The Next Generation: State of Education in Tibet Today (1997)
China
has a great tradition of education. Education was not only regarded as
a noble virtue but for a very long time the recruitment of the highly esteemed
government officials depended solely on the education of an applicant and
not on his birth. During the Cultural Revolution teachers and academics
were defiled as “intellectuals” and education was denigrated, yet
today again the People’s Republic of China (PRC) acknowledges the importance
of education for a child’s personal growth and for the development of the
society. Since 1976 the PRC has made great investments in the field of
education and the educational standard of the Chinese people has risen
considerably.
For
the Tibetan children who are the subject of this study, education has a
particular importance. Economically, Tibetans cannot compete with the estimated
7.5 million Chinese settlers in Tibet. Chinese authorities provide Chinese
with substantial financial and social benefits to encourage them to settle
in Tibet, including high wages, long holidays, housing, health services
and educational opportunities. The successful encouragement of Chinese
immigrants means that today the Tibetan population represents a minority
in their own country.
The
implications of China’s population transfer policy for Tibet are profound.
Tibetans’ strong religious traditions are in danger of being totally suppressed
by a communist government which regards religion as harmful, suspects Tibetan
Buddhists of “splitting the motherland” and considers the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s
religious and secular leader, a “criminal”. As Tibetans become more and
more marginalised their ancient and unique culture is threatened with extinction
as gradually their language, their history and their folk customs are superimposed
with those of Chinese.
For
these reasons, Tibetan children’s right to education and the protection
of their minority rights plays a decisive role in Tibet’s future. Education
must not only be available to Tibetan children, it must also satisfy their
right to receive instruction on Tibet-related subjects and in Tibetan language.
Tibet
has been illegally occupied by China since 1949 and is currently administered
by the authorities of the PRC. By signing the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the PRC is bound to provide the Tibetan
children with an education which is consistent with the obligations of
the CRC.
This
report focuses on, but does not confine itself to, the rights embodied
in articles 28 and 29 of the CRC - the specific rights to education. It
became apparent in the course of researching education in Tibet that other
rights covered in the CRC were also being violated. These rights have also
therefore been referred to in this report as they were considered to be
part of a broader concept of “education”, the violation of which was being
implemented via the educational system.
The
principal part of this report is based on testimonial gathered in interviews
conducted in Spring 1997 with 50 Tibetan children who had fled from Tibet
in the previous two or three years and are now living in northern India.
The children interviewed were not pre-chosen in any way and all were asked
the same set of questions (see Appendix II). Selected interviews have been
reproduced in full in Appendix III, but for reasons of security the names
of all children interviewed have been withheld. Several factors mean that
our study was necessarily limited: the limited number of children interviewed,
the impossibility of accessing school children in Tibet, the young age
of the interviewees and their potential subjectivity.
Nonetheless,
the testimonial is largely supported by reports compiled by other sources
on the poor state of education in Tibet. Moreover, the fact that 96% of
the children interviewed had fled Tibet for reasons of education, generally
under the most hazardous conditions and at great financial and personal
cost to their family, indicates Tibetans’ enormous dissatisfaction with
the manner in which their children are being educated. Interestingly too,
children from many different parts of Tibet reported a largely similar
educational situation and the violations referred to appeared to be common
and widespread.
(Back
to Contents)
A.
THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
Education
is a precondition for the exercise of human rights. The enjoyment of many
civil and political human rights, such as the freedom of information and
expression, require a minimum level of education which includes literacy.
Similarly, many economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right
to choose work, to receive equal pay for equal work and to have equal access
to public representation, can only be exercised in a meaningful way once
a basic education has been achieved. The right to education can be characterised
as an ‘empowerment right’ which provides the individual with control over
his or her life and the power to interact meaningfully in his or her community.
At
the international level the right to education has been recognised by several
universal and regional instruments. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights1 (UDHR) provides the foundation for the right to education. Article
26 of the UDHR states:
1.
Everyone has the right to education. Education should be free, at least
in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be
compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be equally available
and higher education shall be accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality
and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations,
racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United
Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be
given to their children
The
right to education finds more specific expression in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)2 and in the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)3.
Article
18(4) of the ICCPR and article 13(3) of the ICESCR recognise the fundamental
role of parents in directing their children’s education. States Parties
undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and legal guardians
“to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity
with their own convictions”.
Article
13 of the ICESCR recognises the right of everyone to education, which “shall
be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense
of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms.” Education “shall enable all persons to participate effectively
in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among
all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the
activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.” The full
realisation of this right includes access to primary, secondary and tertiary
levels of education.
Article
2(1) of the ICESCR creates obligations for States Parties to fulfil their
duty by means of positive action: each party undertakes to take steps “to
the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively
the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant.”
While
the People’s Republic of China has not yet signed or ratified either the
ICCPR or the ICESCR4 and are therefore not legally bound by their provisions,
the conventions nevertheless represent internationally accepted standards
with moral force.
B.
THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
On
November 20, 1989, the international community adopted the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). This Convention was the first
international legal instrument to lay down guarantees for the human rights
of the child and it is today’s primary source on the human rights
of the child.
The
People’s Republic of China (PRC) signed the CRC on August 29, 1990. On
December 29, 1991, the PRC ratified the CRC, which formally took effect
in China on April 1, 1992.5 In 1994, in the initial report of the
PRC on the CRC, the PRC described itself as “a consistent respecter and
defender of children’s rights”. 6
The
CRC makes States Parties accountable for their actions towards children
and calls on states to create the conditions in which children may take
an active and creative part in the social and political life of their countries.
The CRC explicitly codifies the child’s right to education in articles
28 and 29.
Article
28 emphasises the child’s right to education on the basis of equal opportunity,
and the State’s duty to ensure that at least primary education is made
free and compulsory for every child. The access to secondary and higher
education should likewise be provided on the basis of equal opportunity.
Article 28 also states that the administration of school discipline is
to reflect the child’s human dignity and emphasises the need for international
co-operation to ensure this right.
Article
29 is an affirmation of the aims of education. The State recognises that
education should be directed at developing a child’s personality and talents,
preparing the child for active life as an adult, fostering respect for
basic human rights and developing respect for the child’s own cultural
and national values and those of others.
Other
provisions of the CRC which must be considered in the context of education
are the freedom of thought and religion (article 14(1)), the freedom of
expression (article 13 (1)), the principle of non-discrimination (article
2 (1)) and the protection of minority rights (article 30).
(Back
to Contents)
General
background to the state of education in Tibet
A.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The use of schooling as a tool to spread Communist ideology
and increase China’s control in Tibet is not a recent ploy. In
independent Tibet over 6000 monasteries and nunneries served as
Tibet’s educational institutes in addition to lay schools. From
1950 onwards, the Chinese authorities opened
schools in various parts of Tibet, recruiting students
only from aristocratic families or linked to prominent members of
the Tibetan government. Chinese authorities later recruited
some bright children of poor families into the Communist party
and they were sent to China for further studies. Later
many of them would return as teachers, engineers, and the Communist
leaders of Tibet.
As
was the case in other parts of China, the spread
of Communist ideology continued throughout the 1950s
and 1960s and it became a major goal to send Tibetan children to
study in China. In the eastern part of Tibet especially, many parents
were forced to send their children, including infants, to China for further
studies. At the same time, some went to China voluntarily and were
kept in special schools which enjoyed good facilities. Education,
however, remained an indoctrination into Communist ideology,
and often included curriculum that taught that the Tibetan
tradition was backward.
During
the Cultural Revolution, the Marxist-Leninist-Mao Tse Tung ideology discouraged
the use of minority languages and tried to suppress any sense of minority
consciousness. From 1966 Tibetan culture, tradition and society were labeled
as “backward” and “blind faith” and Tibetan language, literature, arts
and history were denigrated or ignored. Some time in the 1960s monk and
nun teachers as well as qualified lay Tibetan teachers were ordered to
leave their teaching jobs.
Education
since the early 1980s took a slightly different direction but, while Communist
zeal dimmed somewhat, the fundamentals of teaching remained the same.
The
relaxation of travel conditions in 1984 made escapes from Tibet possible
for the first time since the 1950s. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile estimates
that in the ten years since 1984 between 6000 to 9000 Tibetan children
and young adults have fled Tibet in order to seek educational opportunities
in India and Nepal. About 5000 are reported to have joined monasteries
and nunneries and around 4000 have joined lay schools in exile.
In
1996, of the 2000 Tibetans who arrived in Nepal on their way to seek exile
India, approximately 45 percent were children and nearly 80 percent of
these 500 or more children were sent unaccompanied by their parents in
the hope that they would receive education in exile. 7 Some children do
not even reach freedom. In December/January 1997 two young children died
from illness and hypothermia attempting to reach Nepal and others have
been robbed, beaten or deported by the Nepalese authorities 8.
B.
STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK
Primary
level education in Tibet is the six-year lobchung. There are two types
of lobchung: the mangtsug and zhungtsug schools. The mangtsug schools are
set up by local people at the village level and receive no financial and
facilitative support of any kind from the Chinese government. As a result
the mangtsug schools are seriously lacking in resources and teaching staff
and it is rare for a mangtsug student to complete the full six years and
even more improbable that a mangtsug student will be able to proceed on
to the middle school level.
Zhungtsug
schools are primary schools established by the Chinese government. They
are found in the Tibetan cities and county headquarter towns and benefit
an urban population which consists primarily of Chinese settlers. While
a transfer from mangtsug to zhungtsug school is, theoretically, possible
on the basis of a public examination, in reality it is said to rely heavily
on personal contacts.
Those
students who complete lobchung schooling then have a chance to enter a
lobdring - a six-year middle school. The lobdring is divided into lower
middle school and higher middle school, each of three years duration, and
middle school students must choose to follow either a science or arts stream.
As with the case of the government-run zhungtsug, the lobdring are found
in the large urban areas. Occasionally middle school branches can be found
in townships but in some cases two or more counties have just one middle
school between them.
After
completing the lower middle school, students choose between continuing
their studies or commencing vocational training. Most Tibetans are likely
to choose the latter as there is hope of earlier employment and earnings
for their families while, on the other side, their chance of being admitted
to higher education is slim given the high number of Chinese children competing
for the positions.
While
the majority of the lobchung students are Tibetan, at the level of middle
school there is a disproportionate increase in the number of Chinese students.
This is due to the high drop-out rate of Tibetan students after they
have completed their sixth year of lobchung and to the fact that those
Tibetans scoring top marks for their final lobchung exams are sent to China
for further study. Such Tibetan students, after successfully completing
their lower middle school in China, are not given seats to go to higher
middle school and can only continue with vocational training.
At
the level of higher middle school there is an even greater jump in the
number of Chinese students and classes. This results from a combination
of factors: the increasingly high drop-out for Tibetan students; the choice
of the majority of Tibetans who complete lower middle school to undertake
vocational training; and, most significantly, the large number of Chinese
students from China who manage to secure registration in Tibet through
their personal connections. These students are attracted to Tibet because
they have failed to secure a seat in a higher middle school in China or
to boost their chance to gain a university seat in Tibet where the entrance
standard is considerably lower than in China.
