The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education has issued a report criticising China for its record on provision of education to its people, and expressing particular concern about education imposed upon ‘minorities’ that denies religious or linguistic identity as well as the high level of illiteracy in Tibet.
The UN Special Rapporteur, Katarina Tomasevski, visited Beijing for 10 days from 10 September, representing only the third time that a UN Rapporteur has been invited to visit China. Delegations led by the Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Religion or Belief in 1994 and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in 1997 both included visits to the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR).
In her report, which is published on the website of the UN High Commission for Human Rights at: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/ , the Special Rapporteur is critical of the role of ‘minority’ education, stating that ‘Education imposed upon minorities, enforcing their children’s obligation to receive compulsory education, violates human rights when it denies their religious or linguistic identity.’ The report adds: ‘This came as a complete surprise to most of the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors’. The Rapporteur is referring to the political elements of the education of non-Han nationalities – known as ‘minority nationalities’ or simply ‘minorities’ (Chinese: shaoshu minzu) – that emerge from the PRC’s strategic aims. Although the ‘minority nationalities’ only represent about 8% of the entire population of the PRC, they inhabit between 50 and 60% of China’s territory, and much of this territory, such as the TAR and the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, incorporates sensitive border regions. Hence it is important for Beijing that the ‘minorities’ identify with China and have a political allegiance to the PRC, which is reflected in the curriculum. A Chinese scholar, Yang Wanli, wrote in a paper on schooling in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR): ‘The curriculum for both higher and basic education must depend on whether it can guarantee the unity and territorial integrity of the county; the curriculum is directly connected with the question of the “stability” of the country.’ (Yang Wanli, ‘The Countermeasures and Particularity of Research on Teaching Materials’, Tibet Studies, Vol 58, No 1, 1996).
Catriona Bass refers to the reassertion in recent years of the political role of ‘minority education’ in her book, ‘Education in Tibet: Policy and Practice since 1950’: ‘[This] is at present significantly narrowing the curriculum for Tibetan children, and has resulted in an erosion of time for academic study…Although education all over China is subject to the swing of the political pendulum, in the TAR the priority of educating Tibetans to be patriotic, and the politicization of the Tibetan language in recent years, mean that educational development in the region is particularly susceptible to political interference.’ (Zed Books in association with Tibet Information Network, 1998).
The Special Rapporteur expresses concern about the strong emphasis on ideology in the educational system as a whole in China, and recommends that China’s law be reviewed using the yardstick of its international human rights obligations so that human and minority rights can be integrated in education policy, law and practice. She states that the introduction of education on human rights would necessitate revisions of the content of the syllabi, curricula and textbooks, giving the example of a study guide for a university entrance exam that offers as a correct answer ‘The Communist Party has written a magnificent chapter in the 21st century’ and stating that ‘The specific formulations of such questions are used as a political barometer’. (Quote from the Far Eastern Economic Review, 30 January 2003).
Educational levels in the TAR are lower than in any region in China, according to Catriona Bass’s research in the book ‘Education in Tibet’. ‘With current levels of investment, the financial problems in the education system seem set to continue for, unlike central China, where the one-child family planning policy has led to a decline in the school-age population, the school age population of the TAR is still expanding and is being swelled by the children of Han Chinese settlers arriving in the region.’ (‘Education in Tibet: Policy and Practice since 1950’).
In the report, which will be discussed during the 60th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights next year from 15 March to 23 April, the Special Rapporteur also draws attention to the lack of tolerance of religion in China, stating that religion is crucial to national identity, and noting that religious education remains prohibited in both public and private educational institutions. The report recommends that education in China should be remoulded ‘with a view to preserving cultural diversity. An education that would affirm minority rights necessitates full recognition by the majority of the worth of minority languages and religions in all facets of life. Otherwise, education is seen as assimilationist and, hence, not compatible with China’s human rights obligations.’
The Special Rapporteur expresses particular concern about the survival of ‘minority’ languages, quoting a UNESCO report that states that out of more than 120 languages spoken in China, 50% are endangered (Biennium Report, UNESCO Office Beijing, 2001-2, 31 May 2003, p 46). The Rapporteur expressed her concern at the high illiteracy rate in Tibet (meaning the TAR) of 39.5% and asked the Ministry of Education whether one of the reasons for this low level was that the literacy test was in Tibetan, while the Chinese language is used more in political, economic and social life.
The Chinese authorities adopted new regulations last year emphasising the “equality” of the Tibetan and “common national” (Han Chinese) languages, and permitting the use of either Tibetan or Chinese as the ‘commonly used languages’. These regulations, which were approved on 22 May 2002 by the 15th session of the 7th TAR People’s Congress, were described by the China Daily as “the first government regulation[s] ever passed in China on preserving an ethnic language” (23 May 2002). However, as government, economic and cultural life in Tibet is dominated by the Chinese, the Tibetan language is increasingly marginalised, and is particularly threatened by Beijing’s current drive to develop the western regions of the PRC. While the current emphasis on providing more vocational and skills training in Tibetan areas brings renewed possibilities for improving the education system in the region, China’s strategic concerns and the influx of Chinese migrants means that the education system is still weighted against Tibetans’ cultural, religious and linguistic needs.
This is one in a series of independent reports by Kate Saunders commissioned by the Australia Tibet Council, Free Tibet Campaign and the International Campaign for Tibet.
