginalisation
of the Tibetans from the mainstream economy. This is
resulting in the creation of a new social underclass whose
task is primarily to service the mainstream economy.
To further illustrate the extent of Tibetan poverty, recent
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) data would place
Tibet between the 131st and 153rd position amongst the 160
nations on their Human Development Index (HDI). Tibetans
spend just 15.4 per cent of the rural Chinese average
on health care, 7.7 per cent of that of their Chinese
counterparts on education, culture and recreation, 54.9
per cent of rural Chinese spending on food; and only 39.1
per cent of that spent by rural Chinese on housing.
An analysis of a few components, which comprise what may
broadly be termed as subsistence or development reveals
an experience far removed from the official claims made
by the Chinese authorities. The policies clearly violate
various International Law principles.
Article 1(2) of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) states that:
All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose
of their natural wealth resources without prejudice to
any obligations arising out of international economic
co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit,
and international law. In no case may a people be deprived
of its own means of subsistence.
Article 11 of the ICESCR states:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize
the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for
himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing
and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living
conditions. The State Parties will take appropriate steps
to ensure the realization of this right, recognising to
this effect the essential importance of international
co-operation based on free consent.
2. The State Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing
the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger,
shall take, individually and through international
co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes,
which are needed.
Article 13 of the Constitution of China provides that:
The State protects the right of the citizens to own
lawfully earned income, savings, houses and other lawful
property ...
Despite the fact that China is a signatory of the ICESCR,
and despite the existence of protection within the Chinese
Law of the right to subsistence it is very clear from
the testimonies of the Tibetan people that this right
is violated by the policies of those who are supposed to
protect it.
"No levies have been imposed on the peasants and herders
in Tibet since 1950 and there is no compulsory state
purchase of grain there. The income that Tibetan peasants
and herders earn is entirely their own"
- Xinhua, January 23, 1999
One of the most striking features of the taxation policy of
China is its absolutely arbitrary nature. The existence of
a strict taxation policy in the context of a centralized
economy necessarily implies a transparent taxation policy
as well as the corresponding use of such revenue towards
social welfare spending. China's taxation system is
conspicuous by the absence of both these principles. There
are no official statistics available which give us detailed
figures or breakdown for tax collected at the county level
and below. It seems that the decentralisation of tax has
given greater powers to local authorities to collect tax,
but it is not clear how the levels or types of tax are set
or what proportion is remitted to the higher authorities.
It is interesting to contrast the claims made by the
Chinese authorities that the Tibetan economy has been
subsidised greatly to allow for growth, with their taxation
policies. In 1993 alone, the subsidies and financial aid
from the Chinese government amounted to 1,709 million yuan
(US$ 214 million), which represented 91.6 per cent of the
total income of the "TAR" government. But a lion's share
of these subsidies and financial aid goes towards meeting
chronic financial deficits accrued by the state owned
enterprises in industry, construction, transportation,
trade and grain management (that is purchase of grain from
Chinese provinces for sale at subsidised rates to Tibet's
urban residents) .
The effects of subsidies have been "to create a separate
economy, the visible or official economy which is based on
imports. Its workings can be summarised as follows: Central
government flow in, to assist in capital construction or in
setting up industries. During this process, subsidies are
used to pay for goods or services from developed areas. The
introduction of modern technology creates demand for
power, spare parts, materials and technicians and skilled
management who require particular food, housing, hospitals
and so on. Imports creates the desire for more imports."
The important issue then to be raised is: If there is
little or no correlation between the amount of money spent
in subsidies and the severe taxation policy, and if the
revenue from the taxes does not make a comparatively
significant contribution to the economy, then is the
taxation policy yet another means through which the
Chinese government disciplines the Tibetan polity into
submission? This is not a questions which can be answered
in an evidentiary manner but a closer look at the lives
of the Tibetan poor would clearly indicate it's efficacy
as a tool of oppression.
Some of the features of the tax system are best inferred by
the narratives of the Tibetan refugees who have supposedly
benefited from the economic developments in Tibet:
Kunchok Sangmo,
a 32 year old from Nagchu Prefecture arrived in exile
on November 16, 1998. She reports that as nomads
her family depended on their animals but the Chinese
imposed a restriction of only four animals per member of a
family. Her family had nine members and 62 animals in total
and hence had to pay an annual fine of 100 yuan per yak or
dri, 50 yuan per sheep or goat and 300 yuan per horse. If
any family failed to pay the fine then their animals were
either killed or sold. This, she said, greatly reduced the
possession of animals by nomads resulting in a threat to
their survival. She also said that there was an increase
in the number of Muslim settlers who bought these animals,
hides and "yartsa gunbhu" from them and in exchange sold
them basic commodities.
