Incorrect and biased reporting

Address: The New York Times Company, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018.

Date: April 30, 2019

Dean Baquet, Executive Editor
Joseph Kahn, Managing Editor

On April1, 2019 the article “Chinese Dissidents Feel Heat of Beijing’s Wrath Even in Canada” by Catherine Porter was published in New York Times. This is a harmful article that supports lies. The article tries to suppress, by innuendo and misleading inference, legitimate criticisms and the right to freely question.

From the article, we can see:

1. As a reporter, Ms. Porter lacks discernment because she is unable to recognize those who lie from those telling the truth. In this case, the truth would be obvious to any reporter who applies sincere and vigorous pursuit of the facts and to any reporter who is able to set aside personal bias and forgone conclusions.

2. She ignores evidence that is contrary to Sheng Xue’s allegations; therefore, her reporting is biased because she began writing this article having pre-decided the out come.

3. She doesn’t understand the strategies and influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). She has fallen into the very trap that she mistakenly thought she was exposing. In short, she has been had.

4. Ms. Porter made wrong connections between the CCP and those who questioned and criticized Sheng Xue. The result was harm done to these innocent people who raised legitimate questions. Their reputations, already injured by the lies of Sheng Xue, were further harmed by Ms. Porter’s biased reporting and twisting of the truth.

5. Ms. Porter failed to address the connection between Sheng Xue and the CCP which has caused turmoil in overseas Chinese democracy movement.

The signatories of this letter have all been interviewed by Ms. Porter for this article and all have had their statements twisted or ignored.

Finally, we would request that the New York Times clarify the facts of this issue and continue its longstanding reputation for excellence in unbiased reporting and respected investigative journalism.

Fei Liangyong
Zhu Rui
Liu Shaofu
Cheng Yiran

Let the truth come out and apologize to the public By Zhu Rui

Address: The New York Times Company, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018.

Date: April 16, 2019

 Dean Baquet, executive editor;
Joseph Kahn, managing editor

On April 1, 2019, the New York Times published an article by Catherine Porter, the chief correspondent in Canada, entitled “Chinese Dissidents Feel Heat of Beijing’s Wrath. Even in Canada.” This article contains untrue statements, which need to be addressed.

1, Ms. Porter quoted: “Sheng Xue has been the victim of a relentless smear campaign that experts say has all the markings of a coordinated attack by the Chinese Communist Party” and “For more than six years, the Chinese-Canadian activist has been the victim of a relentless campaign of discreditation by blog, Listserv, e-book and social media, which experts say bears the markings of a coordinated attack by the Chinese Communist Party.” These quotes from the article insinuate that social media criticisms of Sheng Xue are connected to CCP influence. Ms. Porter has arrived at her conclusion but has provided no evidence or proof of the accuracy of her quotes in this article.

2, Further in the article Ms. Porter maligns my writings and me when she mentions me by name thus connecting me to the above quote.

She also quotes: “Ms. Zhu has penned many critical blog posts and assembled two e-books about Sheng Xue, accusing her of lying, personally profiting off refugee applicants and events, and being a fake witness to the Tiananmen Square massacre, among other things.” This implies that I am somehow connected to Chinese Communist Party, which is absolutely untrue. Such implications are blatantly false and result from biased and incomplete research. The real victims of the “smear campaign” are all the people who legitimately questioned and criticized Sheng Xue’s activities and received insults, threats, and attacks in return.

3, In the same article it was reported that: “Zhu Rui, a Chinese-Canadian author began questioning Sheng Xue back in 2010, after the two traveled together to Dharamsala, India, ” This is another example of untruths for the purpose of misleading. The true situation is that I went to Dharamsala to participate in my new book conference and arrived two weeks before Sheng Xue. And I “began questioning to Sheng Xue back in 2010” only after Sheng Xue sent me a personal attack email on Oct. 2, 2010.

4, Another untrue statement about me in the same article: “In 2011, Ms. Zhu said, someone hacked into her computer, stole an unpublished essay about Sheng Xue and sent it to a dissident group posing as her.” Actually, I have never told to anyone, including Ms. Porter such a story. The true situation is that someone stole my identity and published an altered version of my article from my blog. They deleted the preface.

5, Ms. Porter has quoted “A confidential report by Amnesty International Canada had just been leaked, detailing the troubling experiences of 17 local activists. The person most cited was Sheng Xue.” Her claim is undocumented – lacking proper referencing, dating, and context. It is so unprofessional that it cannot be researched for accuracy.

