图1为尊者达赖喇嘛的兄弟姊妹。图2为西藏流亡政府第11届全体议会成员及内阁成员与尊者达赖喇嘛合影。
洛桑森盖：说达赖喇嘛喜欢任用亲信是错的
澳大利亚墨尔本《世纪报》（2007年6月7日星期四）
译者：台湾悬钩子
在 麦可•贝克曼（Michael Backman）最近的专栏文章，〈达赖喇嘛的圣袍之下掩藏了什么〉中，（"Behind Dalai Lama's Holy Cloak"）（并由中国政府的英文刊物，《China's Tibet》于2007年6月第十八期再度重刊），他谴责记者没有尽职，不去挑战质疑达赖喇嘛。然而他不但没有树立报人风范，反而以有问题的新闻标准，采 用极度错误、以及经过操弄的“铁证”好让他的论点看起来十分耸动，来指控达赖喇嘛植党营私，不尊重民主过程，
贝克曼认为达赖喇嘛主张的是数百万人的更大自治，而这些人现在是“中国公民，假设未来将让他本人来当这个政府的头头”。事实刚好相反。
在 1981年7月，中国共产党中央委员会总书记胡耀邦即宣布了“关于达赖喇嘛回国的五条方针”，敦促达赖喇嘛回归中国，所以他可以享受“政治待遇和生活待 遇，照一九五九年以前的待遇不变”。达赖喇嘛拒绝了他的建议，说这个议题不是有关于他自己个人在西藏的政治地位问题，而是六百万藏人的福祉问题。
在1992年，达赖喇嘛坚决地宣布他不会在未来的西藏担任任何政府职务。他将会把传统所赋予的领导权力交给西藏的民选领袖，并且“以个人身份，在政府之外，为人民服务”。
确实，传统上的西藏政府并非平等，也不是很有效率。然而，当达赖喇嘛在1950年即位之时，他本人才十五岁而已，却要面临中共入侵与占领西藏的庞大挑战。在流亡时，美国为了反共，的确曾经支持康巴游击队直到1970年代早期为止。
然 而，说达赖喇嘛“本人”由美国中央情报局（CIA）每月支付美金一万五千美元，则完全是无中生有。当时，就好像现在也是一样，他是由印度政府慷慨接待，以 “荣誉佳宾”的身份居留印度。该款项甚至不是西藏流亡政府的预算之一部份。事实上，基金的来源并不是美国中央情报局，而是美国驻印度大使洛仪•亨德森 (Loy Henderson)在1951年承诺提供的款项。
1970年代早期，为了贯彻自己对于非暴力信念的支持，达赖喇嘛本人寄了一卷充满感情的录音带给藏人的游击队员，希望他们放下武器。这卷录音带让许多斗士们灰心丧志，有些人甚至自杀了。而在达赖喇嘛送去了这个讯息之后，游击队就解散了。
西 藏流亡政府的经费每年大约是两千万美金。每年这笔经费都会在西藏国会经费审查会期里，公开由国会议员辩论，而其分配也是完全公开透明的。与其他的难民团体 比起来，西藏流亡政府可以说是最有效率、最成功执行预算的团体，能够把如此有限的经费，有效地用在西藏十三万难民的各种措施之上。然而，外界的印象还是达 赖喇嘛似乎很会募款，一募就是千百万美元。
与此印象相反的是，达赖喇嘛出国访问有严格的规定：这些访问不能被用作募款的用途。他的澳大利 亚行，就好像他在其他国家的访问一样，邀访他的机构都被指示，只能收取刚好能够支付活动开销的门票费用。更令人感动的是，达赖喇嘛本人是不收一分一文的演 讲费的。他的演讲免费，所以更多的人有机会来聆听他的开示。
也许贝克曼文中最不负责任的报导，就是指控达赖喇嘛“明显任人为亲，提拔了自己的家人任职政府高位”，就好像许多亚洲的政治人物一样。
事实如下：为了遵遁他的明确指示，1963年的西藏宪法新增加了一个条款，也在1991年的宪章里采纳，就是达赖喇嘛可以由国会来弹劾。
从1960到1990年，达赖喇嘛享有宪政权利，得以聘任流亡政府的内阁部长、部会首长与国会议员。
结 果是，他从来没有聘任任何一位家人作为部长、国会议员或部会首长。只有他的姐夫作了安全部门的部长，而他的一位哥哥担任了一个刚刚草创的部门领袖（藏医学 研究所）。事实是，从1978年到1986年，最高的决策机构“全国人民大会”(Gayong Mimang Tsokcheng)，常常在经过讨论之后，推荐达赖喇嘛约聘他的二哥嘉乐顿珠作首相。每一次，达赖喇嘛都拒绝了。
在1991年，达赖喇嘛更把人事的约聘权转移给国会，以作为民主改革的一部份，而西藏的国会是从1960年以来，都是由人民所直接选举出来的。
多少讽刺的是，国会开始选他的家人－－最广为人知的就是他的兄长嘉乐顿珠－－来担任首相。
这位兄长曾经在1950年代至1960年代扮演了寻求美国政府支持的重要角色，也很矛盾的是他对1980年代西藏流亡政府与中国重新恢复磋商与会谈，亦有关键性的作用。
虽然如此，他很受争议，有一部份是因为他独裁的性格。
不令人意外的，嘉乐顿珠没有作满首相的任期就离开了他的工作，有一部份是因为他无法应付流亡的民主环境政体所导致的。
在2000年，达赖喇嘛又主导了另一项改革，要求流亡藏人直接选出一个除了与中国的外交以外，负有完全行政权的首相。
二十七个国家的藏人在同一天投票，大约有80%的人将票投给桑东仁波切教授作为第一任首相。而他接下来并没有聘任任何一位达赖喇嘛的家人为内阁首长。在国会里，只有一位侄子被选为国会议员，而且是四十六位议员当中的一位普通议员，他一度还面临了违反国会规章的纪律惩处。
