Journalism best serves the common good when it reports the news fairly, completely and without bias. As such, I read with wonder on your Chinese correspondent Mary Kwang's recent report ("Tibet Today" - Nov 5, "Beijing Lifeline" - Nov 6, "Dalai Lama" - 7 Nov, "Remote Tibet steps out of books and into life" - Nov 14) about her trip to Tibet.

The key to reading her articles is to focus on how the issues were framed. In these reports, the issue was not about the extent and character of the terror inflicted, or the plight of the Tibetans. Nor were there any questioning and identification of those responsible for such acts. Rather, the focus was on the achievements and contribution of the Chinese government complete with a conveniently sanitised short history of Tibet under Chinese Communist rule.

Without wanting to engage in a long drawn-out debate about the legitimacy of Chinese occupation in Tibet or the complicated relations between the Chinese leaders and the Dalai Lama, I just want to remind readers that the trip was organised by the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

The first principle in dealing with propaganda is to query what is not said, not what is being said. The items left out are usually the difficult and embarassing issues that really matters. One must remember that the Chinese government has its own interest in shaping how the Tibetan issue is portrayed to the outside world.

Tibet was indeed a highly repressive theocracy based on serfdom and the "liberation" of the Tibetans by the Chinese certainly brought about some social changes which benefited the masses.

However, let us also not turn a blind eye on the atrocious display of human intolerance and state violence carried out by these "liberators". While it has toned down in scale considerably, it still exists today.

Chinese reaction to Western democraciesí interference on this sensitive issue is also understandable. Formerly colonised people have scant trust for "humanitarian-minded" imperial states.

These leaders turn a blind eye to human rights violations whenever it helps their countries' companies increase their corporate profits and gain access to new markets and cheap resources. Secondly, the break-up of China is something they would like to see as it would also dilute the influence of a rising China.

It could be that the Chinese honestly believe that they saved the Tibetans from feudalism and that their continued occupation and present investment in the backward region is a mission of mercy. But like the period of the Spanish Inquisition, the road to hell is usually paved with good intentions.

The Spanish Inquisition lasted for three and half long centuries until its dissolution in 1834 and till this day, the Church not yet apologised. One hopes that the Chinese government can do better at confronting and acknowledging its own mistakes.

Hopefully, Ms Kwang's future trip would be done without the company of government officials. Maybe, she would be able to think about Tibet beyond the yaks and the beautiful Himalayanheights and have the real opportunity to get to know the Tibetan people by having a private heart-to-heart chat with those she meets. I look forward to her report from the "Roof of the World" then.

Being a journalist, there is no excuse to ignore the issues one encounter. In fact, one is obliged to witness it and then act on what he or she saw by reporting it as it is.

I do not want to romanticise the struggle of the Tibetan people, simply to highlight the point that we should all avoid the swallowing of state propaganda as truth.

Christopher Len
1F2 30 ROSENEATH TERRACE
EH9 1JW
EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND

Readers' responses

Hello, I hope Mr Len is from Singapore, or some way connected to Singapore. Otherwise, while I can read what he wrote, I question his right to tell others what to do. Rgds

David Low

This is a follow up to my original letter, "Straits Times Reporting of Tibet By Christopher Len".

Mr David Low is wondering about my nationality. I am puzzled why this piece of information is considered relevant, let alone important to the proper understanding of my above-mentioned unpublished letter to the Straits Times.

Perhaps he would also like to ask the straits times why Mary Kwang was sent to cover the chinese and tibetan issue in the first place since the majority of straits times readers are neither chinese nationals nor tibetans by birth and what goes on between them - good news or bad - has nothing to do with "others". (ie. Singaporeans)

Or maybe he would like to take issue with the ST _Leader_ column or the Straits Times columnists - from Chua Lee Hoong to Yeoh Ah Seng - since i'm sure that they've touched on issues concerning "others", beyond the sunny coast of singapore, one time or another. we also know that the ST often highlight reports of international surveys regarding singapore.

Is a person not entitled to have an opinion on the articles written in the Straits times if s/he is not a Singaporean? If such a policy exists, please tell me where it is posted.

How does this attitude fit with the grand cosmopolitan vision of the singapore government and the often mentioned subject of globalisation?

The aim of the original letter is to highlight to readers what i consider as bias reporting by Mary Kwang on the relationship between the chinese communist party and the tibetan people. If any reader has doubts over the credibility of my information, s/he is free to check out the facts from various sources.

To make any objective and impartial judgement, one first has to get the facts right. This, i believe, is a matter beyond dispute. as such, my pink IC has no bearing on the matter.

Christopher Len