Admission
to university is through a common entrance examination but the medium of
examination is in Chinese for almost all courses.9 Chinese school
graduates from Tibet are able to secure the majority of seats in Tibet’s
universities and those universities in China intended for those who have
finished schooling in Tibet. Increasingly, Chinese students who fail to
gain entrance to a university in China go to Tibet to re-sit their examination.
It
was reported that in 1979 only 60 of the 600 “TAR” students pursuing university
education in Tibet and China were Tibetan; in 1984 of the 1,984 students
enrolled in Tibet’s three big schools, only 666 were Tibetan and, in the
same year, only 60 to 70 of the 250 students sent to universities in China
were Tibetan.10
C.
CHINA’S “LIBERATION” OF TIBET’S SCHOOLS
The
Chinese government claims to have ‘liberated’ the old system of Tibet and
to have replaced it with a modern system. In 1992, China’s State Council
issued “Tibet - Its Ownership and Human Rights Situation”, published as
a White Paper. The White Paper claims that, “in the last four decades
and more in Tibet, 18,000 students have graduated from universities and
colleges; 510,000 from primary and secondary schools, and more than
15,000 cadres were trained in rotation.”
It
was admitted in a Chinese official publication in 1986 that; “There are
only 58 middle-level schools [in the “TAR”] and out of them only 13 are
real middle schools. Altogether, there are 2450 primary schools in Tibet.
Out of them only 451 are funded by the government ... Only 45 percent of
the children of school-going age go to primary schools. From them, 10.6
percent manage to graduate to the lower-middle school. In other words,
55 percent of the children do not even get primary-level education.”
The
Chinese also argue that “the children and farmers and herdsmen enjoy free
boarding and education.”12 This does not seem to be true in large areas
inhabited by farmers and herdsmen, which constitute 95% of the total population
of Tibet. Chinese sources admit; “At present 90 percent of farmers and
herders do not receive lower middle level education”.13
Despite
repeated claims by China that they provide free education to Tibetan children
in Tibet, Document No. 12 (“Party Affairs Communication, July 1993”) of
the “TAR” Party Committee - an internal party document - states that schools
in Lhasa were collecting 13 different kinds of fees from students and that
six of these were not authorised by law. These fees do not take into account
other expenses borne by Tibetan students such as classroom furniture and
teachers’ gifts.
If
school numbers alone are to be taken as a measure, the access to education
has indeed increased dramatically in Tibet today. In its Written Replies
to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 1996, the Chinese government
announced that, as at the end of 1995, Tibet had 103 secondary vocational
schools, 650 complete primary schools and 3300 lower primary schools in
rural areas. Secondary school enrolment in Tibet was reported as 33,000
and 258,650 students were enrolled in primary schools, bringing the total
number of enrolments in Tibet to a reported 70 percent of school age children.14
Yet
a different picture emerges when these figures are analysed closely. Only
451 of 2451 schools, or 25%, were financed by the government in 1986.15
The rest were lobchung or community-run schools which, despite claims of
the Chinese government that “special funds are allocated to improve local
school facilities” 16, face critical financial shortages. As reported in
an official Chinese publication: “Over 2000 of these [primary] schools
are funded by the Government. These schools do not have a sound foundation
and are not properly equipped. The level of education is either completely
nil or extremely low.” 17
This
lack of stable financial resources as well as infrastructure
is reflected in the low literacy rate
of Tibet, despite the claims of the Chinese government that marked
improvements have been made in this field. Some sources have given figures
of 73 percent or 78.3 percent illiteracy in Tibet18, contrasting with China
where a rate of 15.8% has been given19. A 1986 Chinese government publication
estimated the illiteracy rate in Tibet at 44.43 percent of the Tibetan
population against more than 90% before the “peaceful
liberation” of Tibet by China in the early 1950’s20 and in
1996 China declared that this figure had dropped to 40%21.
A
claim of 60 percent literacy in Tibet is difficult to maintain when it
is considered that, by 1986, 55 percent of the children were not receiving
a primary-level education22 . China in general has
a 98.5% enrollment rate of primary school-age children23,
whereas Tibet lags behind with only 64% enrolment rate24.
A
considerable proportion of the education allocation of the “TAR” Government
goes to fund those schools in China where each year Tibet’s most promising
primary school graduates are sent. These include the middle schools in
the Chinese cities of Shanghai (Hui Nationality Middle School), Lingtong
(Lingtong County Middle School, Shanxi), Beijing (Nationalities Middle
School) and Chengdu (Chengdu Nationalities Middle School, Sichuan), and
the Lanzhou Meteorological Institute in Gansu province. All school
facilities including buildings, equipment, food, clothing and lodging are
paid for by the “TAR” Government.
In
addition, it is believed that between thirty and fifty percent of the total
educational spending of the “TAR” goes to the “Institute for Nationalities”
located in the Xianyang locality of the Chinese city of Xian, capital of
Shanxi Province25. This “Tibet University” reportedly offers the best facilities
among all the schools meant for Tibetans, but it is located in China and
most of its students are Chinese who completed their schooling in Tibet.
Educational
outlay in Tibet also includes expenditure on separate schools and
facilities for the large number of Chinese students studying in
Tibet and salaries and facilities to the incoming Chinese teachers and
other educational staff.
(Back
to Contents)
Violations concerning access to education
A.
DENIAL OF ANY EDUCATION
Article
28 of the CRC:
1.
States Parties recognise the right of the child to education, and with
a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal
opportunity, they shall, in particular:
a)
make primary education compulsory and available free to all; 26
Education
should allow each member of a given society to participate equally and
effectively in the social, economic and political life of his or her society.
This fact is applicable throughout the world in every kind of society,
irrespective of political system or ideology. The PRC acknowledges in its
Constitution that “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the
duty as well as the right to receive education”27 and the Compulsory Education
Act claims that; “[t]he State, community, schools and families shall, in
accordance with the law, safeguard the right of the children and adolescents
to compulsory education appropriate to their age.”28
The
right of the child to education, as laid down in the CRC, implies that
primary education is compulsory for every child living in the territory
of States Parties to the Convention. The principle of compulsory education
implies that it is in the child’s best interests that he or she is required
to receive education up to that minimum level. Hence States Parties have
the obligation to prevent the situation in which a child does not attend
any primary schooling.
Interviews
conducted with Tibetan children revealed that in all regions of Tibet children
are refused the right to education. China itself acknowledges that 30 per
cent of children in Tibet receive no education at all (independent organisations
put this figure at 40 per cent29) while the corresponding figure for Chinese
children only reaches 1.5 per cent.30
One
reason given by the Chinese authorities for this disparity is the remoteness
of some Tibetan regions, however the children interviewed revealed that
this was not the sole cause. The main factor preventing Tibetan children
from attending any school was an economic one; many children did in fact
live near a school, but the school fees charged by the authorities were
so prohibitively high that the parents could simply not afford to send
their children to school. There were also cases where parents could initially
afford the school fees but later had to take their children out of school
as they were no longer able to afford the required fees. This is a clear
violation of the Convention’s requirement that primary education should
be free and accessible for every child.
“The
reason for the fact that no one of our family went to school was that the
school fees were too high for my parents. The lobchung (primary school)
in our village cost 200 yuan a month. My parents could have never afforded
that.” (A 20)
“At
school the teachers demanded 50 yuan a month to sit on a chair, 50 yuan
to have a table and another 25 yuan for the books. My father was a lorry
driver for the Chinese government. He received only 50 yuan a month. For
this money we had to buy a sack of tsampa (roasted barley) to have some
food. So my parents could not afford to send me to school.” (A 23)
“My
parents did not send me to school, because it was too expensive for them.
The school fees for Tibetan children were about 500 yuan a month. Chinese
children did not have to pay anything.” (A 21)
“There
was a school in the village, but no one from my family [10 children] could
go there. It was simply too expensive for my parents to pay 200 yuan
per month per child. My whole family has never had any education at all.”
(A21)
“My
parents could not pay the school fees for me but the authorities did not
make school free for me. I had friends who went to school. I would have
liked to go to school.” (A23)
In
its Written Replies to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the PRC
claims that it aims to boost primary education in Tibet.31 However in some
cases it is the Chinese school authorities themselves who knowingly accept
that Tibetans are not able to attend primary school due to monetary reasons:
“About
once a month the Chinese soldiers came to our village for inspection. In
our village there were about 20 children of whom two went to school. The
rest of us worked on the fields or looked after the cattle all day. As
part of their inspection the Chinese took some animals away and collected
money from the village. They saw us children working in the fields all
day. They have never told us that we should have gone to school.” (A19)
“When
I was eight years old, my mother decided that it was time for me to go
to school. My admission to enter school was refused by the Chinese authorities.
They said I could not go to school because my family had no relationships
with the Chinese government. What they meant was that no one from my family
worked for the Chinese government. The Chinese told us that I could only
enter the primary school if we paid an enormously high entrance fee of
about 10,000 yuan [equivalent to approximately US $ 1250]. Of course my
family could not afford that. So I could not go to school.” (A28)
“I
lived in a village with two hundred Tibetan families and no Chinese. There
was no school in our village, not even a primary school. The next school
was a whole day’s walk away. It was a boarding school but this school was
very expensive. In my family - I had five brothers and two sisters - no
one ever went to school. Of the 10 children in the village only two went
to school. The Chinese authorities never did anything to change the situation
in our village.” (A26)
In
the same Written Replies the PRC claims that it is changing the situation
by building many new primary schools in Tibet. While this action is generally
to be welcomed it does not necessarily mean that the schooling situation
for Tibetan children is improving. With the massive, state-sponsored influx
of Chinese, these new settlers require new schools. These newly built schools
with their modern facilities are largely withheld from Tibetan children.
B.
DENIAL OF FREE PRIMARY EDUCATION
Prior
to the 20th century education was a privilege of the rich. Today it is
commonly recognised in international conventions and national constitutions
that free primary education is of benefit to all members of the society.
Everyone should at least be able to read, to write and to calculate and
every member of a society should have the same chance to take a responsible
part in his or her society. Article 28(1) of the CRC states:
States
Parties recognise the right of the child to education, and with a view
to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity,
they shall, in particular:
a)
make primary education compulsory and available free to all;
The
principle of free primary education applies particularly to countries like
China where there is a wide range of income. Primary education should be
available to all, regardless of their personal economic situation, and
China itself acknowledges in national legislation that compulsory education
(in which the State includes education at the primary and the junior middle
school level) shall be free of tuition fees.32
For
Tibetans, free education has an even greater importance as they tend to
be economically marginalised in their country. The average income of Tibetans
in Tibet is much lower than that of the Chinese settlers and thus the imposition
of school fees in Tibet has a far greater negative impact on Tibetans there
.
The
testimonies revealed that the requirement to provide free compulsory education
to all is being violated throughout Tibet. Only 17 percent of the
interviewed students who had received primary education in Tibet were not
required to pay any school fees to the Chinese authorities. Thus, contrary
to the PRC’s claim that compulsory education is free of charge and that
only “miscellaneous expenses are payable”33, 83 percent of the interviewed
students did in fact have to pay school fees.
Primary
school fees paid varied from between 20 to over 6000 yuan a year. In 31
percent of the interviewed cases, students had to pay more than 500 yuan
in primary school fees a year.