综上所述，达赖喇嘛的家人在西藏新生的民主系统里，很清楚地不一定就可以平步青云，扶摇直上。
更重要的是，达赖喇嘛本人从来没有聘任任何一位家庭亲属担任要职，即使他在1960-90年代有权利这样做，而真的担当职务的尧西家族（译注：即历代达赖喇嘛家族），也是由国会所选出来的。
如此可证，事实真相与贝克曼指控达赖喇嘛“聘任”亲友担任要职，有很大的差距。
最后，贝克曼建议，假如达赖喇嘛当初“保持安静”，也许那些“被中国折磨、杀死、或者广受压制的藏人能够少一些”，听起来十分天真与伪善。
第一，1960至1972年间，当达赖喇嘛很“安静”，从来没有旅行到印度以外的国家时，西藏就遭到中国的残酷镇压，成千上万的人死亡。
从1973年到1986年，达赖喇嘛作了几次出国旅行，然而镇压还是继续。
从1987年到2007年，当达赖喇嘛常常旅行到国外，好不容易将西藏放到世界的地图之上时，贝克曼却建议他“保持安静”。
贝克曼本人常常发言，还靠写作专栏与书籍来谋生，却建议达赖喇嘛不要为了六百万藏人的福祉发言，这是十分伪善的作法。
就我所知，言论自由乃普世人权。为百万受苦的人发声，特别是批评专制政权，是高贵而勇敢的行为。
靠批判他人来谋生，不是只有少数人才有的特权。
洛桑森盖博士是哈佛大学法学院研究西藏和亚洲的学者。也是二十四位“亚洲年轻领袖”之一。
附：麦可•贝克曼的文章
（这篇译文是在网络上找到的贝克曼原文的译文，据译者说，自己的译文反而在中国被过滤阻挡，所以很多词加了许多奇怪的符号）
http://feed.yeeyan.com/articles/view/firedragoon/5772
达赖的圣洁藏袍下掩藏了什么？
da lai即将于下个月在澳洲再度粉墨登场，澳大利亚的政客们也再一次为是否接见他而左右为难。
而记者们却绝少挑战da lai。
部分原因在于他是如此的可爱迷人。大多数对他的记述都如春风般轻快，就像他常用呵呵的微笑和优雅的比喻来回答一些尴尬的问题一般。但请记住，他主张数百万现在是中国公民的藏人高度自治，而显然他将成为他们的政#&府首脑。那么，为什么不把他看作是一个政治人物？
da lai绝不仅仅是一个宗教领袖，他在1959年开始流@#亡时是西#@%藏地方政#&府的首脑。西#@%藏政#&府当时是由上层贵族以及 僧侣依靠裙带关系组织起来的，他们收税，监禁并迫害@#￥#异#%@议人士，他们同其它政客一样玩弄一切政治阴谋诡计。（da lai的生父便在1946年的一次政变中几乎被杀）
流@#亡政#&府逃往印度后，直到70年代止，每年都从美国中央情报局收取170万美金。
这些资金被用来支付对中国的游击战。而da lai一直宣称奉行非暴力原则，甚至还在1989年因此获得了诺贝尔和平奖。
da lai本人自1950年代末直至1974年止也受到中情局的资助，据说每月金额为一万五千美金（每年18万美金）
这笔资金直接支付给da lai个人，但他将这笔资金几乎全部用于流@#亡政#&府的活动，主要用于运作纽约和日内瓦的办事处，以及国际社会中的游说活动。
流@# 亡政#&府的财政状况非常不透明。从结构上说，流@#亡政#&府有七个部门组成，还有若干特别办公室/办事处。政#&府内还有慈 善基金，一个出版公司，在印度和尼泊尔还有若干家酒店，在美国和澳大利亚拥有手工艺品销售公司，这些单位，都归于流@#亡政#&府的财政部名下。
流@#亡政#&府总共经营有24家企业，但在2003年决定退出商业经营，因为这毕竟并不恰当。
若干年前我向da lai政#&府的财政部询问预算的详细情况。得到的回复称流@#亡政#&府每年收入有约两千两百万美元，用于健康，教育，宗教以及文化发展方面的开支。
但最大的一宗花费是仍然是政治活动，大约七百万美元。其次是行政开支，大约四百五十万美元。接近二百万美元用于运作流@#亡政#&府的海外办事处。
同流@#亡政#&府所宣传的预算的用途比照，就可以看出，花在他们所说的事情上的钱看上去相当的少。
各种捐款是如何进入预算的则不得而知。据估算捐款总数每年可达到数百万美元。但da lai的财政部并没有提供捐款的具体数目，也没有透露具体来源。
很多捐款通过驻纽约的西#@%藏基@&金（Tibet Fund）汇往流@#亡政#&府，这个基金是在1981年由流@#亡藏人和美国公民建立的。目前基金已达到百万级规模，每年通过各种活动能够募集到三百万美元。
这个基金的部分资金来源于美国国务院的人口、难民及移民局（US State Department's Bureau for Refugee Programs）
同很多亚洲的政治人物一样，da lai任人唯亲，提拔了很多家人。最近几年，内阁（又称Kashag，也就是流@#亡政#&府的最高行政机构）的六名成员中，有3名是da lai的亲属。