Topgyal,
a 32-year-old from Nagchu Prefecture reports that his
family, which had a nomadic subsistence, had to pay taxes
on the various products of their animals. Annually they had
to pay 100 to 150 gyama of meat, 10 to 15 gyama of butter,
1 gyama of "Ra-khul" for five goats, 30 to 40 Gyama for
"nor khul", 3 yuan "sok trel" for five goats, 3 yuan "sok
trel" per sheep and 24 to 60 yuan "sok trel" per horse. The
collection of "sok trel" taxes varied from year to year
and some times they had to pay to officials from other
counties taxes in the form of butter, yoghurt and meat but
these were not considered to be a part of the annual tax.
Jampa Dolma,
a 56 year old farmer from Shigatse Prefecture arrived in
exile on January 18, 1999. Her family of 8 members had 8
"ru-khel" of land and every year they faced a shortage of
cereals and their annual borrowing amounted to 100 "boe"
of cereals. Despite the fact that her family not produce
enough and hence had to borrow to sustain themselves, she
still had to pay 10 "boe" of cereals as tax annually. If
she failed to pay this tax a fine of 300 yuan would be
forcibly collected. This cereal tax was standardised
for all the farmers despite the fact that there was a
difference between the size of the families and the amount
that they produced annually.
Phuntsok,
a 43 years old man from Thingri County in Shigatse
Prefecture arrived in exile on November 22, 1999. He
reports that in 1997 the County authorities had announced
an "interest free" loan to farmers and nomads from the
Rongshar township and they called it the "no interest"
loan. As a result, many of the farmers and their families
borrowed money from the county office. However in November
1998 the county authorities suddenly announced that they
were collecting the interest which had accrued for the
loans taken in the year 1997 and forcibly collected 30
per cent interest on the "interest free" loans. A number
of the farmers had to sell their cattle and in some cases
even their roof sheets to repay the interest on the loan.
Dakpa Gyatso,
25 years old monk of Gartse Monastery arrived in exile on
April 23, 1999. His family are nomads in Amdo (Chinese:
Qinghai). He reports that in 1997 the Chinese authorities
had collected 1,000 yuan from every family in his village
for the expenses of demarcating grazing land and erecting
fences around it. He said that since 1995 the Tibetan
farmers had been protesting against the demarcation of
their agricultural land as it would affect the productivity
of their livestock; but the Chinese had exercised their
power to suppress these protests. Thus not only did the
Chinese demarcate his lands, adding further risk to their
livelihood but they also levied a tax upon the people for
their acts.
Khedrup,
21 years old monk of Golog Monastery in Qinghai province
arrived in exile on May 5, 1999. At the age of 15 he
entered a monastery and after two years he had gone back
to work with his parents who are semi nomadic. Reporting
on the taxes imposed on his family he says that even if
the nomads wanted to slaughter their animals they had to
take permission from the Chinese authorities as the animal
skins were collected by the authorities as tax. He also
reported that if the authorities discovered any slaughter
that had taken place without their permission then all
the meat and skin were confiscated from the nomads.
Sonam Ai-nyen,
26 years old monk of Khapshong Monastery in Sersher County,
Kandze, "TAP" arrived in exile on May 21, 1999. He reports
that when there is a failure to pay the taxes on time, the
authorities either fine them, call them for "compensatory
work" or confiscate their animals. Hence despite the
difficulties involved, the nomads ensure that they pay
the taxes on time to ensure that they are not called up
for compensatory work.
Gelek,
64 years old farmer from Kandze, "TAP" in Sichuan Province
arrived in exile on June 7, 1999. He reports that his
family had around 6 "mu" (1 mu = 67 square meters) of
land and that their annual crop production was around
4000 gyama of cereals. He paid 270 yuan as land tax in
1998, a human tax of 240 yuan for his four family members
were also paid. In addition, he had to pay tax on grass,
animals, the collection of "yartsa gunbhu." In total his
family had to pay 1,200 yuan to the Chinese authorities
and if they could not pay it on time then the authorities
charged double the amount in the next year.
Taklha Kyab,
29 years old teacher from Tsigorthang County, Tsolho
"TAP" arrived in exile on December 10, 1998. He reports
that in village areas, not only were there taxes on
their animals but they were also taxed for the road and
official instructions. He says that most of the nomads
in his village sell wool and animal skins but their trade
is declining and 80 per cent of them owe large amounts of
money to the county banks or the money lenders.
Tsering Yangchen,
an 18 year-old farmer from Meldrogungkar County in Lhasa
arrived in exile on June 6, 1999. She reports that in his
village the farmers have to pay taxes even when there is
very low crop production. When there is a crop shortage,
then the authorities accept other material things in place
of the cereals, which the farmers are supposed to pay as
annual tax.