Also I would like to say that Catherine Porter personally interviewed me in April 19, 2018. I can only assume that this interview had a predetermined agenda. If I had been told in her email requesting an interview that it would be only about Sheng Xue I would have declined it. Since my interview with Ms. Porter I have been bombarded with many emails from Ms. Porter asking pointed questions and trying to get me to engage in confrontational debate about Sheng Xue being smeared by the CCP. I have no interest in her agenda and in an email dated July 18, 2018 I stated that I would have no further comment about Sheng Xue.

The New York Times is internationally renowned as a media source, so I hope you will take the necessary actions to correct the false impressions given by this article. Let the truth come out and apologize to the public.

Zhu Rui












有推友指出:为什么自由亚洲电台只采用单一信息源,而没有向达赖喇嘛办公室求证? 作为一个受美国政府资助的国际新闻媒体,为什么如此不专业不遵守新闻原则?这单一的信息源究竟来自哪里?






































曼巴札倉建成後,第悉⋅ 桑傑嘉措發佈告示,要求拉薩附近的每個宗(縣)、寺都選派合適之人到甲波日醫學院學習。在第悉桑傑嘉措的親自主持下,甲波日的曼巴札倉開設了多門醫學課程,除了學習書本上的醫學知識外,還要求學生臨床實踐和到外地學習(1),培養了無數著名的藏醫學人才。比如十三世達賴喇嘛時期著名的醫學家欽繞羅布,就畢業於這所醫學院,後來,欽繞羅布又在大昭寺附近建立了門孜康,也就是天文歷算館。 


























冷峻,精确,在理性与感性中保持了一种平衡,是孟浪诗的一大特点。孟浪说,“我一直在读John Donne,他与莎士比亚在文学上有着同等的贡献。”显然,这位生活在十六世纪末和十七世纪初的英国诗人,给孟浪的影响是深刻的, 尤其在玄学方面。但是,孟浪的阅读相当广泛,应该说,每一次阅读,都是一次挑战,或者说是一次打破。在感受文化多元性的同时,孟浪建立了自己的语言秩序,确切地说,是他在对美学的认知中,找到了一条与众不同的汉语语言的表述。

简洁而乐感强烈的文字中,矗立着深思熟虑的意象,是孟浪诗的另一特点。有时,那些意象与原物有着恰恰相反的暗示。比如《伟大的迷途者》中的迷途者,暗示着一位明晰的、先锋的、悲剧式的人。也许,孟浪受到了保尔.策兰(Paul Celan)的《死亡赋格曲》中的“黑奶”的启示――把对立的东西放在一起,提供读者一个崭新的思考空间。

























5我声明,早于1911 - 12年之前,中国在西藏没有丝毫主权象征。然而,我无需为此申诉而详述有关历史事实。









英国全代表享利麦克马洪 (盖章)




161912年—1950年,中国在西藏甚至连象征性的权力都没有。 1934年,一个对达赖喇嘛圆寂表示哀悼的中国代表团抵达西藏,请求允许像尼泊尔和印度政府的代表一样,继续留在西藏。






至于1948年,我们在南京的使命是Khandon Losum,虽然也出席了中国的大会,但并不是作为拉萨的特别代表而是以访客的身份出席,与前次一样,我们并没有承认或签署大会的决议。




23,负责英国,后来又负责印度驻拉萨代表团的休·理查森(Mr. H. E. Richardson)先生,向国际法学家委员会组成的西藏法律调查委员会表示......“1936年以后,负责英国,后来又负责印度驻拉萨的的官员的主要职责是,处理他们的政府与西藏政府之间的外交事物。”(摘自《西藏和中华人民共和国》之报告第146页)。

24, 上述事实足以表明西藏是完全独立的。 但是,去年对我的国家的地位提出了疑问,因此以下事实,可以说明(西藏的国家地位):

25, 埃里克·泰克曼爵士[5]在关于“中国事务”中写道:“自从(1912年)以来,在拉萨[6]统治西藏时,根本没有幸存的中国权力的痕迹。二十多年来,他[7]作为无可争议的独立西藏的统治者,维护了国内的和平与秩序,并与印度政府保持着密切关系。


271947年驻西藏的Amaury de Riencourt[9]先生说,“作为一个独立的国家,西藏在方方面面管理着自己。”并且,他说:“政府的指令随处可见”。

28,中国驻拉萨使团成员沈宗濂和柳升祺[10]说:“自从1911年以来,拉萨所有现实的目的就是享受完全的独立。” 为了支持这一点,他们提到西藏有自己的货币和习俗,自己的电报和邮政服务,以及不同于中国的政行管理机构和自己的军队。