da lai的一个哥哥是内阁的主席，同时兼任内务大臣（minister of security）。他曾经领导了60年代的西#@%藏武装反攻活动（Tibetan contra movement），而这个活动是由中情局支持的。
da lai的小姨子（sister-in-law）是流@#亡政#&府的规划署（planning council）负责人，以及卫生部（Department of Health）部长。
da lai的妹妹是卫生与教育大臣（health and education minister），而她的丈夫则是外交部部长（Department of Information and International Relations）。他们的女儿是西#@%藏流@#亡议会的成员，小儿子是da lai私人办公室的高级成员，他的妻子则是教育大臣。
da lai的小舅子（brother-in-law）的第二任妻子是流@#亡政#&府驻北欧的代表，并且负责国际关系事务。所有的这些职位都使得da lai家族能够以流@#亡政#&府的名义控制动辄数百万美元的资金。
da lai现在或许非常有名，但是极少有人真正了解他。比如，与通常的说法相反，da lai并不是一个素食者。他也吃肉。而据他说这是遵照医生建议因为他得了肝炎。我咨询了几位医生但没有一个人认为对于一个肝脏有损伤的人来说食肉是必须的，而食肉甚至可能加重病情。
那么，da lai究竟为生活在西#@%藏的藏人争取到了什么？
如果他的目标是西#@%藏#@&独#@立，或者，按照他近来的说法，是高度的自治，那么，他可以说是可耻地失败鸟。
他使西#@%藏成为全球各处媒体的头条，但这将西#@%藏带往何处？他最大的成就似乎是成为了一个大名人。或许，如果他能够闭嘴的话，被中国迫%&害、处@#决、或者压制的藏人能够少一些。
不管怎么说，da lai（2007年）已经72岁了。他的继任，也就是转世灵童，要在很多年以后才能够成为一个真正有影响力的人物。对于中国来说，这个问题似乎能够自行解决，同霍华德或是陆克文见不见现在这位da lai，似乎没什么关系。
附：藏人学者洛桑森盖的原文
Claims of the Dalai Lama's Nepotistic Behaviour Wrong
The Age, Melbourne, Australia [Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:09]
By Dr Lobsang Sangay
June 07, 2007
Dr Lobsang Sangay was selected as one of Asia's 200 outstanding young leaders to attend the "Asia 21 Young Leaders Summit", held in Seoul from 17-19 November 2006/File photo
In his recent column ("Behind Dalai Lama's Holy Cloak", 23/5/2007, Republished by the Chinese Government in China’s Tibet, 2007/6, Volume 18), Michael Backman chastised journalists for not challenging the Dalai Lama. In doing so, he resorted to questionable journalistic standards by accusing the Dalai Lama of nepotistic and non-democratic behaviour based on "hard facts" that are either manipulated to sensationalise his case or are downright wrong.
Backman alleges that the Dalai Lama advocates greater autonomy for millions of people who are now "Chinese citizens, presumably with him as head of their government". The fact is just the opposite.
In July 1981, then Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Hu Yaobang announced "China's Five-point Policy towards the Dalai Lama", urging the Dalai Lama to return so he "will enjoy the same political status and living conditions as he had before 1959". The Dalai Lama rejected the offer and stated that the issue was not his own position in Tibet, but the welfare of 6 million Tibetans.