Based on the testimonies of the Tibetan refugees it is
possible to discern a recurrent pattern, which downgrades
the right to subsistence and these can be summarized thus:
The taxation policy covers almost every aspect of the right
to subsist ranging from taxes on human life, animals,
grass, herbs, animal skins, education even if there is
no education provided. Thus while there exists a right to
subsist the means to it are severely impaired.
The system is a closed self-referential system, which
defines even the rules in cases of disobedience to the
law. These rules include the imposition of further taxes
and fines, ignoring the fact that, the rules were disobeyed
due to an inability to pay in the first place. These fines
are also coupled with the arbitrary power of imposing
punishments in the form of forced labour thereby giving
the authorities unlimited power.
The administrative structure created is arbitrary and both
the taxes and the fines depend on the authority collecting
them. There is a clear absence of any accountability or
provision for appeal against what are, in most cases,
harsh and unfair taxes.
While it is claimed by the Chinese government that the
taxes imposed in Tibet are far less compared to the ones
in China, the fact remains that most of these incentives
benefit the immigrant Chinese who have settled in cities
like Lhasa. It has been reported by a number of Tibetan
refugees that most of the trade in the cities are dominated
by Chinese traders and the Tibetans in the urban area are
largely unemployed. Even in cases where Tibetans attempt
to run a business in the cities they find it extremely
difficult to carry on the trade because of the severe
taxation system. If an aim of the Chinese government is
to encourage trade in Tibet in order to assist the Tibetans
then the system of taxation derives the opposite results.
Kelsang Gyaltsen,
a 33 year-old man who worked in the Peoples Congress in
Kandze, "TAP", Sichuan Province arrived in exile on May
12, 1999. He reports that a friend of his runs a shop in
Lhasa and he has to pay 700 to 1,000 yuan as a monthly
tax. He also has to pay 30 yuan as sales tax, 10 yuan for
cleaning tax, 20 yuan as "fire security" tax, 30 to 50 yuan
as town development tax, 80 to 100 yuan for "Lobso" tax,
20 yuan for security tax, 100 to 200 yuan as "rim ghok"
tax and 140 to 500 yuan for selling electronic goods.
Article 7 of the ICESCR states:
The State Parties to the present covenant recognize the
right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable
conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
a)
Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with :
i.
Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value
without distinction of any kind ...
Article 8 (3)(a) of the ICCPR states that:
No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory
labour.
It is evident from the accounts of Tibetan refugees that
these rights are being violated by the Chinese authorities
under the pretext of either being punished or terming
the labour as "voluntary labour". This semantic guise for
what is actually forced labour is also enshrined in the
constitution of China and Article 42 of the constitution
provides inter alia that "[t]he state encourages citizens
to take part in voluntary labour."
Jinpa,
a 26 year-old who was semi-nomadic from Rongshar township,
Tingri County, Shigatse Prefecture arrived in exile on
January 23, 1999. He reports in addition to an annual
payment of 5 gyama of butter, 285 gyama of fodder grass,
5 to 6 skins of dri or yaks to the Chinese authorities
he also had to go as forced labour to construct roads,
buildings and lumbering. This labour was done without any
payment and it was called "work as tax."
Tenzin Dargy,
a 26-year old from Phenpo Lhundup County arrived in exile
on March 3, 1999. He reports that when the Chinese were
building offices in his county every village had to send
labourers to work on these buildings. They had to carry
their on food and if they refused then they were fined
16 yuan a day. The work consisted of carrying stones from
sunrise to sunset with just two hours of break a day.
It is important to bear in mind that irrespective of
the terminology of the labour one needs to consider
the circumstances under which the labour is demanded,
the implications of refusing such "voluntary labour",
the conditions of work and the remuneration.
Article 12(1) of the ICESCR provides that:
The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize
the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental
health.
In keeping with the high rates of taxes imposed on the
people one would expect a corresponding duty imposed on
the state in providing for its citizens at least the bare
minimum required in terms of health and social welfare.
But from the testimonies of the Tibetan refugees it
would seem that the state has absolved itself of its
responsibility in the area of health and welfare.
Ngawang Dhondup,
24 years old farmer from Ngamta village in Zakhu township,
Kandze "TAP", arrived in exile on June 2, 1999. He reports
that his family had 6 "mu" of land allocated to three
members of his family. Their annual cereal production
was around 2000 gyama and they had to pay 6 to 8 gyama of
cereals per member of the family as tax. In his village
there are around 60 families with a population of around
500 and most of the villagers are farmers. Their village
has no motorable roads, they have no electricity, shops,
clinics or schools.