Chinese
authorities state that the average per capita yearly income in 1992 in
rural areas was only 784 yuan.34 Given that Tibet is undoubtedly a poor
rural area, the levied school fees are disturbingly high. As stated, in
some cases high school fees meant that parents could not afford to send
their children to chool at all.
“My
parents had to pay 500 yuan as a general entrance fee for my lobchung
school. They also had to pay 50 yuan each year and then every day
that I did not come to school they had to pay an additional 50 yuan.” (A
12)
Not
only did most of the Tibetan school children have to pay very high school
fees, it appears that at the same time the Chinese students (who visited
the same school in the same grade) had to pay little or no school fees.
“We
had to pay much higher fees than the Chinese. While we had to pay 70 yuan
for 6 months, the Chinese students only had to pay 20 yuan.” (A 13)
“The
school fees for Tibetan children were about 500 yuan a month. Chinese children
did not have to pay anything.” (A 21)
“My
parents had to pay 300 yuan per month for my school fees while the Chinese
parents did not have to pay any school fees. Also the Chinese students
received their food from the school, while my parents had to bring or give
me the food so that I could eat during the school week.” (A 10)
Some
children were able to attend school, despite the economic hurdles of tuition
fees, only to have to pay extra money in bribes and other miscellaneous
fees to their school teacher.
China
has reported that the “miscellaneous expenses” payable are “usually quite
low for the compulsory education” and are charged mainly to cover the cost
of teaching materials”. China quotes a figure of 14 to 25 yuan as the amount
of miscellaneous expenses paid by an average student and declares that
where, in poor areas, households find it hard to cover the miscellaneous
expenses themselves, “local governments have all adopted a policy of waiving
such expenses for them and offering student grants for children from families
facing extreme financial difficulties.”35
None
of the Tibetan children interviewed reported any such waiving or grants.
Thirty-nine percent of the interviewed students who had attended school
in Tibet reported that they had to pay bribes to their teachers or the
authorities:
“My
parents regularly gave bed sheets, food and snacks to the teachers, so
that the teachers would be pleased. I do not know what would have happened
if my parents would not have given these presents to the teachers.” (A
11)
“I
had to pay for my books and food, for my table and chair, and for the brooms
in the classroom ... I also had to pay bribes to my teachers. I gave them
cards, flowers, meat and butter and for the teachers’ holiday we had to
pay 90 yuan each. I had to buy my own school uniform.” (A42)
“Every
year I had to pay 300 yuan school fees and an additional 15 yuan for each
month. If there was a broken window, or a new broom for the classroom was
needed, the teachers collected money from the Tibetan students to pay for
this. The Chinese students never had to pay anything. My father is dead
and my mother was a beggar, so we never had a lot of money. When there
was no money to pay the amounts the teacher demanded, I was afraid that
the Chinese teacher would beat me up. So I would go to town and steal the
money I needed.” (A6)
“At
Chinese festival days we had to bring clothes, food and money for the Chinese
students. The Chinese students did not have to bring anything.” (A2)
“Every
month we had to give presents to the teachers: one pound of butter, one
pound of cheese and meat. If the parents did not provide these things the
teacher was much stricter with the child.” (A18)
“The
school fee was 150 yuan a year but we also had to give the teachers presents.
Sometimes my mother went to school and gave the teachers a whole cartoon
of some alcohol. The teachers could not force us to give these presents,
but if we did not give them then the teacher would target us and we would
be made to be unhappy in school.” (A27)
C.
ACCESS TO SECONDARY EDUCATION
Education
is one of the measurements of a society’s economic and social success.
Conversely, as a society develops further and further, educational requirements
similarly escalate. The CRC makes this link by allowing the development
of secondary education to be progressively established.
Art.
28(1): States Parties recognise the right of the child to education, and
with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal
opportunity, they shall, in particular:
b)
encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including
general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to
every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of
free education and offering financial assistance in case of need. 36
The
CRC clearly stipulates that secondary education should be available to
every child on the basis of equal opportunity. The testimonials illustrate
that this is not the case in Tibet. The first inequality is based on economic
factors as, based on the children’s accounts, secondary education is extremely
expensive in Tibet. This in itself does not represent a violation of the
CRC, since it requires only that States Parties provide free secondary
education progressively. However, since the Tibetan population in Tibet
has a much lower average income than the Chinese population, school fees
place a far higher burden on a Tibetan family than a Chinese family. None
of the children referred to any case whereby a Tibetan received financial
assistance from the PRC.
The
second widespread inequality with regard to the right to secondary education
is represented by the middle school (lobdring) entry examination. These
entry examinations have the ostensible purpose of selecting students with
the greatest academic capacity, yet the students report that they are used
in Tibet to bar Tibetans from entering middle schools and to enrich the
school officials.
The
primary barrier to passing the examination is language. Interviewees stated
that most of the entrance examinations are held completely or mostly in
Chinese language. This means that Tibetans, for whom the Chinese is a foreign
language, have less chance of achieving a satisfactory result than their
Chinese peers.
Even
if a Tibetan student has a sufficient command of the Chinese language and
passes the entrance examination, this does not mean that he or she will
necessarily be accepted at the school. Many students reported that it was
not the academic capacity which decided whether he or she would attend
a middle school but rather the amount of bribes the parents were willing
and able to pay. In many cases it was not the brightest students who were
admitted to the middle schools but those who paid the most money. This
violates the right of admission on the basis of equal opportunity by discriminating
mainly against the Tibetan children whose average family income is much
lower than that of Chinese in Tibet.
“Since
I did not speak any Chinese, I could not visit a lobdring middle school.
I would have never passed the entry examination which was in Chinese.”
(A6)
“After
my primary school I probably would not have been admitted to a middle school
because my Chinese was not good enough. In order to pass the entrance exam
for the middle school one has to be very good in Chinese.” (A25)
“The
chances for the Chinese students to enter a good middle school were better
[than for Tibetans]. For them the Chinese language is their mother tongue;
for the Tibetans the Chinese language is a second language.” (A43)
“The
entry exams for the lobdring were made by Chinese for Chinese. If Tibetans
wanted to get into the lobdring they had to bribe the teachers. Only the
children of Tibetans working for the Chinese government did not have to
pay any bribes.” (A3)
“In
order to be admitted to the lobdring I had to pay a lot of bribes. First
I had to bring presents for the head of the school to pass the entry
examination. Later I had to bring presents to the teachers. These were
all expensive presents: alcohol, spirits, fruit, perfume and that sort
of thing.” (A 2)
“To
enter the lobdring middle school we had to pass entry exams. Everybody
who took this exam had to write his name in pencil at the top of the exam
sheet. If there was a brilliant Tibetan student, the Chinese teacher would
erase the Tibetan name and put a Chinese name instead. When you paid bribes,
you were sure to pass the exams, no matter how good you were.” (A9)
“I
attended a lobdring middle school for one year. In order to be accepted
at my lobdring school I had to pass an entrance exam in Chinese, Tibetan
and maths. I felt that the chances for the Chinese students to be accepted
at my lobdring were much better because the parents of the Chinese students
paid bribes to the teachers in order to pass the exam. So it was not the
result of the exam that counted but the amount of money paid by Chinese
parents to specific teachers. In the case where a Chinese student had an
exam result which was not as good as that of a Tibetan student, the Chinese
student was nonetheless placed above the Tibetan.” (A10)
“I
felt that the chances for Chinese students to attend a lobdring were higher
than for the Tibetans. The Chinese students were often given better marks.
I would say that the Chinese had perhaps a 80% chance to enter a lobdring
while the chance of the Tibetans was only 20%.” (A2)
The
use of guanxi (connections) to get children admitted in Tibetan schools
means that many low-achieving students from China are able in this way
to enrol, unofficially, in the final year of Tibetan secondary
schools in order to pass the secondary school graduation examination
which is much lower in Tibet than in China.
These
Chinese students consequently improve their chances of getting a
place at university (where again the entrance examination is
far less difficult than for Chinese universities) or a good job in urban
areas. This influx of poor standard secondary school students further
lowers the academic levels of secondary education in Tibet in addition
to draining scarce resources.
D.
ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION
The
Committee on the Rights of the Child has acknowledged the importance of
higher education access for Tibetan children, recommending that the PRC
“ensure their [the Tibetan students] access to higher education on an equal
footing.” 37 The CRC states:
Art.
28(1): States Parties recognise the right of the child to education, and
with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal
opportunity, they shall, in particular:
c)
make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every
appropriate means; 38
As
this report focuses on children (ie. under the age of 18 years), only one
testimony relating to higher education was collected from the students
interviewed:
“Problems
arose as I wanted to attend further education. The Chinese authorities
did not allow me to participate in the entrance exam for a school in Lhasa.
They told me that I could not do my entrance exam because my parents were
Tibetan nomads and they did not have a ration card.39 I felt that they
treated me unfairly because many Chinese students who had lower marks
than
mine were able to go on with their studies. They were allowed to do the
entrance exam because they had Chinese relatives in school or because their
parents were rich and paid bribes to the school. The marks did not matter
for further studies; it was the money and the connections that counted.”
(A34)
It
is clear from other reports that even at the level of tertiary education
Tibetan language is being eliminated. Sources in Lhasa have reported a
recent decision that the Tibetan Language Department of the University
of Tibet in Lhasa will not take any new students for the academic year
of 1997-98.39 The reason given by the university authorities is that the
syllabus is being changed and the new books required have not yet been
compiled. This decision follows policy changes announced by Chinese authorities
in December 1996 that the university’s History of Tibet course, taught
by the Tibetan Language Department, would henceforth be taught in Chinese
rather than Tibetan.41
A
long-standing requirement that all students pass an entrance examination
in Tibetan is also said to have been dropped this year and all except one
of the 17 university courses are now taught in Chinese.42 These new policies
come despite the fact that 80 percent of students and many of the teachers
at the University of Tibet are Tibetan. They ignore both the stipulation
included in the 1987 legislation that “after the year 2000” most lectures
in tertiary institutions should “gradually” be in Tibetan, and one of the
reasons listed for the founding of the University - “the maintenance and
development of Tibetan culture and language”.
The
use of guanxi continues in the four modern universities in Tibet
(Tibet University, the Institute of Nationalities, the Agriculture
and Animal Husbandry College and the Tibetan Medical College). While these
institutions were established to educate Tibetans, all except the Tibetan
Medical Institute have a disproportionate representation of Chinese in
the student body.
Systematic
discrimination in favour of Chinese students is also evident in the division
of courses. In Tibet University, modern subjects such as science
courses are allocated 60% of seats although there are only 40%
of the total applicants opting for the science course.43 Such
courses are typically preferred by the Chinese students while arts or humanities
are predominantly left for Tibetans.
(Back
to Contents)
Violations concerning form of education
A.
CHINESE AS THE TEACHING LANGUAGE
Teaching
is a form of communication. It is the teacher’s task to communicate a certain
amount of given information to the student and the student is only capable
of being educated if she or he understands the language the teacher is
speaking.
In
most of the government-sponsored primary schools in Tibet the main teaching
language is Chinese, whereas in primary schools sponsored by the local
community the teaching language is mostly Tibetan. Of the survey group,
53 percent of the students who attended a primary school were taught in
Chinese.
The
situation is of greater concern at the middle school level. The vast majority
of middle schools in Tibet use Chinese as their main teaching language.