In 1992, the Dalai Lama categorically declared that he would not hold any official position in the government of future Tibet. Rather, he would hand over his traditional authority to an elected leader of Tibet and "serve the people as an individual outside the government".
It is a fact that the traditional government of Tibet was unegalitarian and inefficient. However, when the Dalai Lama was enthroned to be the leader in 1950, he was merely 15 years old, and faced the daunting task of handling the invasion and occupation of Tibet by Communist China. In exile, as part of an anti-Communist campaign, it is true that the American Government supported the Khampa guerilla resistance force till early 1970s.
However, it is not true that the Dalai Lama was "personally" paid $US15,000 a month by the CIA. As it is the case today, he was kindly hosted by the Indian Government as an "honoured guest". The fund was not even part of the budget of the Tibetan government in exile. In actuality, the main source was not the CIA, but fulfilment of a pledge made by US ambassador to India Loy Henderson in 1951.
On the advocacy of non-violence, the fact is that the Dalai Lama sent an emotional appeal on audio tape to the Tibetan guerillas in early 1970s, telling them to disarm. This message demoralised many of the fighters, and a few even committed suicide. Soon after that message from the Dalai Lama, the camp disbanded.
The budget of the Tibetan government in exile totals approximately $US20 million ($A24 million). It is openly debated in yearly Tibetan parliament budgetary sessions for two weeks, and allocated transparently. Compared with other refugee groups, the Tibetan government in exile is arguably the most efficient and effective in providing service to 130,000 Tibetan refugees with such limited budget. Still, the general impression is that the Dalai Lama must be raising millions of dollars.