Norbu,
18 year-old man from Dhargay township, Meldogungkar County
in Lhasa, arrived in exile on March 15, 1999. He reported
that his family always faced food and cereal shortage and
had to buy additional cereals from the market. His house
has no electricity and there is only one clinic in his
town but the villagers had to pay "charges" even for small
medication.
In the urban context with the rise of prostitution in
Lhasa there is an increase in the threat of AIDS. The
existence of AIDS in Lhasa is not acknowledged officially
and its extent is not known. A lack of effective education
due to the closed nature of Lhasa society could impact on
the lives not only of Lhasa citizens but also on migrant
workers and Tibetans from areas including Kham and Amdo
who visit the city and are drawn into the sex trade.
Clarifying the nature of the right to housing provided
by Article 11(1) of the ICESCR a Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights has stated that "the right
should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive
sense that equates it with, for example merely having
a roof over one's head or view shelter exclusively as a
commodity. Rather it should be viewed as the right to live
somewhere in security, peace and dignity."
For a number of Tibetans this right even in it's most
basic sense of having shelter is not provided as most of
them do not have even the most basic housing available to
them. With respect to the other constituting elements of
the right, these are constantly violated by the policies
of the state like high taxation for basic amenities etc.
Tsering Gyatso,
a 17 years old student from Dzonge County, Ngaba
"TAP", Sichuan province, arrived in exile on April 30,
1999. Despite the fact that his family had to pay a number
of taxes they lived in a tent during the summer and in
the winter they made a small grass house to accommodate
their family. They don't have any electricity or any
other facilities.
One of the proclaimed tasks of the Chinese Communist Party
in Tibet in 1949 was to eradicate prostitution and other
"social evils". However the policy of urbanisation carried
out with great zeal has increased the population in Lhasa
seven fold.
It has been reported that "[a] conservative estimate of
the number of brothels where prostitutes can ply their
trade in Lhasa municipality is approximately 1,000 and
this is only taking into account those places whose sole
function is as a place where prostitutes can carry out
their services to their clients."
While it is reported that most prostitutes in Lhasa are
Chinese there is also a growing number of Tibetan girls
working in the business, some who are as young as 13 or
14 charging as little as 3 to 4 pence for sex. Most of
the Tibetan prostitutes are from rural areas in "TAR"
and also from Kham and Amdo. Many of them come to Lhasa
to work as domestic servants and when they can no longer
earn a living doing this they turn to prostitution.
A Tibetan monk who is now in exile reports that "[t]he
restaurants with Tibetan prostitutes started appearing in
around 1994 and 1995. The girls end up on the streets of
Lhasa because they don't have any work. They are mostly
from the countryside, especially from Kham. They mostly
come to Lhasa in groups, having set out from home with
their friends. Finding that they can't get any work,
they have no choice but to enter this business. They find
themselves incapable of begging because they are too self
conscious to do."
Most of the prostitutes in Lhasa service the Chinese
migrants especially the large army personnel. In Lhasa
they are not so concerned about their moral contribution to
society or their reputation in the community, nor are they
concerned about a general decline in social behaviour.
The rapid economic development of Lhasa has created an
environment in which prostitution and associated trades
such as pornography can thrive. Prostitutes, pimps and
brothel owners from outside Tibet who were originally
encouraged to settle into Lhasa by economic policies that
worked in their favour, are now effectively encouraged to
stay because a market has developed for their activities
in an unregulated environment.
More often than not economic growth takes place at a
certain social cost. The violation of the Tibetan peoples
right to subsistence indicates that there exist parallel
economies in Tibet. There is a divide between the developed
urban (Chinese dominated) economy and the underdeveloped
rural (Tibetan dominated) economy. Within the urban economy
there is a divide between the Chinese migrants and the
poorer Tibetans. The economic growth that has taken place
in the urban economy has crystallized as a result of the
pro-active role of the state in providing subsidies in
ensuring a certain form of planned development. The costs
of these subsidies are partially borne by the poor Tibetan
farmers and nomads.
While it has been a consistent claim of the Chinese
authorities that civil and political rights cannot be
realised without the realisation of economic and social
rights, its policies towards the Tibetan people reveals
a dual violation of both these sets of rights. Economic
policies of a state can result in regimes of inequality
and the various economies of exploitation in history have
revealed the necessity of underdeveloping the marginal
economy. In Tibet the social cost of the economic policies
of the Chinese government plays itself out as the violation
of the right to subsistence of the Tibetan people.
[ Contents ]
[ Recommendations ]
[ Next:
Enforced Disappearance ]
|