The exceptions are 40 ‘special schools’ in Amdo (renamed by China as Qinghai)
using Tibetan as their main mode of teaching. In the “TAR”, there are few
middle schools using Tibetan as their main teaching language. Of the interviewed
students who had attended a middle school in Tibet, only 17 % attended
a middle school where the main teaching language was Tibetan.
Tibetan
and Chinese are two totally different languages based on different systems
of writing. Tibetan, developed in the 7th century from Sanskrit is based
on an alphabetical system of scripture. In Chinese, a much older language,
each word is instead represented by a particular character. Chinese is
consequently very much a foreign language for Tibetan students.
Tibetan
children generally do not speak any Chinese when they commence schooling.
They experience many problems in following lessons and sitting exams in
Chinese and are thereby placed at a constant disadvantage relative to the
Chinese students. This problem is particularly striking at middle schools
where the Tibetan students are shown to fall rapidly behind the Chinese
students.
China’s
National Autonomy Law provides that even the curriculum content of schooling
for minorities can be selected by the minority. Moreover, the Nationality
Minority Law states that whenever the majority of students in a particular
school constitute minority nationalities, then one “ought to use
textbooks in the relevant minority language and the minority language as
the medium of instruction.”
The
reality is something different in Tibet. School curricula is uniform throughout
Chinese schools and Tibetans have no freedom to select the subjects or
contents taught. Chinese is used as the medium of instruction with the
present exception of primary schools and selected “special” secondary schools.
As
a result of language disadvantages, Tibetan students are often placed together
into “lower stream” classes and assigned inferior facilities and less qualified
teachers. This, in turn, contributes to the high failure rate of the Tibetan
students.
It
was reported in 1986 that in Middle School No. 1 of Lhasa, of a total
of 1,451 students, of which 933 are Tibetans, 387 Tibetans did not
study any Tibetan. Of the 111 teachers, only thirty are Tibetan and a mere
seven actually teach Tibetan. In Lhasa’s Primary School No.1, there were
1000 Tibetans and 900 Chinese. Two hundred Tibetans did not learn Tibetan
and of the 136 teachers only 18 teach Tibetan.44
International
law not only recognises the importance of language as a means of education,
but also acknowledges that language can be a principal method by which
people express their cultural identities. Language is also one of the minority
rights explicitly recognised in article 27 of the ICCPR. By refusing to
educate the Tibetan students in their mother tongue the Chinese authorities
are violating both the educational and cultural rights of the children.
“My
primary school was a Chinese government school. The school had 200 Tibetan
students and 37 teachers of whom 22 were Chinese. I received lessons in
Tibetan, maths and Chinese. The main teaching language in school was Chinese.
I did not understand the Chinese language well enough so I had to ask the
teacher again and again. If most of the Tibetans did not understand his
explanation in Chinese he used to scold us, calling us ‘dirty Tibetans’
or ‘stupid Tibetans’ because we did not understand Chinese. “ (A43)
“I
was able to follow the lessons in Chinese, but my knowledge of Chinese
was not good enough to pass all the exams in Chinese. As a result of having
failed Chinese I had to repeat grade 3 and grade 5 of primary school. Although
I was very good in all the other subjects, my Chinese was not good enough.”
(A25)
“The
general teaching language in our class was Tibetan. Besides Tibetan language
classes, we had maths and some unknown language that I can’t remember the
name of.” (A17)45
In
1987 the “TAR”, supported by the late 10th Panchen Lama, introduced legislation
that prioritised Tibetan as the medium of education for Tibetan students.
This policy was partly implemented at the primary school level but it was
reported in May 1997 that the PRC is intending to reverse this policy.46
At the middle school level, Chinese authorities in Tibet introduced four
experimental classes in Tibetan-medium education but this experiment was
terminated by the Chinese authorities in 1996.
No
satisfying solutions to the Tibetan students’ linguistic problems were
apparent in the testimonials. In some cases Tibetan students who had a
sufficient command of the Chinese language translated the words of the
Chinese teacher to their fellow peers. One student reported:
“The
general teaching language at our school was Chinese. There were Tibetan
students who could not speak any Chinese and were not able to communicate
with the teachers. Since the Chinese teachers refused to speak Tibetan,
Tibetan students who spoke Chinese had to translate what the teacher was
saying.” (A6)
This
form of teaching is clearly unsuitable for the Tibetan students. There
is no direct communication between the Chinese teacher and the Tibetan
student and the translating student is limited to translating only that
which he or she understands. If the translator misunderstands the teacher’s
lesson, his or her Tibetan peers will be given incorrect information. The
translating student and those for whom s/he is translating are bound to
fall behind under this system.
In
some cases the Chinese teachers did not trouble themselves with the language
problems of the Tibetan students. The following extracts from testimony
cases reveal that the Chinese-speaking teacher cared little for the fact
that some of the Tibetan students were not able to follow the lesson.
“In
the first two grades maths was taught in Tibetan. When I entered school
I did not speak any Chinese and in the Chinese language class they only
taught us little words. So when I entered grade three I only spoke a little
Chinese. Still the maths class was held in Chinese. I did not understand
anything that the Chinese teacher said and could only sit idle in class
and wait for the class to finish. As a consequence I used to fail all of
my maths tests. The teacher did not do anything to change the situation
of the Tibetans. He just said that it was good luck for the students who
spoke Chinese and that it was bad luck for those who did not speak any
Chinese. In Chinese class I just passed; in Tibetan I was quite good. Today,
in the TCV, I am taught maths in Tibetan, and I like it a lot.” (A27)
“In
my class there were 40 students of whom one was Chinese. Most of our teachers
were Chinese and the main teaching language was Chinese. We had Tibetan
language class two periods a week but even in the Tibetan language classes
we had to speak Chinese.” (A25)
B.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TIBETANS
The
principle of non-discrimination forms the basis of many human rights principles,
particularly with regard to economic, social and cultural rights. Article
2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the importance
of this principle as does article 2(1) of the CRC, which states that:
States
Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention
to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind,
irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national,
ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
The
effective fulfilment of the right to education requires non-discriminatory
access to public education facilities. The importance of the principle
of non-discrimination with regard to educational rights finds expression
in article 28(1) of the CRC which places an obligation on States Parties
to recognise the right of the child to education with a view to achieving
the right progressively ‘on the basis of equal opportunity’. All other
aspects of the child’s right to education laid down in article 28 (1) of
the CRC thus follow on from this fundamental tenet.
UNESCO
(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) has
adopted a Convention and Recommendation against Discrimination in Education
which defines educational discrimination as: “any distinction, exclusion,
limitation or preference which being based on race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic
condition or birth has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing
equality of treatment in education and in particular:
1.
Of depriving any person or group of persons of access to education of any
type or at any level;
2.
Of limiting any person or group of persons to education of an inferior
standard;
3.
Of inflicting on any person or group of persons conditions which are incompatible
with the dignity of man.” 47
Discrimination
against Tibetan children in Tibet is made possible by the existence of
two particular factors: that public education in Tibet is not organised
by the Tibetans themselves and that Tibetans today represent a minority
in their country. It has been reported that children belonging to a minority
are more likely to be the victims of educational discrimination.48
It has even be noted that, “experience shows that governments tend to use
the system of education as a means to systematically discriminate against
ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities... . If governments wish to
prevent certain groups from equally participating in the political, social,
economic or cultural life in their countries, one of the most efficient
methods is to deny them equal access to education... .” 49
In
its Concluding Observations on China, the Committee on the Rights of the
Child expresses concern “about reports that school attendance in minority
areas, including the Tibet Autonomous Region is lagging behind, that quality
of education is inferior and that insufficient efforts have been made to
develop a bilingual education system which would include adequate teaching
in Chinese. These shortcomings may make Tibetan and other minority pupils
disadvantaged when applying for entry to secondary and higher level schools.”50
The Committee states that “Steps should be taken to protect these children
[in the “TAR”] from discrimination and to ensure their access to higher
education on an equal footing”.51
The
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its Concluding
Observations on China similarly expresses concern that “in secondary school
and university levels children from minority nationalities are underrepresented”
and that “the instruction provided on the history and culture of minority
nationalities in the curricula is not adequate as compared to the education
provided concerning the history and culture of persons of the Han nationality.”52
Fifty-eight
percent of the students interviewed reported that they had felt discriminated
against in relation to Chinese students while in schools in Tibet. Some
of the interviewed students went to all-Tibetan schools or all-Tibetan
classes and thus had little chance of being discriminated against.
Students
described various methods by which the Tibetan students were discriminated
against. Firstly, the Chinese students were often provided with better
books. If there were new books, these were given to the Chinese students
while the Tibetans made do with the old and torn copies. There were also
cases where the Tibetan students had to pay for their books while the Chinese
received them for free.
“...
the Chinese students were always provided with the better books. When we
asked why, we were given the excuse that the Chinese were more intelligent.”
(A 1)
“The
Tibetans had to pay much more for their books. They had to pay twice the
price the Chinese students had to pay for their books.” (A6)
“The
Chinese students received the better books and the better chairs, while
the Tibetans received the old books and the broken chairs.” (A 10)
Secondly
the Chinese students were reported to have often received better furniture.
If there was not enough furniture for all of the students in a school,
only the Chinese students or those in classes consisting mainly of Chinese
students were given the chairs and tables. Tibetan students would be required
to sit on the floor or would be asked to pay for the use of a chair and
a table.
“When
new Tibetan students came to our school, they had to sit on the floor.
New Chinese students received right away their own chairs and tables. In
the dormitory new Tibetan students had to sleep for some time on the floor,
while Chinese students were always assigned a bed.” (A5)
“We
had one Chinese and one Tibetan class. If new books arrived the Chinese
students were given the new books. We only received the old books from
the Chinese. In class one and two the Tibetan class had no chairs and no
tables to write on. We had to bring mattresses from home to sit on. The
Chinese were given everything from class one on.” (A15)
“At
school the teachers demanded 50 yuan a month to sit on a chair, 50 yuan
to have a table and another 25 yuan for the books.” (A23)
Another
discriminatory method described was for school officials to demand payment
from Tibetans for things broken at school. This practice was said to have
applied to Tibetan students alone or in differentiating amounts.
“If
a Chinese student broke a chair or a book, the government would pay for
the new chair or book. If we Tibetans broke anything we had to pay for
it ourselves.” (A15)
“If
there was a broken window, or a new class broom was needed, the teachers
collected money from the Tibetan students to pay for this. The Chinese
students never had to pay anything.” ( A6)
“One
time a Chinese girl broke a window. She only had to pay the price of a
new window which was five yuan. When a Tibetan girl later broke the same
window, she had to pay 25 yuan.” (A 4)
The
most crucial form of discrimination was the reported practice of teachers
placing far more effort on the teaching of the Chinese students at the
expense of the Tibetans.
“The
teacher explained more to the Chinese students than to the Tibetan students.”
(A36)
“The
Chinese teachers gave the Chinese students more attention. When we asked
the Chinese teacher questions, he would not answer us. When the Chinese
students asked questions, he responded.” (A13)
“The
Chinese teachers taught the Chinese classes better than the Tibetan classes.