On the contrary, strict rules apply to the Dalai Lama's visits abroad that these cannot be used for fund-raising purposes. During his trip to Australia, as is true everywhere, his organisers are instructed to charge fees only to cover the actual expenses of the event. More impressively, the Dalai Lama does not charge even a penny for speaking fees. He speaks for free so that he will be accessible to as many people as possible.
Perhaps the most irresponsible reporting in the column is the accusation that the Dalai Lama "has been remarkably nepotistic, appointing members of his family to many positions of prominence", like many Asian politicians.
The facts are as follows: as per his specific instruction, a provision was introduced in the Tibetan constitution of 1963 and the Charter of 1991 that the Dalai Lama can be impeached by the parliament.
From 1960 to 1990, the Dalai Lama had the sole constitutional power to appoint exiled Tibet's cabinet ministers, heads of departments, and members of parliament.
He never appointed anyone from his family as ministers, parliamentarians or heads of departments. Only his brother-in-law served as the head of the Security Department and his elder brother headed a fledgling start-up (the Tibetan Medicine Institute). As a matter of fact, from 1978 to 1986, the Gayong Mimang Tsokcheng, the highest decision-making body, discussed and consistently recommended that the Dalai Lama appoint his elder brother Gyalo Thondup as the Prime Minister. Each time, the Dalai Lama declined.
In 1991, as part of democratic reforms, the Dalai Lama delegated the power to appoint the cabinet to the parliament, which since 1960 has been directly elected by the people.
Ironically, the parliament began to elect members of his family, and the most high-profile was his elder brother Gyalo as the Prime Minister.
The elder brother played a key role in seeking US Government support in 1950s-60s, and paradoxically he was also instrumental in opening a dialogue with the Chinese Government in the early 1980s.
Nonetheless, he is controversial partly because of his autocratic personality.
Not surprisingly, Gyalo was eased out without completing his term as the Prime Minister, partly because of his incapability to cope with a democratic-environment-in-exile polity.
In 2000, another reform
was instituted by the Dalai Lama, requiring exile Tibetans to directly
elect their Prime Minister with full administrative power except in
dealing with China.
Tibetans in 27 countries voted on a single day,
with more than 80 per cent electing Professor Samdhong Rinpoche as the
first Prime Minister. He didn't appoint any member of the Dalai Lama's
family to his cabinet. In the parliament, only a nephew was elected as
an ordinary member among 46 parliamentarians and he faced disciplinary
action for violating parliamentary rules and regulations.
Clearly, the experience of the Dalai Lama's family in the nascent Tibetan democratic system reflects that they don't necessarily get a free ride.
More importantly, the Dalai Lama never appointed his family members to positions of influence, even when he was permitted to do so (1960-90) and those who did were elected by the parliament.
The truth, then, is far removed from Backman's claim that the Dalai Lama "appointed" his family members to positions of prominence.
Finally, Backman's suggestion that had the Dalai Lama "stayed quiet", possibly "fewer Tibetans might have been tortured, killed and generally suppressed by China" sounds comically naive and hypocritical.
Firstly, between 1960 and 1972, when the Dalai Lama was "quiet" and never ventured outside of India, Tibet went through brutal suppression under China, when thousands of people perished.
From 1973 to 1986, the Dalai Lama made limited trips abroad, but suppression continued.
From 1987 to 2007, when the Dalai Lama made the most trips abroad and finally put Tibet in the international map, Backman suggests he keep quiet.
It is hypocritical to suggest the Dalai Lama refrain from speaking out for the welfare of 6 million Tibetans when Backman himself speaks out and writes columns and books to pay his rent and put food on his table.
Last time I checked, free speech is universal. It is noble to speak for millions of suffering people, and especially to speak out against authoritarian regimes.
It is certainly not just the privilege of the few to make a living by criticising others.
Dr Lobsang Sangay is a scholar on Tibet at the law school of Harvard University and is one of the twenty-four Young Leaders of Asia.
Comments