I REFER to Tony K. S. Ngai's letter regarding the status of Tibet and the selection of the Panchen Lama (South China Morning Post, December 11).
First, anyone who has some historical knowledge of Tibet would know that China may have had a legitimate claim over Tibet in certain periods before the 12th century. It is clear, however, that the Tibetans were legally independent at the beginning of this century. The overthrow of the Qing Dynasty in 1911 eventually led to China agreeing to only a nominal 'suzerainty' over Tibet.
Forty years later, the International Commission of Jurists stated that around 1912, there were 'strong legal grounds for thinking that any form of legal subservience to China had vanished' and that Tibet was 'independent in fact and in law of Chinese control'.
On the subject of the procedures for the selection of the Panchen Lama, the Chinese Government claims there are five stages in the selection process and that the Dalai Lama has only used three.
However, traditionally stages four and five (a lottery and approval by the central government) have only been used if a child was not chosen by the end of stage three. As the Dalai Lama's child was the only candidate under consideration, there is, therefore, no dispute over the legitimacy of the procedures or the boy lama.
With regard to the approval given to the recent urn ceremony by 'senior Tibetan lamas', it is enough to state that the Abbot of Tashilunpo monastery (the traditional seat of the Panchen lama) and head of the original Beijing approval team was arrested this summer along with 20 to 40 other monks from the monastery.
