Kashag's Clarifications on the Amendments to the Charter for Tibetans-in-Exile/ENG

2011 július 13. /ITN/TibetPress

Honourable Speaker,

When the parliamentary secretariat asked if the Kashag had any
agenda to be included in the first session of the Fifteenth Tibetan
Parliament-in-Exile, we said that the Kashag had no other agenda
other than to offer our greetings. Later the Honourable Speaker has
given the Kashag this opportunity to make clarifications on some
issues, which we readily accepted. Earlier when the Kashag offered
greetings to the members of the fifteenth parliament, we
specifically did not mention the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker
because we thought it would be more auspicious to offer our
greetings after you led the first day of this session.

Honourable Speaker, during your tenure of the past two and half
years, though there were many important and complicated issues in
the parliament, you have worked hard to manage and guide the
procedures regarding the passing of laws. You have been re-elected
by the fifteenth parliament through majority vote for which I and
my colleagues in the Kashag would like to offer our heartfelt
greetings. As your Honourable Speaker stated in your opening
remarks of this session, we hope that the discussions and the
proceedings in the parliament in terms of passing laws will attain
a higher standard. Likewise, the Kashag would like to offer our
warm greetings to the Honourable Deputy Speaker, who has admirably
chaired this session of the parliament for one sitting with open-
mindedness and in accordance with proper parliamentary procedures.
We were satisfied with the election of the Deputy Speaker and feel
that the choice was appropriate.

At this critical juncture in our history, though the term of the
fourteenth parliament is nearing its end, it has successfully
carried out the works regarding amendments to the Charter. This is
a matter of great pride and happiness. Many educated Tibetans from
inside Tibet sent messages saying that things went well this time.
The Kashag acknowledges that proceedings regarding passing of laws
went very well. However, whether a work is done well or whether
that work is of historic importance or whenever there is change or
new initiative, one section of society always remains dissatisfied
and will say this is wrong. This is a phenomenon common to all
human beings, including the Tibetans. That is why over the last few
weeks those people, who do not have to shoulder any responsibility,
have been writing and saying many things on the internet and other
news media. We do not see these as something that is to be
surprised about. After a while these will naturally disappear like
airless balloons. However, among the general populace and
especially in the media, there are cases of people, who in order to
confuse the public use terms and words that have nothing to do with
reality. We hope that these are done and said out of ignorance and
not intentionally. There are many issues on the internet, print
media and in the streets. Though these are something that doesn´t
deserve one´s attention, taking this opportunity we would like to
briefly clarify on some of the important ones.

Some popular news media are using the term `new charter´. We have
heard people say that on 29 May 2011 a `new charter´ was passed
under which this and that was done. We have neither passed a new
charter nor do we have plans to do so. In 1991 the eleventh Tibetan
parliament adopted the Charter for Tibetans-in-Exile. This charter
includes Chapter 11, which has provisions for making amendments to
the Charter. This should be clear even to ordinary people that this
is no new charter and especially the media must know this. If each
amendment is considered as a new charter, then this should have
been the twenty-fifth new charter. There were twenty-four previous
amendments in the past. This is the twenty-fifth. We must
categorically state that this talk of a `new charter´ is absolutely
not true.

Secondly, we have seen and heard in the media by some people who
said that the exile Tibetan government (tsenjol bod zhung) and the
Tibetan government (bod zhung) has been dissolved. In 1959 the
Ganden Phodrang Government of Tibet was forced to relocate from the
Tibetan capital Lhasa to Lhuntse Dzong and that same government,
which re-established itself in India, has been functioning for the
last 52 years with democratically evolved charter and appropriate
distribution of power with provisions for checks and balances
amongst democratic institutions such as the executive, the
judiciary and the legislature. The legitimate government of Tibet
established since 1642 has absolutely not been dissolved. All forty-
four members of parliament are right here at this moment engaged in
legislative affairs. There is neither any reduction of a single
member nor any change in the functioning of the parliament. This is
the first session and agenda are being made for the second session.
Everyone can see that there is not even a single change in the
legislative body. Regarding the executive branch, a new Kalon Tripa
directly elected by the people is right here in our midst. He will
takeover the responsibilities before long. His responsibilities,
functioning and power have increased and not reduced. As for the
judiciary, over and above its previous responsibilities, it is
given some new duties, which were held by His Holiness the Dalai
Lama as the Head of State. These responsibilities are being carried
out.

Arrangements are being made to hold workshops on exile Tibetan laws
and to produce more lawyers in all Tibetan settlements from 2011
onwards in Nepal, Bhutan and India. In spite of seeing the fact
that there is not a single change in the three pillars of democracy
but improvements, some people say that the Tibetan government
(tsenjol bod zhung) has been dissolved. This is something that we
should be alarmed and suspicious about as why and for what purpose
this is being said. That is why I, taking responsibility as the
Kalon Tripa, in this session of parliament, would categorically
like to state that the three pillars of Tibetan democracy and the
Charter are intact as they were before and that nothing has been
dissolved.