The Chinese teachers taught always in Chinese and of course the Chinese
students understood the teacher much better than we did. Also, when the
Chinese students did not understand something, they could ask the teacher
questions and the teacher would repeat what he had said to the students.
When the teachers spoke Chinese in our Tibetan classroom, most of the students
did not understand him. Yet no one dared to ask him questions for fear
for punishment and the teachers never repeated anything to the Tibetan
classes. Naturally the Tibetans failed more often than the Chinese and
the Chinese teacher would then say that he did not understand why the Tibetan
students could not understand such simple things. He also said that the
Chinese were more intelligent than the Tibetans.” (A27)
The
Chinese students were also reported as having often received better food.
Considering that children are still in the process of growing, a healthy
and adequate diet is critical for the physical and mental development of
a child and this therefore represents a serious discrimination.
“The
Chinese students were given better food. The school kitchen prepared different
food for the Chinese and the Tibetan students. The Chinese students received
different kinds of good food with a lot of meat. Tibetans always received
the same food of boiled radish and potatoes. We never received meat.” (A
5)
“The
buildings of the Chinese school were better and also their food and clothing
was better. In our school we received Chinese food and often I found worms
in my food. The facilities in our Tibetan middle school were so poor that
the Tibetan students decided to demonstrate.” (A 43)
Other
forms of discrimination such as the imposition of school fees and denial
of Tibetan cultural and linguistic identity are discussed in Chapter 3
and in Part E of Chapter 4 respectively.
C.
IRREGULARITY OF EDUCATION:
TEACHERS NOT ATTENDING CLASSES
The
obligation on China as a State Party to the CRC to provide education to
its citizens does not only extend to the provision of school buildings
and teaching personnel. It also requires that China supervise the process
of education to ensure that proper education is provided. This includes
the supervision of the teaching at the classroom level. The ICESCR states,
in article 2 (e), that
...
the development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively
pursued, an adequate fellowship system shall be established, and the material
conditions of teaching staff shall be continuously improved.
When
one considers China’s effective and well-developed bureaucracy, a lack
of supervision of schools in Tibet is difficult to explain. In 1992 China
promulgated the Teachers Act, containing detailed provisions on teachers’
qualifications and examinations and their social status and treatment,
with a view to ensuring that children receive education of a high standard.
53 Nonetheless there were many cases reported of teachers either
not attending their classes or, if attended, of failing to provide teaching.
While this is not an obvious violation of the children’s right to education,
it illustrates an apathy to educating school children in Tibet that contradicts
the basic principles of the CRC.
“Often
the teachers did not teach the class. He would go to a function or to attend
some entertainment. As a consequence we had two or three recess periods
every day.” (A7)
“The
lessons of the Tibetan teachers took place regularly, but the Chinese teachers
never turned up after lunch break.” (A10)
“The
Chinese teacher would often sleep in class. For example, when we had a
two-hour Chinese lesson, the teacher would give one hour and in the second
hour he would sleep. This happened every day.” (A1)
“Though
we were expected to have six periods a day, most days only two periods
were taught. The Tibetan teachers mostly came to class. But the Chinese
teachers were away ‘sick’ three or four times a week. Even if they came
to class, very often they would only sit in class and refuse to teach.
And often the Chinese teachers would go home for the last two periods of
the day.” (A13)
“When
the teachers went on their tea break, most of them did not come back to
class after the break.” (A29)
It
must be kept in mind too that a large number of the “teachers” in Tibet
are in fact not properly qualified. It was reported by the official Tibet
Review in 1986 that; “In the whole of the TAR, there are over 9000
teachers of various levels, far fewer then the actual number required.
Fifty percent of these teachers are not qualified enough.”54
Sometimes
children themselves take on the role of “teacher”. The newest addition
to the teachers’ department in the local mantsug in Nyen village in Toelung
Dechen county under Lhasa City prefecture is a student who just graduated
from a zhungtsug. Each student must pay one yuan for this student-teacher
even though he is not included on the school’s list of teachers.55
D.
DISCIPLINARY MEASURES
The
issue of the suitability of corporal punishment within a child’s education
is not specifically addressed in the CRC. However, where corporal punishment
is deemed necessary, it must, in accordance with the convention, be applied
in a manner which respects the child’s human dignity. Moreover, the child
must be protected from mental or physical abuse, and from torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment.
Art.
28(2): States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that
school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s
human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.
Art.
19: States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative,
social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of
physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment,
maltreatment or exploitation including sexual abuse, while in the care
of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of
the child.
Art.
37: States Parties shall ensure that:
a)
No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
The
PRC claims that corporal punishment is de jure illegal in China. In addition
to constitutional articles for the protection of children, article 16 of
China’s Compulsory Education Law states “[i]t shall be forbidden to inflict
physical punishment on students” and article 20 of the Rules on Implementation
of the Compulsory Education Law specifies that “[t]he school and the teacher
are not allowed to inflict upon students physical or covert physical punishment
or other acts that violate their physical dignity.”
The
de facto situation regarding punishment in Chinese schools in Tibet appears
quite different. In violation of article 28 of the CRC, teachers under
the Chinese administration reportedly resort to extreme forms of punishment
defiant of the most basic standards of human dignity for little or no apparent
reason.
i.
The extent of corporal punishment
Forty-seven
per cent of the students interviewed who had visited a primary school said
that they had experienced degrading, humiliating or brutal forms of corporal
punishment. This did not appear to be isolated to a particular region in
Tibet, nor was there any significant differentiation between urban and
rural areas. Some of the students also reported that the teachers made
no distinction between punishment of male and female students.
Students
described a significant difference between the actions of Chinese teachers
and Tibetan teachers. Chinese teachers reportedly resorted more often to
severe forms of corporal punishment than Tibetan teachers and the most
brutal forms of corporal punishment were committed, in the most part, by
Chinese teachers.
Testimonials
suggest that corporal punishment is less prevalent in mangstug schools
(locally sponsored primary schools), which employ mainly Tibetan teachers,
than in zhungtsug schools, (government sponsored primary schools), which
rely more on Chinese teachers.
ii.
Reasons for corporal punishment
Just
as the CRC does not prohibit the use of corporal punishment as a means
of educational discipline, nor does it specify minimum standards whereby
punishment may be applied. While the use of corporal punishment for minor
misdeeds does not amount per se to a violation of article 28 (2) of the
CRC, where punishment is regularly applied for little or no cause, this
can constitute a violation of the child’s human dignity.
Some
children interviewed recalled that they were physically punished for any
minor reason: being late to school; speaking or eating in class; neglecting
their homework. Sometimes students reported that they were punished for
no reason at all and two students reported that they were severely beaten
because the teacher was in a bad mood.
“Sometimes
the teacher came to class in a bad mood. You always saw his bad mood in
his face. Then he would take students and tell them to carry their chair
above their head. If they dropped the chair or if they fainted he would
beat them with a big stick.” (A 24)
“One
of our teachers drank liqueur in the classroom. He was drunk about three
times a week. Another teacher also drank alcohol in class but was not really
drunk so often. In the afternoon the teacher used to sleep. When the teacher
was drunk he used to beat us up. Because I was the oldest in our class,
he particularly liked to beat me very badly and he would tell me
that I was a “pig”. The teacher could afford liqueur because the
Chinese paid him well enough. He worked together with the Chinese. The
Tibetan teacher helped the Chinese and therefore the Chinese gave him money.”
(A 18)
“When
we did not do our homework properly we were kicked and beaten with chairs.
Most of the time the teachers hit us on the stomach or the back but sometimes
he hit us also on the head. This was the most dangerous because often the
wounds had to be stitched. Some students fainted and some had to vomit
after these beatings.” (A 13).
iii.
Forms of corporal punishment
The
interviewed students reported horrifying forms of corporal punishment endured
in Tibet. Even primary school students, children between 6 and 12 years,
were subjected to beatings using rubber clubs, whips, belts, electric wires,
chair legs, whole chairs, bamboo sticks and other instruments. The students
were beaten all over the body.
“...
the Chinese teacher made us stand on a chair with bricks on our head and
in our outstretched hands. When a brick fell, we were beaten. The Chinese
teacher used different things to beat us with: a rubber whip, an electric
wire or the leg of a chair. We were beaten all over the body. Many times
I had to go to the hospital after being beaten by the Chinese teacher and
two or three times I had to be hospitalised. I know of a boy who had to
stay two weeks in hospital because of his beatings and another boy who
had two legs fractured. Girls were beaten the same way.” (A1)
Children
interviewed reported that Tibetan students were punished more harshly than
the Chinese students:
“If
a Chinese and a Tibetan made the same mistakes, the Tibetan received more
punishment.” (A9)
“The
Tibetan students were beaten more severely than the Chinese students.”
(A13)
“For
the same mistake a Tibetan student would get three whips, while the Chinese
student only received one whip.” (A1)
The
extent of the corporal punishments habitually bore no relation to the seriousness
of the offence:
“Very
often the teacher would not come to class and so sometimes we would be
walking around. If the teacher suddenly came back and caught us walking
around he would punish us. He always punished me in the same way: two students
took my legs, two students took my arms and then they lifted me up
so that the teacher could beat me with an electric wire on my behind. This
hurt very much. Once I was hurt so badly that I could not sit on a chair
for three days.” (A16)
“The
teachers punished us because we had visited a Tibetan monastery. They made
us stand outside the school building from nine o’clock in the morning until
six o’clock at night without any food or drink. It was very sunny and warm
at that time and so it was very hard for us to stand in the bright sun
all day. Luckily no one lost consciousness.” (A42)
Children
were not only beaten. They were also asked to fulfil particularly exhausting
tasks. For example, it seemed to be a very common punishment to ask the
students to lift heavy things:
“When
we were late in the morning we were punished in the following way. We had
to take two heavy stones in our hands, lift up our arms, and kneel down
in front of the class for 15 to 30 minutes. When we dropped a stone
we were beaten with a belt or a stick and we had to do it again.” (A 9)
“When
we were punished, we either had to carry chairs or heavy stones in our
hands or we were made to run around the school ground. The Tibetan students
had to run around the school ground without stopping for three hours. When
a student broke down, or fainted, the teacher threw some water into his
face, and, when he regained consciousness, made him run again.” (A 6)
Two
students reported having to kneel in front of the class in pieces of broken
glass as punishment:
“One
time, on the way to the toilet, a Chinese student tripped over me accidentally.
He went up to a Chinese teacher and told him that I had made him fall.
The teacher made me get some sand and he mixed the sand with pieces of
broken glass and water. This muddy mixture was then spread out on the floor.
I had to kneel for one hour in this mud. The glass cut into my knees and
into my feet It hurt very much and my knees were bleeding. The teacher
told me that if I moved because it hurt I would have to kneel for an even
longer time. I still dream about it. ... I stayed in hospital for four
weeks due to some infection. Another Tibetan boy had received the
same punishment ... The glass had gone all the way to the bone and infected
it and later the boy’s leg had to be amputated from the knee down.” (A4)
“When
we did not do our homework properly, the Chinese teacher would scold us
until late at night. When we returned home we were very tired and naturally
we were not always able to learn our lessons for the following day. The
next morning the teacher asked us about our lessons. When we did not know
them the teacher took some bottles, crushed them down into little pieces
of glass and put these pieces of glass on the floor of the classroom. He
then made me, or a group of us, kneel down in front of the class in the
broken glass and walk around on our knees for the whole period of 45 minutes.
