In August, I read an article about a Tibetan monk who set himself alight and died, shouting slogans " We Tibetan people want freedom" of protesting against Chinese rule, which was already the second self-immolation in this year. At that time, I was surprised, so I wrote the article on my journal. However, this story did not end. The same protests happened twice in early this month; 3rd and 7th, resulting in one person dead.
The BBC News reported that "Tibetan youths self-immolate in protest at China rule". According to the UK-based lobby group Free Tibet, two Tibetan teenagers who had been expelled from a monastery had set themselves on fire in the street in Aba, Sichuan province, China, where is a large ethnic Tibetan Community, on Friday October 7th, and one of them had died. The Kirti monastery has been the center of repeated protests against Chinese government's rule which requires the Tibetan monks to attend re-education programs. Three monks have been sentenced to prison for helping the previous self-immolation which occurred in August. China said that the monks have been engaged in acts aimed at disturbing social order whereas many Tibetans have complained about growing domination of ethnic Han Chinese in Tibet, and accuse the government of trying to dilute their culture. Free Tibet says dozens more monks appear to be ready to kill themselves soon.
When people are going to protest against the powerful authorities by sacrificing themselves, they may think that this is the last choice they can do. This practice that people commit suicides with the strong will has been conducted since ancient times. While I was reading this article, I wondered that why this extreme and tragic action should still exist in the modern world where people try to make people's life better. It seems that one of the possible answers is that even though human beings have achieved many physical benefits, we still have a long way to go when it comes to freedom. I don't know much about the history between China and Tibet. However, I believe that everyone in this world should be cared of equally regardless of the races or religions. Definitely, this Tibetan situation is not the problem between only two peoples concerned, but this is an impending homework for world to solve together.
__________
References
Tibetan monk burns himself to death in China. (2011, August 15). BBC News. Retrieved October 9, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uknews/world-asia-pacific-14531538Tibetan youths self-immolate in protest at China rule. (2011, October 7). BBC News. Retrieved October 9, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15219298
Like Sunny, I don't know much about the historical background, but there seem to be some basic human rights violations here, and human rights are the same every where at all times for all people.
ReplyDeleteI don't really know China history. However, I don't like people killed themselves in order to get somethings unless they have some issue with psychology.
ReplyDeleteI think that China uses the excuse of "social order" to violate basic human rights of Chinese citizens. And it's wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat does social order even mean?
If protecting social order means acting to stop the seizure of public buildings such as airports or parliaments, then it is reasonable, since such actions cause actual harm to others by seriously disrupting basic social infrastructure.
But if protecting social order means acting to silence debate, such as not allowing peaceful protests or blocking public discussion and access to ideas on the internet and so on, then it is not just.
Debate is necessary for knowledge. Without debate, opinions can only be based on ignorance and must therefore be of little worth - whatever CHinese people think of Mao, for example, cannot be a well informed opinion because that topic is censored in China, thereby enforcing ignorance on the topic. This is strange - you would think that the Chinese would want well informed ideas about someone so very important in their recent political history. But presumably the communist rulers have a reason for preferring ignorance to knowledge on Mao and related topics.
And the same for the situation in Tibet. I admit that I know little of the relevant history, but if the citizens are not allowed to discuss it and peacefully present their ideas, arguing for or against the current political situation, then it is impossible to know what is right and wrong. The suspicion must be that the Chinese rulers know that they are wrong, and don't want that fact stated and supported.
Following Mur's comment, I think, as Sunny also reminds us, that people have "since ancient times" (¶ 3) had things that they think are worth dying for: children, religious beliefs, political ideals, social ideas, family, money, country and so on.
ReplyDeleteWhat I really don't like is that it's even more common in human history for people to think that it's OK to kill others simply becasue they do not share their own beliefs - religious wars, political wars, wars on drugs, wars against cultural change, and so on are all too common, and all evil when they kill people simply for having a different idea to the killers. These killers often have very noble intentions, but they are still committing evil.
Should people kill themselves for their ideas? I can't answer. But I think it's definitely better than killing other people because they don't share the same idea.
Teh monks have not killed or harmed anyone else, unlike the Chinese government, and many other oppressive governments that want to control what their citizens know, think and believe.