Bill Byrne was wrong to say that, historically, Tibet has always been an independent and sovereign nation ('Should Tibet have status like Hong Kong and Macau?', June 8). At least as far back as the Yuen dynasty in the 13th century, Tibet was under the direct control of China, which set up its administration and laws. Later, Tibet was ruled by Buddhist sects, which recognised Ming Dynasty China as the sovereign. About 1642, with Mongol support, the Gelugpa sect headed by the dalai lamas ascended to Tibet's ruling body. Conflicts developed between them and the Mongols. In 1718 and 1720, under the auspices of a dalai lama, a Qing Dynasty force twice entered Lhasa and drove out the remaining Mongol influence. China again became the sovereign power. No appointment of dalai lamas was legitimate unless it was sanctioned by the Qing emperor. In 1792, China repulsed an invasion by the British. The collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1911 did not merely lead to Tibet declaring independence. Between 1910 and the 1920s, many Chinese provinces declared independence from Nanjing due to political turmoil. Does that mean that Guangdong, Yunnan and Hubei should also be regarded as one-time sovereign states? The historic justification for Tibet's independence is simply not there. While there is room for discussion about the degree of autonomy Tibet should enjoy, regarding independence you might as well tell the US to return America to the Indians. SIMON CHIU, Pokfulam Anson's real message I applaud Anson Chan Fang On-sang's courageous, clear-sighted article 'Trust us' in Time magazine, as much as I deplore the over-heated responses. Her critics have ignored her substantive points (perhaps wisely, as they are hard to refute). They focused on the last phrase of a statement about Beijing's 'public rhetoric and posturing reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution'. If one said the persecution of a certain religious sect in China today is 'reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition', would one be saying that China today is exactly like Spain in the 16th century? Of course not, since it does not burn people at the stake. But its actions may remind one of past religious intolerance and persecution. It is ironic that those who took offence are anything but sensitive about using epithets on others - some of them hurled the terms 'traitor' and 'clown' at democrats in Hong Kong not long ago. It is a pity that people may miss Mrs Chan's all-important message: 'Hong Kong people treasure the freedoms and rights enshrined in the territory's constitution. And they will fight to protect those rights. This does not mean they love their country less than self-professed patriots do. We yearn mainly for good, strong and transparent governance.' If the critics are sincere about understanding people's aspirations and frustrations, they should heed this, and not be paranoid about their own history. TONY HUNG, Ma On Shan Trouble at home I wish to comment on the article 'Monitors invited in for Legco vote' (June 9), in which the director of Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, Law Yuk-kai, expressed the need for election monitors from the European Parliament and Asian Network for Free Elections, given recent alleged political intimidation. As a member of Hong Kong Monitor, I find it pathetic that Mr Law would speak out in this way on elections, given his very undemocratic attempts to interfere with our own controversial internal election process. These resulted in allegations of his violating our own constitution by blocking the secretary from checking the membership list of eligible voters, allowing ineligible voters to vote, and employing security guards to keep other members out. Before criticising others, Mr Law should sort out Human Rights Monitor's own election anomalies. Many of us are tired of the incessant anti-government, anti-China rhetoric. I believe the Legco elections will be like the past ones - open, clean and transparent. The ICAC will see to that. PATRICK LO CHIU-HON, Central Prejudice on architects It is encouraging that Vice-President Zeng Qinghong has given top priority to Hong Kong professionals in introducing technology in the economic development of the mainland. The contribution of Hong Kong-based architects to the reconstruction of the mainland has been closely tied to direct investment by Hong Kong developers. As a new generation of mainland-based developers takes dominant positions in real estate, more and more Hong Kong architects are dealing directly with them. Unfortunately, the experience has not been encouraging, due to the mainland's complicated network of connections and its developers' preference for 'foreign architects'. Often, these firms are controlled by mainlanders who went abroad. We also find this favouritism in the government's award of design contracts for public buildings. Hong Kong-based architects have lost out through the commonly held misconception that western architects are more innovative. Landmark projects, the Central Television Headquarters and National Opera House, are running into difficulties, not least because they are based on extravagant and adventurous concepts that their western designers would never dream of adopting at home. Hong Kong architects can render first-class service to the motherland, but some adjustments in official thinking will be necessary. JOHN P. L. WONG, Pokfulam Not worth a prize In the article 'Democracy lessons from China' (June 8), S. Wayne Morrison glorifies democratic progress on the mainland. He cannot be serious. Just because a researcher, Zhang Weiwei, wrote that an average person in China today has more freedom than in 1949, it does not mean this progress is worth a global prize for human rights or freedoms. Try telling a migrant labourer that he has a choice of jobs, housing or schooling for his children. Or try telling a mother who lost her child in 1989 and still is not allowed to mourn her loss, or expelled citizens who are barred from returning, that they are better off today and ought to understand that the building blocks of a nation are more important. MARIAN SCHNEPS, Repulse Bay Help Iraq peacefully I refer to the article 'Sharing the burden of peace' (June 8). There was much discussion in Japan about the despatch of the Self-Defence Forces to Iraq. Although the SDF is involved in humanitarian work, the public is concerned for their safety. In fact, surveys suggest two-thirds of Japanese were against the despatch. I doubt that the public thinks the SDF's role should be broadened and that Japan should have a prominent role in international security. Military power is only one solution to security in Asia. I do not agree with it. The US has tried, and failed, to get terrorists by military power. It brought many deaths, hatred, sadness and chaos. I suggest Japan contribute two ways: develop its diplomatic skill and encourage involvement in peaceful rather than military activities. Cultural exchanges, removing mines, or tackling environmental issues may help establish security. And remember that our security will be protected by co-operation with other Asian countries. NATSUKO FUKUE, Fukuoka Softly spoken threat A few years ago a student approached me, his teacher, following a slight altercation between us in the playground. He said, in a soft, kind voice: 'Be careful'. I was under no allusions as to what he meant. Whether directed to a teacher or a talkback host, the threat in such a message is all too clear to the recipient. ROZ ALLARDICE, Lantau