Sometimes only one student had to do this, sometimes almost all of the
class. Back then I was 8 years old. Afterwards I had little pieces of glass
stuck under my skin so I had to go to the doctor.” (A 27)
One
girl reported that teachers used punishments as a pretext to sexually abuse
female students:
“...
the older senior student girls were treated differently by some Chinese
teachers. I know of some cases where the Chinese teacher went in to the
bedrooms of the older Tibetan girls and sexually abused the Tibetan girls.
In the classroom the Chinese teachers punished the girls differently from
the boys. The girls had to take off their pants and stand half-naked in
the classroom so that the Chinese teacher could spank them on the naked
lower half of their body. I have been lucky for I have never been sexually
abused by any Chinese teacher.” (A10)
E.
DENIAL OF CULTURAL MINORITY RIGHTS
Minority
groups are, by their nature, more susceptible to human rights violations.
Frequently under-represented or unrepresented in the larger community,
they therefore lack input into national decision-making and are at risk
of being assimilated into the more powerful majority group. Children of
a minority represent an even more vulnerable group and are thus in particular
need of protection, as recognised in the CRC:
Art.
30: In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities
or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority
or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other
members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess
and practice his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.
The
massive population transfer of Chinese into Tibet has meant that today
the estimated 7.5 million Chinese settlers outnumber the 6 million Tibetans.
The situation has been deemed a “cultural genocide”56 as Tibetans each
day lose more and more of their folk customs, their religious traditions
and their language; ‘sinocised’ by the majority Chinese who hold the economic
and political power. The need to educate Tibetan children on their cultural
heritage is critical if the culture is to survive even one more generation.
Violations
of Tibetan children’s minority rights take many different forms. All of
the children who had visited government-sponsored primary schools reported
that they were not allowed to honour any Tibetan holidays except for Losar,
the Tibetan new year. At the same time, they were forced to celebrate Chinese
holidays. This applied even in schools where there were no Chinese students
at all.
Seventy-eight
percent of the students who visited a government-sponsored primary school
reported that they were forbidden to wear Tibetan clothes to school. This
was not because there was any school uniform and children were in fact
permitted to wear whatever they liked so long as it was not Tibetan-style
clothing. Some students reported that they were corporally punished by
their teachers for wearing Tibetan clothes to school, while others said
that they had to wear Tibetan dress when Chinese officials or foreigners
came to visit the school.
Suppression
of Tibetans’ minority rights also took the form of denying students their
religious rights to visit a temple, prohibiting Tibetans at boarding school
from consuming Tibetan food, and forcing Tibetan children to renounce Tibetan
history or the Dalai Lama. Sometimes Tibetan students were not even allowed
to read books in Tibetan language. Students also recalled the name-calling
by teachers; being told that Tibetans were stupid, dirty or inferior human
beings.
“At
school we were never allowed to wear Tibetan clothes. We had to wear Chinese
clothes. If we wore Tibetan clothes we were punished. Only when we had
to present some dances to Chinese officials were we allowed to wear Tibetan
clothes. Another thing was that we were not allowed to celebrate any Tibetan
holidays. The only Tibetan holiday we were allowed to celebrate was Losar,
the Tibetan new year. But we had to celebrate Chinese holidays. This was
OK since we got free from school.” (A15)
“During
winter time, when it was very cold, we were allowed to wear our Tibetan
clothes. The teacher often called us bad names when we were wearing them,
telling us that we looked backward and stupid.” (A46)
“We
always had to drink Chinese tea. We were never allowed to have Tibetan
(butter) tea.” (A5)
“If
most of the Tibetans did not understand his [the teacher’s] explanation
in Chinese, he used to scold us. He called us ‘dirty Tibetans’ or ‘stupid
Tibetans’, because we did not understand Chinese.” (A43)
“At
school the teacher asked us to renounce the Dalai Lama. If we did not do
so, we feared that the authorities would arrest our parents.” (A35)
F.
DENIAL OF RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The
Convention on the Rights of the Child places a strong emphasis on the child’s
freedom of thought and religion. It states:
Art.
14(1): States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion...
Art.
30: In those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities
or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority
... shall not be denied the right ... to profess and practice his or her
own religion ...
School
teachers must respect a child’s freedom to hold certain beliefs even where
they may be contrary to the teacher’s own. Children are not, by reason
of their age and lack of experience, incapable of forming their own opinions
on different topics and the CRC recognises that it is not the purpose of
the state, and thus state educators, to repress this freedom .
Before
China entered Tibet in 1949, Buddhist religion played an intrinsic role
in the whole of Tibetan society. The Dalai Lama was spiritual leader and
monarch at the same time and monasteries were not only spiritual centres
but also unique educational institutions. Individuals were free to practise
their religious beliefs in every stage of life and the religious traditions
were passed down from adult to child.
This
situation has been drastically affected by Chinese occupation. In its Concluding
Observations on China, the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed
“its deep concern in connection with violations of human rights of the
Tibetan religious minority” and commented, “State intervention in religious
principles and procedures seems to be most unfortunate for the whole generation
among the Tibetan population.”57
i.
Monastic schools
Before
1949 monastic education played a very important role in Tibet with every
third child becoming a monk and attending a monastic school. Since Chinese
occupation, with only 300 of Tibet’s 6000 monasteries still standing and
access strictly regulated by Chinese authorities, a child’s desire to become
a monk or nun guarantees little.
He
or she must first seek Chinese authorisation and, where granted, is then
subjected to a forcible “patriotic re-education campaign” within the monastery.
The child must: oppose separatism; acknowledge the unity of Tibet and China;
recognise the Chinese appointed Panchen Lama; deny that Tibet was or should
be independent and agree that the Dalai Lama is destroying the unity of
the people. Over 280 student monks under the age of 16 were expelled from
their monasteries by Chinese authorities in 1996 and were thereby denied
their religious education.58
Most
of the students interviewed reported that it was not possible for them
to visit a monastic school. Some reported that it might have been possible
for them to visit a monastic school if their parents had paid very high
bribes to the authorities.
“My
parents were not free to send me to the school of their choice. It was
the Chinese authorities who sent us to a particular school. Even if I would
have liked to attend a monastic school I would have not been allowed to
do so.” (A9)
“I
know a boy who wanted to go to a monastic school but the Chinese authorities
would not let him. His parents had to pay a lot of money before he was
allowed to attend a monastic school.” (A13)
“
I don’t know if I could have gone to a monastic school. A couple of years
ago I probably could have gone, but since the change of policy of the Chinese
it is very difficult now. In order to go to a monastic school one has to
get permission from the Chinese government. They limit the maximum
number of students in every monastery.” (A41)
“If
I wanted to attend a monastic school now, in 1997, I would definitely not
be allowed to do so. The Chinese changed the policy. There is a maximum
number of people who are allowed to enter a monastery.” (A43)
“Before
I left Tibet I was a monk studying Tibetan in a big monastery near Lhasa..
The Chinese police came to the monastery and told me that I was only
allowed to stay if I would speak against His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I
could not speak against His Holiness and so I left.” (A38)
ii.
Public schools
Students
reported that the right to freedom of religion and thought in public schools
in Tibet is repressed through a variety of methods. The PRC has adopted
a policy which discredits the Dalai Lama and penalises the possession of
Dalai Lama pictures. Tibetan children are prohibited from celebrating any
of their religious holidays. Questions in school examinations require answers
which follow certain ideological beliefs.
“When
the Chinese teacher found a Dalai Lama picture on a student, he would,
even when it was still allowed to have Dalai Lama photos, put the photo
into his shoes and tell us that the Dalai Lama is dirt.” (A5)
that
he was a criminal.” (A14)
“The
teacher told us that... ‘all the Tibetans do not like the Dalai Lama. You
should go home and tell your parents that the Dalai Lama is no good’.”
(A32)
“We
were not able to express our opinions. They made us learn things about
the life of Mao, and examined us about this. The grades in examinations
depended on our answers to ideological questions about Mao and the Chinese
socialism.” (A4)
“My
examinations depended on ideological questions. For example, if I were
to write in my exam that China is a bad country and not a good country,
I would get beaten up by my teacher.” (A10)
“If
we answered the ideological questions the wrong way, we were beaten up
by the teacher.” (A18)
(Back
to Contents)
Violations concerning the content of education
A.
DENIAL OF EDUCATION ON TIBETAN CULTURE
Education’s
purpose is not only to teach a child reading, writing, calculation and
some abstract academic knowledge. It should also enable the child to understand
his or her cultural heritage so that the child can grow up to be a responsible
member of his or her cultural group.
The
policy of population transfer by the PRC in Tibet, with the result that
Tibetans have become a minority people in their own land, carries grave
portents for the survival of the unique Tibetan culture. Tibetans are today
outnumbered by Chinese in many urban areas of Tibet. Tibetan children growing
up in a Chinese-dominated environment may not be aware that their country
has not always looked like this: full of communist-style concrete apartment
blocks, karaoke bars, statues of Mao Tse Tung and armed police.
A
particularly striking element of the children’s testimonials was the extent
to which they were simply unaware of Tibet, as a free country, and of Tibetan
history, pre-1949. For many it came as an absolute shock to be told,
only after reaching exile, that Tibet has not always been controlled by
Chinese forces, that once they spoke only in Tibetan and openly worshipped
the Dalai Lama.
As
a States Party to the CRC, the PRC’s obligations to safeguard children’s
rights extends equally to the cultural rights of Tibetan children. The
Committee on the Rights of the Child proposed to China, in its suggestions
and recommendations, “to ensure that children in the Tibet Autonomous Region
... are guaranteed full opportunities to develop knowledge about their
own language and culture...”.48
The
CRC acknowledges that development of cultural identity, language and values
should be incorporated into a child’s education:
Art.
29(1): States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed
to:
c)
the development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural
identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in
which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate,
and for civilisations different from his or her own.
It
was found that Tibetan children attending Chinese schools received almost
no education about their cultural heritage. Of 38 Tibetan children interviewed
who had been to school, only three reported to have had any education on
Tibetan culture, religion or history.
Of
these three, one went to a clandestine school operated by Tibetans which
was not known to the Chinese authorities. Another went to a private school
set up by a Tibetan Lama. This student was later arrested for attending
this school and it was closed. The third student received information on
Tibet from his Tibetan teacher only under the promise not to tell anyone
about it. All three cases, by violating Chinese official school policy,
posed great risk to both student and teacher.
Students
were also asked about subjects they had studied in their Tibetan language
classes. Almost all responded that they had read only stories about Mao
Tse Tung, “great Chinese men” and the Chinese Revolution. While some students
said that they had read stories in school about the architecture of the
Potala Palace or some fables about Lhasa, this was the only Tibet-related
education mentioned. Even in Tibetan language class there was virtually
no information about Tibetan culture or history.
The
students who had attended a middle school were asked what history they
had been taught. All responded that they were taught only about Chinese
history, with no reference to a Tibetan history. Some also said that they
were told that Tibet had no history of its own and was always an integral
part of China. None of the children, except for the one who went to a clandestine
school, received any education about the religious heritage of Tibet.