291950年,在审议萨尔瓦多关于将西藏被入侵之问题列入(联合国)大会议程的建议时,印度纳瓦那加尔省的省长,也是当时的印度代表表示,他的政府已经仔细研究了萨尔瓦多提议的将中国入侵西藏问题列入联合国的议程。这对中国和印度都至关重要。 委员会意识到,印度作为中国和西藏的邻国,与两国都有友好关系,因此,也是最有兴趣解决这个问题的国家。 这也是为什么,印度政府特别担心是否能够得到和平解决。 (A / BUR / SR.73,第19页)

30,关于中国对西藏拥有宗主权的说法,基于1907年的《英俄条约》。 但需要指出的是,西藏不是该条约的缔约国,也不该受这个条约的约束。


32,西藏政府呼吁联合国提供帮助。 因为西藏军队的失败,还有西藏政府努力寻求联合国帮助的失败,我们不得不派出代表团去北京。 而这个代表团被迫于1951523日签署了所谓的《十七条协议》。

33,从那时起,直到19593月我离开西藏,所发生的众所周知的事件,已无需任何详细叙述。 即使现在,几乎每天都有(西藏)难民进入尼泊尔、不丹、锡金和印度。 难民人数已达43,500人。从这些难民的诉说看,我在去年和今年给你的信中提到的压迫和大规模的恐怖行动,绝不会减少。

34,在这方面,我可以提请联合国关注国际法学家委员会出版的关于西藏问题的出色报告。在他们的第二份报告中,这个密切审查西藏问题的杰出的委员会得出结论,除其他外,中国当局在《灭绝种族罪公约》[11]的部分意义上,犯有种族灭绝罪。 我相信联合国将仔细审查这一结论所依据的事实,并将采取适当措施。种族灭绝,也是违反国际法的罪行。


36,反对侵略者和压迫者的战斗仍在西藏继续着。 去年,我向联合国提出申诉,现在,我再次提出申诉,希望联合国采取适当措施,使中国撤出侵略。否则,在我看来,对我的国家不会有太大的帮助,而强大的共产主义势力,每一天都在摧毁我的人民的自由。



 注释 (由译者編加)

[4]Claude Prpi :History of the dispute between Tehri State and Tibet A Himalayan Case(特赫里州与西藏之间争端的历史——喜马拉雅史例)

[5]埃里克·泰克曼爵士:英文名:Sir Eric Teichmann, 英国外交官、东方学家,曾介入1918年《中藏绒布岔协议》的签定,著有《领事官员在西藏东部的旅行》等。



[8]查尔斯·贝尔爵士:英文名:Sir Charles Bell, 为不丹、锡金和西藏的英国政治官员。英属印度驻西藏大使。著有《十三世达赖喇嘛转》(Portrait of a Dalai Lama –The Life and Times of The Great Thirteenth), 《西藏人民》(The People of Tibet).

[9]Amaury de Riencour:法国历史学家,东南亚专家,汉学家,藏学家,印度学家。1947年访问西藏,并留驻在拉萨五个月。





Your Excellency:

May I convey to the United Nations and to your excellency my warm appreciation of the great work which ha been and is being done in Congo under the auspices of the U.N

2, Kindly refer to my letter of September 9, 1959,circulted by you as Note No,2033, and also to my letter to Your Excellency of September 2, 1960.

3, I am happy to learn that the Question of Tibet has been inscribed on the agenda of the U.N. Assembly for this year at the instance of Malaya and Thailand to whom i am deeply grateful. I do hope that all the peaceloving countries will take heed of the voice of my people and provide for them a ray of light in the night of subjugation and oppression through which they are passing.

4, I am happy to note that in his speech in the Assembly on September 24, 1964, H.E.N.Khrushchev called for the freedom of all colonial peoples. Unfortunately my country has been reduced to the status of a colonial country, and i hope that along with other countries the USSR will also raise its powerful voice in support of the restoration of freedom to my country.

5, I assert that long before 1911-12 there was no vestige of Chinese authority in Tibet, but it is not necessary for me to examine the historical aspect of this question for the purposes of this appeal.

6, Whatever the position of Tibet may have been prior to 1911-12, in any event, from the day that the Thirteenth Dalai Lama Proclaimed the independence of Tibet, after the invading Chinese armies had been driven out of Tibet, Tibet was not only independent de facto but de jure.

