[lg policy] Petition questions legality of Chinese-language policy for Tibetans

Harold Schiffman hfsclpp at GMAIL.COM
Fri Jan 21 14:39:06 UTC 2011

Petition questions legality of Chinese-language policy for Tibetans

(TibetanReview.net, Jan14, 2011)  A number of prominent Tibetans,
including retired Chinese government officials and educationists, in
Qinghai province have submitted a petition on Oct 24, 2010, calling
for the scrapping of proposed education reforms which they have argued
contravene Chinese laws and are detrimental to their stated beneficial
aims. The reforms seek to make Chinese the only language of teaching
in Tibetan schools in the province, with Tibetan being taught as just
a language subject.

The petition, which was in Chinese language, has been circulating on
the Internet. The petition was submitted to the Ministry of Education
in Beijing, as well as key Chinese Communist Party offices at the
national and provincial levels, the provincial education department in
Xining, and offices in the six Tibetan prefectures in Qinghai

It was earlier reported, also in Oct’10, that hundreds of Tibetan
teachers in the province had also submitted a petition, expressing
serious concern over the new policy announced by the head of the
Qinghai Education Department, Wang Yubo.

The petitioners in the current case were said to have argued, “Unless
the National People’s Congress revises the Autonomy Law, an
administrative office, such as a provincial-level government office,
has absolutely no authority to exceed the principles and provisions of
a basic law by issuing regulations without authority and in
contravention of the law,” reported Washington-based International
Campaign for Tibet (ICT) which has translated the petition.

The petitioners were reported to have cited numerous articles from
several key pieces of Chinese legislation which ostensibly protect the
rights of Tibetans and other non-Chinese people in the PRC to study,
use and develop their own language. Enacting the proposal, the
petitioners were reported to have argued, would be “in serious
contempt of the authority of the nation’s laws.”

ICT said the names of those who had signed the petition were not given
in the copy it had seen. The petition is dated less than a week after
thousands of Tibetan students staged protests in towns and on school
campuses across the Tibetan areas of Qinghai and Gansu Provinces, with
a similar protest by Tibetan students also reported at Minzu
University in Beijing.

The current petition was reported to have been submitted under the
provisions of the Regional Nationality Law on Autonomy (RNLA), which
is China’s main legislation for administering Tibetan and other
“minority nationality” regions and under the terms of which the
central authorities are beholden to reply to the petition within 60
days of its receipt.

The group said the petition was remarkably detailed in its scope and
analysis and included three items of recommendations on a way ahead
that would ensure “stability” and the protection and development of
the Tibetan language. These were: (1) Autonomous agencies of an ethnic
autonomous area should persuade and encourage cadres of the various
nationalities to learn each other’s spoken and written languages;
(2)Do not treat the stance of the petitioners as one “that has to be
overcome,” but deal with the issue as “an important political duty, an
important people’s-hearts project, and with great efforts and great
determination, focus closely on achieving good results,” and (3)
relevant civil organizations – other than education and nationality
work departments – should carry out in-depth surveys, research,
discussions and experience exchanges on the issue of bilingual
education, on upholding social stability and the unity of
nationalities, and avoid allowing the Tibetan language and script to
become a factor that impacts upon nationality relations and state

The petitioners have argued, “Currently, there is as much concern for
linguistic and cultural diversity in the world as there is for
biodiversity – it has become a global concern.”


N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to

This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list

More information about the Lgpolicy-list mailing list