“In
our Tibetan book all the stories were about Mao and his great doings. There
was nothing about Tibet, the Dalai Lama or our history. The fact that I
had to learn so much about Mao made me feel awkward; I knew that Mao was
not a good man and that he had done a lot of cruel things to the Tibetans,
but I had to learn these things anyway. In school we had to repeat those
lies word for word or we were punished. Once in a while our Tibetan teacher
taught us a little about Tibet, but he was very afraid and made us promise
that we would not talk to anyone about this. Once in a while I read a Tibetan
book about great Tibetan men and Tibetan kings, but I had to hide these
books because if I was caught both myself and the author would have been
punished severely.” (A27)
“In
our Tibetan language book it said that ‘our capital is Beijing’. Once I
crossed out Beijing and wrote Lhasa. When the teacher read this he beat
me severely.” (A 7)
“Neither
my parents nor my Tibetan school teachers had ever told me anything about
Tibetan culture or history. Suddenly my parents told me that it was time
for me to leave Tibet and go to India. My first contact with Tibetan culture,
history and religion was in the Tibetans Children’s Village (TCV) in Dharamsala,
India.” (A 12)
“The
only Tibetan histories we read were fables about Lhasa.” (A 13)
“I
did not have any subjects related to Tibetan history, culture or religion.
The subjects for our Tibetan language classes came directly from Chinese
books, translated into Tibetan. I would have liked to learn something about
Tibetan culture; that’s why I came to the TCV in India.” (A 25)
“The
Rinpoche [a high lama] opened a private Tibetan school in my place. I had
the opportunity to study Tibetan politics and Tibetan opera in this school
for three years. After three years the Chinese authorities closed the school,
telling us it was because this school made us serve Tibetan authorities
as we did before 1959. The Chinese also told us that the Rinpoche who started
the school was a fake Rinpoche and that he worked together with the Chinese.
The Rinpoche was later put in prison by the Chinese. Two months after the
school’s closure I was put in prison for three days because, the Chinese
told me, I had attended a very bad school. My parents had to pay bribes
to get me out of prison.” (A 31)
B.
INDOCTRINATION
The
use of indoctrination is an intrinsic part of China’s grand plan to sinocise
Tibetans. It is most effectively used on children who, in the process of
developing their thoughts and character, are most easily influenced by
the opinions propounded by those in authority. Teachers have a direct,
extremely influential impact on the development of a student’s beliefs.
The
purpose of education, on the other hand, is to allow a child to develop
his or her own ideas and perceptions, as the CRC recognises:
Art.
29(1): States Parties agree that the education shall be directed to:
a)
The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical
abilities to their fullest potential;
The
Convention also states that:
Art.
14(1): States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion
Art.
13(1): The child shall have the right to freedom of expression
These
principles are clearly violated where education takes the form of indoctrination.
A child’s freedom of thought and expression is necessarily restricted by
an authoritarian system which imposes its own perception of “truth” upon
students and punishes the child who diverges from the official ideology.
In
the situation where a student must provide fixed answers to ideological
questions in an exam, the child is not free to express his or her own thoughts.
The student must conform to the theory which is supported by the State
or face grave repercussions.
Sixty-eight
percent of students questioned said that they felt indoctrinated at school.
Some of the students interviewed had attended non-Chinese schools and some
may not have been aware of the indoctrination due to their young age or
a limited amount of objective information received. For these reasons this
figure may be unrepresentatively low.
Topics
of indoctrination varied. Most students reported that they were constantly
taught about the greatness of Mao Tse Tung, Li Peng, Chinese socialism
and China’s achievements in general. Even the Tibetan language books covered
Chinese subjects almost exclusively. The possibility of children dissenting
from opinions provided in school books was completely unknown. Students
reported that, if they chose not to answer ideological questions “properly”,
they risked failure or beatings.
“I
definitely felt indoctrinated. The Chinese history classes mainly dealt
with the stories of the Chinese courageous kings and their kingdoms and
how great China was. We always had to sing the Chinese anthem. If you did
not sing, you would be severely punished.” (A 41)
“
I felt indoctrinated at school because it was always Mao and Li Peng this
and Deng Xiaoping that. Always the stories of their lives and how great
they were. Every Monday morning we had to sing the Chinese national anthem.
The singing of the anthem started at grade one. At that time I didn’t know
the Chinese national anthem at all and for this the teacher forced me to
stretch out my lips and then he would hit my lips with a stick. We also
had to wear red scarves when we went to school and so I would tie it a
bit loose and then lose it at a certain time. My mother used to scold me
when I lost my red scarf . Sometimes there was an announcement at school
that on a certain day there would be a school assembly about Li Peng and
then we were made to stay longer at school and listen to more stories telling
us how great Li Peng was.” (A 25)
“The
teachers told us that China is the power country and that China is a good
country. Once I asked my teacher to explain to us more about Tibetan history
and he got so mad at me for asking this question that he hit me with a
big stick on my legs and head. If you failed the political questions asked
in class you would not progress to the higher class. My parents also refused
to explain anything to me about Tibet because they were afraid that the
Chinese would get mad. My parents told me that the things to occupy myself
with were not Tibetan politics. Politics was too dangerous; I had to be
satisfied with talking about clothes, food and yaks.” (A 42)
“During
the music lessons we had to sing more Chinese than Tibetan songs. We were
made to sing texts like ‘Long live Communist China’ or ‘The teachers are
good people and they are here to help us’. Most of the Tibetan students
did not sing these songs in class and we would be punished by the teachers,
even the Tibetan teachers. They hit us on our backs and heads with wooden
sticks. When Deng Xiaopeng died, the teacher put his picture in front of
the class and told us that we had to mourn the death of the great Deng
Xiaopeng. We were told that we had to cry in class but, when most
of us did not cry, the teacher hit us badly with a wooden stick.” (A 29)
Tibetan
students were constantly told that Tibet was an inferior country with a
poor culture. Tibetan cultural values, Tibetan achievements and the Dalai
Lama were constantly derogated while China was held out as the humanitarian
saviour of the Tibetan people.
“My
parents have told me many stories about Tibet, the Dalai Lama, and how
it was before the Chinese came. The Chinese teachers in school told us
exactly the opposite: that the Dalai Lama was bad and a criminal and that
Mao had freed Tibet. Because of the things my parents had told me, I knew
that it was all fake.” (A 13)
“The
teacher told us that ‘China is better than all the other countries … and
all the Tibetans do not like the Dalai Lama. You should go home and tell
your parents that the Dalai Lama is no good’.” (A 32)
“The
teachers told us that we Tibetans would not exist without China’s help
for food.” (A 46)
In
some cases, the indoctrination was so effective that students were completely
unaware of it:
“In
Tibet I never realised that I was indoctrinated but when I came to India
and talked to my classmates I realised that all these stories about ‘how
China freed and saved Tibet from foreign influences’ were just not true.”
(A 44)
“I
never felt indoctrinated during the lessons, because I never realised that
there could be any explanation other than that of my teacher. I always
trusted my teacher. In school no one told me anything about Tibetan culture,
history or religion and my parents also never told me anything about my
Tibetan background... I remember very well that I danced for Mao Tse Tung’s
birthday party and really liked doing that.” (A 34)
C.
SENDING OF TIBETAN STUDENTS OUTSIDE TIBET
As
part of their systematic sinocisation policies, Chinese authorities send
many of the top-ranking graduated Tibetan primary students to China where
they attend special Tibetan classes attached to local secondary schools
or one of the eighteen “Tibetan Secondary Schools” in China.
While Tibetan students may receive better facilities at these schools,
there is absolutely no chance of receiving any Tibet-related education.
Parents
who come to visit their children are given strict
instructions not to discuss the situation in Tibet, and those students
who wish to leave school and return to Tibet find it extremely difficult
to do so. When parents insist on removing their child, they will be made
to reimburse the expenses incurred thus far for the child’s education and
the child’s ration card will not be renewed, making him ineligible
to join any government school in Tibet.
As
of 1996, China stated that 29 provinces and municipalities in China had
formed “Inland Tibetan Classes” with a total enrolment of 12,590 Tibetan
students, including 6509 of lower middle school, 1604 of senior middle
school, 3195 of secondary vocational schools and 1282 of secondary normal
schools.
(Back
to Contents)
Other Violations
A.
VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE FAMILY BY SPYING
The
family is considered the core of society. Children are dependent on their
parents and family not only for the satisfaction of their physical needs
but also for emotional support and mental development. In the family children
are cared for and guided towards adulthood. The fundamental role of the
family in a child’s well-being receives special protection in the Convention
on the Right of the Child which states:
Art.
16: No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks
on his or her honour and reputation.
In
violation of this provision, Chinese school authorities in Tibet deliberately
attempt to upset the private family life of Tibetan children. Students
reported that they were asked by their teachers to spy on their parents
and to report back as to whether the parents talk about political issues
or the Dalai Lama, or whether they have Dalai Lama pictures in their home.
Sometimes children were promised rewards and given money if they related
negative information about their parents. Such actions are capable of destroying
the child’s family structure.
“After
4.30 p.m. there were no more classes and we had to sit idle in the classroom.
Three or four times a week we were asked during this time whether our parents
talked about Tibetan politics or the Dalai Lama. When the children admitted
that their parents spoke about these things, they were rewarded with presents
- money or food. The parents were later called to meetings and sometimes
then fined or put into prison.” (A 1)
“My
Chinese teachers regularly asked me to go home and spy on my parents. I
was supposed to see if my parents were talking about Tibetan policies or
religion. I would pretend to walk home and then turn back after 3 hours
in order to tell the teachers that I had not heard any talk from my parents
about Tibetan matters. Or I would walk home, play around for a couple of
hours and then go back to school and tell my teachers that there was no
proof against my parents. In both cases the teacher would beat me because
he did not believe me … They promised us 200 yuan if we found any evidence
against our parents that proved they talked about subjects relating to
Tibetan culture, history or religion.” (A 10)
“I
remember that when I was about 10 years old my teacher asked me to go home
and see if there were any pictures of the Dalai Lama hanging in our house.
I couldn’t find any and had to tell the teacher the result of my search.”
(A 34)
B.
COMPULSORY NON-EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
The
Convention on the Rights of the Child attempts to protect as many aspects
of a child’s life as possible. Understanding that free time, leisure and
play are very important to a child’s full development the CRC guarantees
the right to such activities:
Art.
31(1): States Parties recognise the right of the child to rest and leisure,
to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of
the child...
The
CRC also acknowledges in article 32(1) that a child requires protection
from economic exploitation.
Most
schooling involves some non-academic activities. Children may be involved
in sports and exercise, community work, social activities and similar activities
that do not form part of the child’s “lessons” but nonetheless contribute
to a child’s overall development. However, where such activities amount
to exploitation of the child or cause detriment to the child’s mental or
physical well-being, this constitutes a violation of the Convention’s principles.
Reports
of being made to clean drains, wash teachers’ clothing and clean industrial
areas were received from the interviewed students. In some instances the
demands came not from school authorities but from the Chinese military
and not just school children but the whole town had to obey.
“Three
times a week our village was inspected by Chinese soldiers. At these inspections
the Chinese soldiers told the small and bigger children of our village
to clean the drains. If we did not clean the drains the Chinese soldiers
would hit us and the small children were hit on their back. Sometimes I
had to clean the drains with my parents.” (A17)
“The
Chinese soldiers came by our village and made discipline announcements.