7, In 1913 the Tibetan Government entered into a treaty with the Government of Mongolia. This entreaty was entered into under the authority of the Dalai Lama. By this treaty Tibet and Mongolia declared that they recognized each other as independent countries.

8, With a view to settle some outstanding agreed to enter into tripartite discussions which commenced in 1913, at Simla. The parties to the discussion were the British Government, Chinese Government, and Tibetan Government. The representative of each government being a plenipotentiary on behalf of his government. This appears clearly from the text of the Convention which was initialed by the representatives of all the parties.

9, This fact is also emphasized by the White Paper No.11 issued by the Government of India (page 38) entitled "Notes, Memoranda, and Letters Exchanged between the Governments of India and China, September-November, 1959." This has been further emphasized in the note of the Government of India dated February 12, 1960(pp.94, 95) in the White Paper No. III issued by the Government of India.

10, Although the text of the Convention was initiated by the representative of the Chinese Government, the Chinese Government backed out and ultimately on the third of July, 1914, the signatures on behalf of the Dalai Lama, in his capacity as the head of the Tibetan State, and the British plenipotentiary were appended. At the same time the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Tibet, in view of the refusal of the Chinese Government, signed the following Declaration:

11, "We the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Tibet, hereby record the following declaration to the effect that we acknowledge the annexed Convention as initialed to be binding on the governments of Great Britain and Tibet, and we agree that so long as the Government of China withholds signature to the aforesaid Convention, she will be debarred from the enjoyment of all privileges accruing therefrom.

12, “In token whereof we have signed and sealed this declaration, two copies in English and two in Tibetan.

13, “Done at Simla this third day of July, A.D 1914, corresponding with the Tibetan date- the tenth day of the fifth month of the Wood Tiger Year.  

A. Henry McMahon
British Plenipotentiary

(Seal of the British Plenipotentiary)
(Seal of the Dalai Lama)
(Seal of the Lonchen Shatra) (Signature of the Lonchen Shatra)
(Seal of the Drepung Monastery)
(Seal of the Sera Monastery)
(Seal of the Gaden Monastery)
(Seal of the National Assembly)"

14, The Chinese Government, never having adhered to terms of the Convention, never become entitled to any of the advantages which they may have derived from the terms of the Convention.

15, In 1926 Tibet was represented at a Boundary Commission consisting of the representatives of Tibet, Tehri, and Great Britain which met at Nilang.

16, Between 1912 and 1950 there was not even a semblance of Chinese authority in Tibet. There was a Chinese mission in Tibet which arrived in 1934 to offer condolences on the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. This Mission was permitted to continue to stay in Tibet on the same footing as the missions from Nepal and from the Government of India.

17, On numerous occasions after 1936 the officers of the Chinese mission to Lhasa used to travel via India to Tibet. On every occasion the Indian Government granted or refused transit visas after consulting the wishes of the Government of Tibet.

18, In 1949 even this mission was expelled from Tibet.

19, Tibet was not a party of the Sino-Japanese war, and even during the Second World War Tibet insisted on its position as a neutral and did not permit the transport of war material from India to China.

20, The Chinese claim that Tibetan delegates participated in the Constituent Assembly in 1946 and that they also sat in the Chinese National Assembly in 1948. This claim is absolutely false. Dzasak Khemey Sonam Wangdo, who was the leader of Delegation which went to China says, "In 1946 the Tibetan Government had sent a good will Mission headed by Dzasak Rongpel-Ihun, Thubten Samphel and myself Dzasak Khemey Sonam Wangdo with assistants to offer victorious greetings to Britain, America, and the Kuomintang Government; we traveled via Calcutta to New Delhi, and offered the greetings to Britain and America through their Ambassadors; from there we went by air to Nanking and offered greetings. Due to illness and medical treatment we remained there for a few months. Then we toured several provinces and on our return to Nanking they were having their big assembly. We attended the assembly in order to study the behavior of the Khamba and other Tibetan emigrants who attended the assembly as pretended Tibetan representatives. But we did not recognize or sign the new constitutional law (shenfa) which  was then make.

As for 1948, our mission in Nanking, namely the Khandon Losum, also attended the Chinese Assembly as visitors but no special representative was deputed from Lhasa, and they similarly did not recognize or sign the resolutions of the assembly.

21, In 1947 after India became independent, in reply to a communication from the Tibetan Government, the Government of India replied as follows:

"The Government of India would be glad to have an assurance that it is the intention of the Tibetan Government to continue relations on the existing basis until new agreements are reached on matters that either party may wish to take up. This is the procedure adopted by all other countries with which India has inherited treaty relations from His Majesty's Government."