The only change that has taken place is change of some terms. This,
too, is not something that is new but has been there with us since
the day in 1959 when the Ganden Phodrang Government led by His
Holiness the Dalai Lama was forced to re-establish itself in exile
and had mutual agreement with the Government of India to call the
exile establishment - the Central Tibetan Administration - in
English. We have been using this term since 1959. In Tibetan, we
have directly not translated the Central Tibetan Administration and
have used Tsenjol Bod Zhung, which when translated into English
becomes Tibetan Government in Exile. Those who felt that there
might be some benefits in using this English term have done so. One
impact of using this term, which was seen by all the members of the
parliament, was the cooperation between the Tibetan Parliament-in-
Exile and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation. The funding for the
Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre was reduced
drastically and the international TSG conference could not be held
because of lack of funding from this foundation.

Until now we have been able to use various terms because of the
immense charisma of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Even if there was
a problem, it could be cleared because of His Holiness the Dalai
Lama´s charisma. In the new circumstance when His Holiness the
Dalai Lama has devolved all his power, it makes no sense for us to
continue to use a small term that will create difficulties for us.
Is it a mature political strategy to consider the term more
important then it´s meaning? If one is a strategic thinker, the
meaning should be considered more important than the term. We have
a pending case in Himachal Pradesh State High Court and criticisms
against us that are daily published in the newspapers in South
India. If we can solve these problems by cleverly using certain
terms, we do not see any reason to consider the term itself
important. It is of vital importance that the Tibetan
administration and its three pillars of democracy continue to
remain in India until the issue of Tibet is resolved. If a
situation arises under which the offices of the exile
administration have to be operated like other non-governmental
organizations, it will be a great loss for both the short and long-
term, apart from the fact that we will face innumerable
difficulties. During the recent meeting (the Second Tibetan
National General Meeting) some people said that Offices of Tibet
are registered offices and these could function without His
Holiness the Dalai Lama´s name being attached to them. If they are
considered as NGOs and function as one, it may be all right. For us
that would not be enough, and hence it is important to have the
legitimacy and the status to represent the six million Tibetans.
With His Holiness the Dalai Lama´s permission we have worked hard
to have these Offices of Tibet under His Holiness the Dalai Lama´s
name and made provisions in the Charter to fulfil this. This was
done with long-term view and for the survival of the exile
administration. If we only need the term and not the substance of
the exile Tibetan administration, then a registered NGO should
suffice. It would not be correct for people to take out one small
issue and then talk about it without looking at the overall picture.

We have come across many people who have expressed that the term
was changed because of His Holiness the Dalai Lama´s order and
particularly under internal pressure. We are extremely saddened to
hear that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is considered as someone who
will fall under external and internal pressures without
understanding a bit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama´s wisdom and
achievements. It is exceptionally strange that some people while
from their mouths state that we must single-mindedly pray to His
Holiness the Dalai Lama but in reality regard His Holiness the
Dalai Lama as someone who is easily swayed under pressure. I am not
talking about whether one has faith in His Holiness the Dalai Lama
or not. Even for a non-believer, one must truthfully judge His
Holiness the Dalai Lama based on facts. I think this was not done.

Furthermore, to those who say that this term was changed under
Indian or Chinese pressure or with hopes for Sino-Tibetan dialogue,
I would categorically like to state that they are a thousand miles
from the truth.

Honourable Speaker, regarding Sino-Tibetan dialogue, we have
submitted the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People
to the People´s Republic of China. In this document we have
knowingly and intentionally used the term Tsenjol Bod Zhung or the
Tibetan Government in Exile. We knew that this would enrage the
Chinese side, but we used this term with reasons. We do not fear to
use this term while communicating with them.

In the course of the Second Tibetan National General Meeting, I
visited two committees to clarify on the amendments, during which I
made it clear that currently there is neither pressure from India
nor from China regarding the name change. Furthermore, I said that
it would be unnecessary to hold on to a name, which may give rise
to pressure in future that will be hard to handle. The bottom-line
is that, I can confidently state to this session of the parliament
that there is neither pressure from China nor from India or from
within the Tibetan community on His Holiness the Dalai Lama. If any
one can prove me wrong, then I will accordingly be available to
face it. Otherwise, we cannot accept this talk to link His Holiness
the Dalai Lama's name with this baseless talk.

In reality democracy, its culture and its essential principles are
inherent in His Holiness the Dalai Lama´ mind. As result for the
past 52 years, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has not once instructed
the parliament to pass this or that law. I was the interim Speaker
of the parliament, when it ratified the Charter for Tibetans-in-
Exile. There were two deputy speakers. When we presented the
ratified Charter to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, he stated that he
had hoped certain terms such as secularism could be adopted in the
Charter. However, His Holiness the Dalai Lama clearly said that he
would not put forward his requests since it was already ratified by
the parliament in accordance with democratic process.