They told us that we had to split up into groups for distribution and then
took us to a place where we had to clean the drains. Our whole village
had to do this. So after school time our whole school was made to clean
the trains and if we did not, they would beat us up.” (A18)
“On
Sunday, about twice a month, the school told us that all the students had
to clean the teachers’ rooms, the factories and the streets.” (A42)
“On
Sunday sometimes we had to wash the clothes of the teachers.” (A43)
“Our
school was surrounded by four soldier camps. During the weekends after
lunch the teachers told us that we had to clean the rooms of the soldiers
or we would be punished.” (A 44)
“The
Chinese authorities inspected our village. They were soldiers and they
told the children in our village that we must come with them and practise
the work of a soldier. They made us dig and clean channels in the ground.”
(A 45)
(Back
to Contents)
Conclusion
It
is undeniable that the People’s Republic of China has improved the public
school facilities in Tibet in recent years. However it is crucial to identify
who exactly is receiving the benefits of these new facilities. In order
to cater to the huge influx of Chinese settlers being enticed into Tibet
by the Chinese authorities there was an immediate need to provide schools
for the children of the settlers. Thus the majority of new schools have
been built in the cities and urban areas where the Chinese live.
Roughly
one third of the school-aged children in Tibet continue to receive no education
at all. This is not due solely to the remoteness of some Tibetan regions,
an argument frequently invoked by the PRC, but also to the prohibitively
high school fees charged by the Chinese authorities. The vast majority
of the interviewed Tibetan students had to pay extremely high school fees
and even primary school education is not free, despite claims by the PRC.
Even
when a child can afford the fees, bribes and other charges, they must frequently
confront blatant discrimination making it difficult or impossible to qualify
for secondary or tertiary education.
Moreover,
it is not enough to simply look at the figures touted by the PRC regarding
numbers of educational institutions but to consider more closely the actual
content of the schooling in these institutions. It is evident from the
children’s own accounts that they benefitted little from school lessons
taught in a language they could not understand or from idle class time
passed without a teacher.
Tibetan
children receive virtually no education on their indigenous Tibetan culture
and history at the public schools in Tibet. The phasing out of Tibetan
language in Tibetan schools and universities indicates the intention of
Chinese authorities to deny students the right to be taught in their mother
tongue. In an attempt to “sinocise” the Tibetan people, children are targeted
for indoctrination; their freedom of thought, religion and expression repressed.
If
the education of the Tibetan children in Tibet continues in this way the
chance of the unique and ancient Tibetan culture surviving even another
generation is grim. As in any society, the children are the key to its
future, and, based on the current state of affairs with regard to education,
the future of Tibetan children seems to be one of undereducation, unemployment
and ignorance of their Tibetan heritage. This situation serves several
purposes: to keep Tibetans out of positions of economic power or political
influence; to utilise Tibetan labour for the infrastructure construction
required for Tibet’s Chinese-engineered “economic boom”; and to assimilate
the Tibetans into the great “motherland” of China.
Genuine
improvements to the state of education in Tibet on the part of the Chinese
authorities would undoubtedly be welcomed by the Tibetan people. However,
this report indicates that Chinese-sponsored “education development”
in Tibet not only fails often to benefit the Tibetans themselves, it is
also being used as a political tool to strip Tibetans of their cultural
rights and dignity.
(Back
to Contents)
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Some
improvements have been made, at least in the number of students in Tibet
who today receive some education. Nonetheless, China’s international obligations
regarding the rights of children to receive an adequate education still
fail to be met. The following actions are therefore recommended:
Build
new schools
To
ensure that education is available to children in remote areas of Tibet.
Abolish
school fees for primary schools
Not
only does the levy of school fees violate article 28 (1)(a) of the CRC,
it also discriminates against Tibetans as they are far more likely than
the Chinese settlers to come from economically disadvantaged households.
Ensure
equitable distribution of educational resources amongst students
At
present Tibetan students pay more and receive less than their Chinese peers.
Any charges for schooling should not only be reasonable but equitable,
and the distribution of books, stationery, tables and chairs must also
be free from discrimination.
Ensure
fair entrance requirements for middle schools
Entrance
to secondary school should be based on equal opportunity and thereby depend
on academic merit and not the amount of bribe able to be paid.
Ensure
non-discriminatory entry examinations to middle school
Tibetans
should be entitled to sit entry examinations in their mother tongue. By
not allowing the use of Tibetan language, Chinese authorities discriminate
against Tibetan students because their command of the Chinese language
is clearly inferior to that of the Chinese students.
Allow
for education in Tibetan language
Tibetan
children will only have the chance to receive a proper education and to
compete with their Chinese peers if they are taught in their native Tibetan
language.
Teach
Chinese to Tibetan students as a foreign language
Chinese
is a foreign language to Tibetans. If they are not properly introduced
to this language they will never have a chance to reach a sufficient level
of Chinese.
Establish
more secondary schools which use Tibetan as their main teaching language
Tibetan
students must compete at middle school with native Chinese speakers and
are therefore constantly disadvantaged. By introducing middle schools which
use Tibetan as their main teaching language, Tibetan children receive a
fair chance of completing their middle school education.
Finance
more mangtsug schools
These
locally sponsored schools tend to give greater attention to the cultural
rights of Tibetan children than the government sponsored zhungtsug schools
and often also use Tibetan as the main teaching language.
Employ
more Tibetan teachers
Tibetan
teachers are likely to have a better understanding of the Tibetan children’s
cultural background and are able to teach the Tibetan children in their
mother tongue. It appears they are also more likely than the Chinese teachers
to attend their classes regularly.
Incorporate
Tibet-related subjects into the curriculum
By
teaching Tibetan children only about Chinese matters they lack knowledge
of their Tibetan history and culture. In particular, books in Tibetan should
not simply be translations of Chinese books but should teach the Tibetan
children about their own literary traditions.
Not
use indoctrination as a substitute for education
Education
of children should be directed at developing his or her personal capacities
and not to fuel support for a particular ideology or political agenda.
The education of Tibetan children should not be used to forcibly propagate
Chinese communist thought.
Allow
freedom of expression
In
accordance with article 13 (1) of the CRC, Tibetan children should be free
to express opinions which differ from that of State authorities or their
teachers.
Allow
freedom of religion
Tibetan
daily life is interwoven with Buddhist spiritual practice. Denying Tibetans
their religious freedom is equivalent to denying them their cultural identity.
Every Tibetan child should be entitled to observe his or her religious
practice, to consider the Dalai Lama as his or her spiritual leader and
to carry his picture.
Respect
Tibetan children’s minority rights
Allow
Tibetan children to speak their language, eat their food, dress in their
clothes and celebrate their national and religious holidays.
Stop
sending children to China for secondary education
Tibetan
children who are sent to China for secondary education are in danger of
losing their cultural identity and background.
Redirect
education budget spending
A
significant proportion of Tibet’s educational funding has been spent for
Tibetan students sent to study in central China. Much of the money
could be used to train teachers or improve the already existing facilities
of Tibetan schools in Tibet.
Stop
the discrimination of Tibetan school children
There
should be no differentiation between Tibetan and Chinese school children
with regard to teaching attention, academic grading, non-educational activities
or disciplinary measures.
Stop
punishing children in brutal and degrading ways
Children
are small humans and should be treated with the same dignity to which every
human is entitled. School punishment should not amount to torture, cruel
or degrading treatment or affect the physical or mental well-being of the
child.
Adequate
supervision of teachers
There
is an onus on Chinese authorities to ensure that schools and teachers are
fulfilling their educational obligations. Teachers should be required to
attend their classes and to refrain from demanding bribes and using cruel
punishment techniques.
Refrain
from using students as spies against their parents
This
practice intrudes on the private life of Tibetan children and their family
and threatens to disturb their family structure.
Protect
children from unlawful non-educational activities
Tibetan
children should not be subjected to economic exploitation or to activities
which threaten their physical or mental well-being.
(Back
to Contents)
ENDNOTES
- Universal Declaration on Human Rights, adopted by United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A ( iii) on 10 December 1948.
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( 1996 ), adopted by United Nations General Assembly resolutions 2200A ( XXI ), 16 December 1966, entered into force on 23 March 1976.
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ( 1966 ), adopted by United Nations General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI ), 16 December 1966, entered into force on 3 January 1976.
- The President of the PRC, Jiang Zemin, claimed in a press release of the PRC's mission to the UN, 8 April 1997, that the PRC will sign the ICESCR by the end of 1997.
- China's Inititial Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, 1994, p.4.
- Ibid
- Tibet Information Network News Release, February 4, 1997.
- Ibid
- The entrance examination for university language courses has to date been conducted in Tibetan. However it was reported in TIN News Release of February 4,1997, that this was to be replaced with Chinese examinations.
- Reported by Tashi Tsering, an English teacher at Lhasa's Tibet University, in a petition dated 20 Feb.1986 to the Chinese authorities; Tibet : Proving Truth from Facts, The Department of Information and International Relations, Central Tibetan Administration, Dharamsala : 1996 ( 3rd Ed.), pp. 67-68.
- Tibet Review ( No. 2, 1986 )
- Tibet : From 1951 to 1991, New Star Publisher, Beijing 1991, p.82.
- Tibet Review
- Written Replies by the Government of China Concerning the List of Issues (CRC /C. 12/WP .5 ) Received from the Committee on the Rights of the Child in connection with the Initial Report of China ( CRC/C/11/Add.7 ), 17 May 1996, ( herein after "Written Replies") reply to question 23, p.31
- Tibet Review,op.cit.
- Tibet : From 1951 to 1991, op.cit., p.82.
- Tibet Review, op.cit.
- The figure of 73% was given by Baroness Ewart-Biggs, "Report to the TIN British Parliamentary Debate on Tibet", 13 December 1989; an adult literacy rate of 21.7% is given in Tibet : Proving Truth from Facts, op.cit., pp. 59-60.
- TIN Supplement : "Material and Spiritual Construction : Economic Development and the Propaganda Offensive", London, Tibet Information Network, February 20, 1990, p.5.
- Tibet : 1951 - 1991, op.cit.,p.85.
- Written Replies, op.cit., reply to question 23,p.31.
- See text related to endnote 11.
- Written Replies, op.cit.,reply to question 22,p.29.
- This is the figure used in question 23 addressed to China by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Written Replies,p.30
- Tibet: Proving Truth from Facts, op.cit.p.66.
- Similarly, article 2 of ICESCR: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise that, with a view to achieving the full realisation of this right: a. primary education shall be compulsary and available free for all.
- Article 45 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China
- Article 4 of the Compulsary Education Act
- "Persistent Human Rights Violations in Tibet", Amnesty International, May 1995,p.2.
- Written Replies, reply to question 23,p.31.
- Ibid.
- Art. 10 of the PRC's Compulsory Education Act states: "The State shall not charge tuition fees for student attending compulsory education".
- Written Replies,op.cit., reply to question 21,p.28.
- Ibid., reply to question 6, p.7.
- Ibid., reply to question 21, pp.28-29.
- Arcticle 2 (b) of ICESCR : "secondary education in its different forms, including technical and vocational secondary education, shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate
|