22, Between 1912 and till the Seventeen-Point Agreement was signed on May 23, 1951, Tibet continued to conduct its foreign affairs without reference to any outside authority. Tibetan delegations in 1946 and 1948 traveled extensively on Tibetan passports.

23, Mr. H. E. Richardson, who in charge of the British and later Indian Mission at Lhasa, stated to the Legal Inquiry Committee on Tibet, constituted by the International Commission of jurists that, ..."the duties of the Officer in Charge of the British and later Indian Mission at Lhasa after 1936 were principally to conduct the diplomatic business of his Government with the Tibetan Government"(page 146 of the report entitled "Tibet and the Chinese Peoples Republic").

24, The foregoing facts should suffice to show that Tibet was completely independent. Since, however, doubts were raised last year regarding the status of my country, the following facts may be usefully stated:

25, Sir Eric Teichmann in Affairs of China wrote: "Since (1912) no vestige of Chinese authority has survived or reappeared in Lhasa-ruled Tibet. In more than twenty years he (the Thirteenth Dalai Lama) ruled as undisputed master of autonomous Tibet, preserving internal peace and order and maintaining close and intimate relations with the Indian Government."

26, In 1928 Sir Charles Bell in The people of Tibet pointed out that Chinese authority in Tibet had ceased.

27, M. Amaury de Riencourt who was in Tibet in 1947, states, "Tibet ruled itself in all respects as an independent nation. " He goes on to say that "Government's writ ran everywhere."

28, Tsung lien-shen and Shen Chi-liu who were both members of the Chinese Mission in Lhasa, say, "Since 1911 Lhasa has to all practical purposes enjoyed full independence." In support of this they mention that Tibet had its own currency and customs, its own telegraph and postal service, and its own civil service different from that of China, and its own army.

29, In 1950 when the proposal of EI Salvador to place the question of the invasion of Tibet on the agenda of General Assembly was being considered, the Jam Saheb of Nawanagar, the representative of India said his government had given careful study to the problems raised by the proposal of EI Salvador to place the question of the invasion of Tibet by foreign forces on the General Assembly agenda. That was a matter of vital interest to both China and India. The Committee was aware that India, as a neighbor of both China and Tibet, with both of which it had friendly relations, was the country most interested in a settlement of the problem. That was why the Indian government was particularly anxious that it should be settled peacefully. (A/BUR/SR. 73, page 19)

30, The claim of the Chinese to suzerainty over Tibet is based on the 1907 Convention between Great Britain and Russia. It may be pointed out that Tibet was not a party to that Convention and was in no way bound by that Convention.

31As the head of the Tibet Government I say that what happened on October 7, 1950, was a flagrant act of aggression on the part of China against my country.

32, The Tibetan government appealed to the United Nations for help. As a result of the defeat of the Tibetan army, and after the efforts of the Tibetan government to get the help of the United Nations had failed, we were compelled to send a delegation of Peking. The delegation was compelled to sign what is known as the Seventeen-Point Agreement on May 23, 1951.

33, The events since then and till my departure from Tibet in March, 1959, are too well known to require any detailed recounting. Even now refugees are coming into Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, and India practically every day. The number of the refugees is 43, 500. From the accounts of these refugees, the oppression and wholesale terror, to which I referred in my letter to you last year and also this year, have in no way lessened.

34, In this connection may I draw the attention of the United Nations to the excellent reports on the question of Tibet published by the International Commission of Jurists. In the second report, the distinguished Committee that closely examined the question came to the conclusion, inter alia, that Chinese authorities had been guilty of genocide within the meaning of the Genocide Convention. I trust that the United Nations will carefully examine the facts on which this conclusion is based and will take appropriate action to deal with this matter. Genocide, even apart from the Genocide Convention, has been recognized as a crime against International Law.

35,As a result of a wholesale breach of all the important terms of the Seventeen-Point Agreement, the General Assembly (consisting of officials and public, mainly the public) repudiated that Agreement, as it was well entitled to do, and reasserted the independence of Tibet on March10, 1959.

36,The fighting in Tibet against the occupiers and the oppressors is still going on. I appealed to the United Nations last year, and I am making this appeal again in the hope that the United Nations will take appropriate measures to get China to vacate its aggression. In my opinion, any measure short of this is not going to be of much help to my country where the Communist steamroller is every day crushing out the freedom of my people.

37,May I request Your Excellency to place this Appeal before the United Nations.

The Dalai Lama