反藏独提倡尊重历史言论自由 霍建强在洋人中激起轩然大波
文章来源：霍建强议员办公室，2010-07-02发布于新西兰天维网
（2010年）6月30日，刚从中国出访回新的工党首位华裔议员霍建强在工党博客Red Alert上撰文发表观点，直言批评绿党党魁，提倡尊重历史，尊重真正的言论自由，反对藏独，因此而再度引发一 轮激烈辩争。似乎左派右派都派出笔杆子对霍议员展开口诛笔伐，从而验证了所谓言论自由只有符合他们的利益才能自由。
霍文开篇表示：恭喜诺曼博士赢得游戏，成功增加了知名度。文章紧接着指出：绿党党魁诺曼博士在中国副主席习近平6月份访新期间，于国会大厦门前突然欺身舞旗，反复高喊口号抗议的事件，即刻在新西兰的华人社区引发广泛而 激烈的讨论。
文章说：华社领袖纷纷要求这位绿党党魁为其举止道 歉。新西兰联合报主编文扬先生分别以中英文发表评述，认为诺曼博士滥用了其国会议员身份，其作为超出了言论自由的界限，他应当道歉。
霍文指出：综合意见领袖们的观点，对此事及 相关议题大致持两种理解角度—-一种是自私的处理方式，另一种恰好相反，是开放的对待。
“对一些人来说，新西兰普通百姓的生活水平与幸福与否，远比遥迢千里之外的达赖喇嘛值得关注。从这个角度来看，鉴于中国是新西兰的第二大贸易伙伴，诺曼事件究竟对中新之间的关系造成多大损害，有待评估。”
“对另一些人而言，人权与言论自由的真谛尚待商榷。”
霍文进一步从历史背景分析诺曼事件及其牵连。指出在理解负载着浓厚政治意味的“Freedom for Tibet, freedom for the people of Tibet” 的口号时，至少应当讨论到三个本质问题：
首先，诺曼博士所谓“西藏自由”是不是意指西藏从中华人民共和国分离？– 中国在1950年代初期成立西藏自治区，从而宣告了当地残酷的农奴制的完结。而人们对达赖的印象也分两种，对于其追随者，他是圣徒；于 另一部分人，他却是奴隶制度的支持者。
文章以2009年在New Lynn举办的一个关于农奴制的展览为佐证，质疑：西方人不知道而且不想知道达赖喇嘛统治时的农奴制社会有多么残酷。
或者，诺曼博士所谓“自由西藏”是指西藏脱离达赖喇嘛的统治？达赖喇嘛在 西藏曾是宗教与政治的双重领袖，对那里的全体人民拥有巨大的影响力—是否这才是西藏人民要摆脱的禁锢？
霍文指出：第三个本质问题与第二条密切相关，即所谓“自由西藏”是指从哪一任喇嘛治下自 由？诺曼博士所指的是第十四世达赖喇嘛，他之前还有13任达赖喇嘛—他们都是大奴隶主。
据统计，清朝初期，仅居全部人口5%的西藏奴隶主、贵族与高级僧人占有了包括奴隶和土地在内的西藏所 有资源。
通过解释达赖喇嘛产生的背景，并指出汉藏渊源可追朔到唐 代，霍建强表示：“我们虽然不能精确描述史实，却应尊重历史。” 西藏议题并非诺曼博士宣讲的那么简单。
文章说：正如本地华社民众所批评的，诺曼博士的问题是他自己并不理解中国及其区域历史，却试图给来访的中国领导人上课。
霍文尖锐指出，长期以来，很多新西 兰人只接受一面之辞。诺曼博士及其支持者们只取一斑，罔顾全貌的现象，令人相当痛心。文章认为，执于偏见阻碍了在诸如西藏问题这样的敏感议题上产生真正高水准的论争。
“偏见源 于无知，无知导致更深的偏见”从这点来看，诺曼博士的行为与“言论自由”自相矛盾。
文章最后呼吁：若新西兰是个开放有容的国家，无论从公正还是佛教的角度，都至少应当听取关于 此事件的不同意见。
“人权与言论自由应关乎真相，不应当被算计为 媒体曝光的筹码。”
霍建强议员的这篇博文一出，立即在Red Alert激起大波澜，并同时受到来自左右两方的主流读者压力。截止发稿期为止，一日之内这篇博文的跟贴已达54篇。其中相当多的英 文读者不满霍建强在西藏问题上的立场及其对诺曼博士的抗议举动持批评态度。批评包括指霍文持论与中国官方宣传如出一辙、西藏问题不能作为中国人权纪录的借口等。一部分支持者则认为：作为工党议员，霍建强在敏感议题上勇于直陈与大潮不同的个人看法，显 示了工党的包容度，值得赞许；西藏的主权归属中国是国际社会承认的，是中国内政；历史应得到尊重；达赖本人尚不说要西藏脱离中国，诺曼博士等热心高呼自由西藏来得无理。
下附为霍建强议员Red Alert博文原文及相关评论
Tibet, Norman and the freedom of speech
Posted by Raymond Huo on June 30th, 2010
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman should be congratulated on successfully winning the game of name recognition.
When Dr Norman dangled the Tibetan flag in front of the visiting Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping, repeating the words “freedom for Tibet, freedom for the people of Tibet”, wide debate instantly raged within the Chinese community in New Zealand.
