新加坡英文报纸的藏独文章，大家要夺回话语权呀

新加坡英文报纸的藏独文章，大家要夺回话语权呀

这篇文章是28日，刊登在新加坡发行量最大的一个英文报纸today 上面的读者来信。此封来信是对上个礼拜文章 Tibet: an Ambiguous Case的回复。

Tibet: an Ambiguous（meaning : unclear） Case （April 26-27（是和版，周末只出一期）），一文引用了大量一名新加坡国大中国教授对西藏比较客观的看法。这篇文章现在在网上已经找不到了 。去 today的网站上，发行当天的文章中，只可以看见文章的标题，可是文章的连接已经被去掉。而别的文章都可以浏览。估计，报纸害怕此事愈演愈烈，决定 close case. 毕竟，新加坡的老外很多。不明真相，同情藏独得人也多。

如果这样，就意味着新加坡的主流英文媒体，承认中国政府在西藏侵犯人权，支持藏独！

此文章完全不承认中国政府对西藏做出的贡献。反而，罗列了一新可笑的事实。希望各位大虾不惜笔墨，贡献自己的力量。我们不可应让，英文媒体上充满 傲慢与偏见！纵容他们去愚弄，普通的老百姓！

注意事项，

1。我们的目的，是被发表。去让夺回话语权给事实。一切应以此为核心。

2。注意措辞，绝对不要用侮辱性言语。用词柔和。当然这不是将我们的意思也要柔和。不要用很强的字眼。以理服人。

3。注意投稿质量，如果不能用英文写出一份衡有说服力的文章。大家就不要投稿了。毕竟这不是什么国外的forum。出出主意，献些力。我的文章已经写了一部分了，如果没有合适的文章，我会收集大家的意见，直到礼拜三晚上。暂定礼拜四发出去。

4. 暂时不可以进入网站找到链接，明天补上。

5。 我会在 网，文学城， 天涯，anti-cnn 发帖。

投稿地址：[e-mail]

身在国外，深感中国政治话语权的丧失。在西方，中国政府没有一点公信力。除非去过中国，否则少有西方人，相信中国发生的变化。中国媒体的话语，只在讲经济的时候才会被用到！！！而不管哪个国家的英文媒体，都是被西方主流媒体的新闻所占据！！！

We will make the world hear our voice!!! if they do not want to broadcast the truth, listen our voice, then we will get them to china, and tell him our feeling!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, April 28, 2008. page 14, world news,
- Hide quoted text -

Tibet: The Other Side
John Whalen-Bridge

I read the commentary by Venessa Lee Tibet: an Ambiguous Case (April 26-27) with great interest, as I\'ve been studying the ways in which this prominent issue has been covered differently by the news media of different countries.
.
As Ms Lee states in her opening paragraph, the heady stuff of nationalism often conceals a battle over history, and a determination to gloss over unpalatable truths. Accounts from opposed directions contradict each other completely, and sometimes, the final impression is that the issue is ambiguous.
.
Ambiguities, gray areas, uncertainties and muddles exist in the world, and they ought to be described clearly when we think about a problem so that we can clarify to ourselves the difference between what we call facts and what we think of as a bone of contention.
.
If two puppies are chasing after the same bone, we can\'t say yet which puppy owns the bone, and Tibet is certainly an international bone of contention, and your article gives some of the reasons.
.
Some parts, though, settled for ambiguity too quickly and so, call for response.
.
The article, in several instances, disparages pro-Tibet points of view by associating such views mainly with Western Shangri-la fantasies, and the accounts of Chinese involvement in Tibetan-speaking regions of the world are rather forgiving.
.
Tibetant political prisoners are now thought to number in the hundreds ... but fewer than 200 ... where they once numbered in the thousands. We can ask how one would know, but the claim, in any event, is rather astonishing in light of recent news coverage.
.
The quotation from my colleague at the National University of Singapore, Dr Bo Zhiyue, regarding the Dalai Lama, is one that really made me do a double-take and wonder if there has been some mistake in the quotation. The claim that ordinary people in Tibet don\'t care about independence is astonishing to anyone who has a television.
.
To say They were liberated, I don\'t think they want to go back, as Dr Bo was quoted as saying, implies that the game plan of the Tibetan government in exile is to turn back the clock to 1900 and bring in cruel punishments, feudalism, et cetera.
.
I would challenge Dr Bo to find statements from the Dalai Lama or any of his representatives in which he expresses the wish to return to life exactly as it was. Rather, he has said innumerable times that his intention as a newly-installed young leader was to modernise the country.
.
To say Some people in the West are supporting the Dalai Lama because of his image — he\'s like a smiling Buddha. Their support is based on ignorance, they know nothing about Tibetan history, they don\'t even know where Tibet is.
.
Researchers in the Mind-Science project, including Emotional Intelligence author Daniel Goleman and Paul Eknath, have frequently commented on their interaction with the Dalai Lama, saying that he tends to express the full range of human emotions within the space of a vigorous debate but that he does not get caught up in a cycle of anger.
.
In this sense, the Dalai Lama is a role model for many people — a smiling Buddha, if you like. But Dr Bo seems to want to dismiss this idea of a smiling Buddha as a childish fantasy, saying that the West, en bloc, supports this smiling Buddha out of ignorance. The comments are offensive in many ways, and I\'m left wondering what expertise Dr Bo has brought to the discussion.
.
As a Westerner, I can tell Dr Bo where Tibet is: It is between China and India, and its situation as a geopolitical buffer zone has caused Tibetan people much grief. If Dr Bo wants to say I don\'t know where Tibet is, he can say I am wrong, that there is nothing between India and China, since Tibet is part of China. He can say that, but he would be referring to a difference of opinion about the status of Tibet, and to categorically state that views different from one\'s own are ignorance is impolite and inaccurate.
.
To say that the Dalai Lama wants to drag Tibet back to some medieval period in its own history is simply false, and anyone with access to a library or the Internet can resolve the point.
.
Demonising people with whom one disagrees signifies lack of confidence more than anything else, and China\'s recent willingness to hold some sort of talks with the Dalai Lama\'s representatives perhaps demonstrates a recognition that the demonisation strategy isn\'t working.
.
I\'d be very surprised if Today published quotations from Western academics saying that all Chinese people felt one particular way, especially if an insulting word such as ignorance were used. I write in hopes that my view can also be presented.
.
The writer is an Associate Professor of the English Language and Literature and Convenor of Religious Studies at the National University of Singapore.