On the other hand, His Holiness the Dalai Lama clearly stressed
that the repeal of the articles in the Charter regarding the
impeachment of His Holiness the Dalai Lama should not have
happened. Since this concerned him, His Holiness the Dalai Lama
said that he had the right to have a say on it. His Holiness the
Dalai Lama said that this would not violate the principles of
democracy. Other than this, His Holiness the Dalai Lama suggested
that it would be good to reassess points relating to local assembly
and local administrative heads, but he left it entirely to the
parliament to decide what to do. Such statements signify that His
Holiness the Dalai Lama respects the parliament´s ability to make
decisions.

Not long after the Charter was adopted, His Holiness the Dalai Lama
had to issue a few ordinances regarding Article 21 of the Charter.
Each and every word used in these ordinances were left exactly as
they were approved by the Standing Committee of the Parliament and
His Holiness the Dalai Lama did not change a single word.
Similarly, during the Monlam Chenmo or the Great Prayer Festival
and during his meeting with the participants of the conference, His
Holiness the Dalai Lama gave detailed suggestions on the term
change. Other than these, I have not heard that His Holiness the
Dalai Lama issued statement to the parliament during this session
on what or what not to do. I believe that the Speaker and the
Deputy Speaker also did not receive any statement to this effect
from His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The insertion of the Preamble in the Charter is related to His
Holiness the Dalai Lama's inherent powers. His Holiness the Dalai
Lama has the right to have a say on these points. But this does not
violate any democratic principles. Even if His Holiness the Dalai
Lama rejects the insertion of the Preamble in the Charter, it does
not violate democratic principles. In a democratic society if an
elected person resigns from his position, nobody considers it as
undemocratic. If this is considered undemocratic, then how about
the parliamentarians and Kalon Tripa candidates who have resigned
or withdrawn from elections? In respecting democratic ideals, His
Holiness the Dalai Lama accepted the Preamble as was requested by
the exile parliament and the Second Tibetan National General
Meeting. However, there were a few terms in it, which His Holiness
the Dalai Lama does not generally use, which he said should be
changed. Nothing was said other than this. Based on a few changes
in some section of the Preamble, other changes in the amendment are
being made in this ongoing session of the parliament through
majority vote. These changes were not made because of His Holiness
the Dalai Lama´s instruction. I think it is important that everyone
should know about this.

The Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile convened the Second Tibetan
National General Meeting in order to solicit the Tibetan people´s
aspirations. But the parliament has the right and responsibility to
pass laws irrespective of whether these laws are in accordance with
people´s aspirations. After the election, the people do not have
the power in their hands to make laws. Whether people understand or
whether the process of passing laws reflects people´s aspirations
or not, as long as the laws are passed in the parliament by
majority vote, these must be recognized as democratic. However, if
these are to be considered as undemocratic, then there can only be
direct democracy and not a democracy based on representation. If it
is perceived that there are procedures which go against democratic
principles, then it would have been the fault of the
parliamentarians and not of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. As per the
Charter, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has the right to advise the
parliament, which His Holiness the Dalai Lama accordingly did. But
it is entirely up to the parliament to decide whether to abide by
his advice. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has never given any orders
in the past, nor has given one now nor will he give any in the
future. It is clear that His Holiness the Dalai Lama's advice is
for consideration for the members of parliament and this is not
part of procedures in making laws.

There are also many people speculating and criticizing that the
amendments are carried out frantically within a short period of
time and that this is not appropriate. We do not see this opinion
as realistic because the current amendments in the Charter were
carried out particularly to devolve His Holiness the Dalai Lama´s
power. And it is clear that this devolution of power to the elected
Tibetan leadership has not come up suddenly as mentioned in His
Holiness the Dalai Lama´ statement to the parliament, which states
that he has talked about this since 1969. It has been forty years
since 1969. I don't think this is a short period of time. It is us
who have failed to act, but His Holiness the Dalai Lama has given
us ample time.

However, if concerns are raised about haste with which the
amendment on certain terms, which are not associated with the
devolution of His Holiness the Dalai Lama´ power, then we can spend
more time to further make amendments. The same legislative powers
of the 14th parliament will be vested onto the 15th, and it is not
as if the 15th cannot amend the laws passed by the 14th parliament.
Therefore, if new opinions can be brought up by spending more time,
then the Charter can be amended anytime in future by 15th, 16th,
17th, 18th parliament and so on. They will have the same power to
make laws or repeal existing ones. However, it has become clear
that the amendments regarding the devolution of His Holiness the
Dalai Lama' power could not be delayed any further. This was the
reason why amendments had to be completed before the 14th
parliament´s term expired. We do not see anything inappropriate or
improper.

I have attempted to briefly express the Kashag´s viewpoints and the
real situation. In future should any individual, members of the
parliament or the Honourable Speaker have any doubts or questions,
I am willing to offer clarifications at any time. Honourable
Speaker, I thank you again for giving this opportunity to make
these clarifications.

NB: This is the English translation, if there are any discrepancy,
the Tibetan version should be final and authoritative.