Chinese community leaders demanded an apology from the Greens co-leader. Jerry Yang, editor-in-chief of Auckland-based United Chinese Press (published in both Chinese and English) said Dr Norman should apologise for abusing his position as an MP and stretching the boundaries of freedom of expression.
Based on the take of the opinion leaders there are two approaches to help us understand the relevant issues – a selfish approach and conversely, an open approach.
For some, they care more about the living standard and well-being of ordinary New Zealanders than the Dalai Lama, who lives thousands of miles away on the other side of the world. In that regard, how much damage has been done to our relationship with China, our second largest trading partner, due to Dr Norman’s actions remains to be assessed.
For the others, the real essence of human rights and freedom of speech should be argued.
In that vein, when National MP and Minister for Ethnic Affairs Hon Pansy Wong expressed her view in the Chinese media that Dr Norman’s actions were disgraceful, it struck a chord among the Kiwi-Chinese community.
“Freedom for Tibet, freedom for the people of Tibet”.
To understand this politically-laden slogan, there are at least three intrinsic issues that need to be evaluated.
Firstly, does Dr Norman mean free Tibet from the People’s Republic of China?
China established what is now known as Tibetan Autonomous Region in the early 1950s, which put an end to the notoriously cruel system of serfdom on Tibet.
There are two versions of the Dalai Lama. For those of his followers his Holiness is a saint. For others, he is viewed as the leader who supported a system of slavery in Tibet which the Chinese authorities put an end to in the 1950s.
What Westerners do not know, or do not want to know, as argued by the other party, is what level of cruelty the Theocratic Serfdom under Dalai Lama had to offer. An exhibition in New Lynn in 2009 displayed:
• Tibetan Lamaism instruments for worship ceremony made by human parts including human skin drum and a necklace made of finger bones,
• A “gandong” (a flute made of human leg bone)
• Skin from serfs (including children) for religious purpose
• Serf’s eyes gouged out for punishment
Or when Dr Norman says ‘Free Tibet’, does he mean to say free Tibet from the Dalai Lama? The Dalai Lama was both a religious and political leader that ruled the region with great influence over its entire people – is this who the Tibetan people need freeing from?
Thirdly and closely related to the second part, free Tibet from which Dalai Lama? The Dalai Lama Dr Norman so cared about is “His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama” which means, literally, there were 13 such chief monks before the current one who all as leaders of both politics and religion were grand owners of serfs.
In fact according to statistics in the early years of the 17th century Qing Dynasty the serf owners, nobles and the upper-temple monks made up of less than 5% of the population but occupied and owned all Tibet’s farmland, pastures, forests, mountains, livestock and rivers as well as the serfs.
Wikipedia explains the origin of the title of Dalai Lama as such:
“in 1578 the Mongol ruler Alan Khan bestowed the title Dalai Lama on Sonam Gyatso. The title was later applied retrospectively to the two predecessors on his reincarnation line, Gendun Drup and Gendun Gyatso. Gendun Gyatso was also Sonam Gyato’s predecessor as abbot of Drepung monastery…”
And the relationship between Tibetans and the Han Chinese dated back as early as the Tang dynasty from the 7th to the 10th century A.D.
We don’t know how accurate the history is but the history is complicated enough for us to appreciate that the Tibetan issue is not as simple as what Dr Norman tried to chant.
The problem Dr Norman has – as argued by the Chinese community here in New Zealand – is that he wanted to teach the visiting Chinese leader a lesson but without understanding the history of the region.
Dr Norman may believe that his supporters don’t care about history. It is true that for too long many Kiwis were exposed to only one side of the story.
And sometimes it is painful to see that some of Dr Norman’s supporters have just enjoyed sticking to the one sided story and could not be bothered to look at the other side. Indeed it is sometimes difficult to even initiate a quality debate on sensitive issues such as that of Tibet.
Prejudice originated from ignorance and ignorance often enhances prejudice. In that vein Dr Norman’s action has made freedom of speech an oxymoron.
If New Zealand as a country is an open court, in the name of justice or for the sake of Buddhism – a religion Dalai Lama represents – at least we can agree that it is warranted that we hear what the other party or parties have to say on this issue.
Human rights and freedom of speech are about truth and should not be calculated for instant media exposure.
（跟评请见：http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/06/30/tibet-norman-and-the-freedom-of-speech/）
54 Responses to “Tibet, Norman and the freedom of speech”
- Paul 2.0 says:
If I were a Tibetan I would long for the old ‘notoriously cruel system of serfdom’ than being a minority in my own country with absolutely no say in the current Chinese notoriously cruel system.
– Free the crabs.
- Tracey says:
In an area fraught (sp) with difficulty in terms of seperating propaganda or interest from “truth” I am still struggling to see exactly what Raymond’s point is? Thanks Raymond for addressing somany and yes, I agree that this is one thing we can thank Labour for, a forum where adults can carry out adult discussions.
“Very interesting, but isn’t it great that you can write this post in a public and one of your colleagues respond with differing points of views” Well said Rebecca
Raymond, why is Tibet so important to China? Is it the military bases nearby? Is it something else? If they have “saved” Tibetans from the cruelty of their former oppressors, why do they now rule them at gun point and in fear od free speech?
I have no idea of the full truth in this situation, but Ihave grave doubts that the full truth will ever come directly or indirectly from the Chinese Government.
I might just ask the Dalai Lama, if I ever meet him again, but you know Raymond, I can’t ask the Chinese P or VP because he has to protected from that kind of question!
更多跟评参见：
