By Lobsang Gyatso Sither
March 25th, 2021 was a dark day in the evolution of Tibetan Exile Democracy when one pillar of Democracy, the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission(TSJC) was dismantled and removed within 1:31hrs (1 hour and 31 minutes) out of which the reading of the resolution by the Deputy Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile(TPIE) and a clarification by the Speaker took 42:00 minutes. 
The discussion on the resolution was only 40:00 minutes!!! The final 9 minutes were spent on a secret voting where 31 Tibetan Parliamentarians voted for the motion and 10 against the resolution with 4 absentees.
As a new Tibetan MP candidate for the upcoming Tibetan General Election, I am concerned to see the backward direction of our democracy. It is not only about who was right or wrong but the mere fact that removing one pillar of democracy took an hour and a half should give all of us concern. The process should have been transparent and should not have been carried out in such a hurried manner which shows a lack of conviction in the TPIE’s resolution.
The fundamentals of Tibetan Democracy as I have always understood were the 3 pillars namely the Kashag(Executive), TPIE(Legislative) and the TSJC(Judiciary) where there is a clear separation of power for check and balance, however this was not the case here.
There are 3 main issues in this whole saga and I am making the following conclusions based on my research. I have summarized my conclusion for each issue here for clarity and ease of reading but there is a more detailed explanation for each point below:
- The TPIE Speaker and the other 10 Standing Committee members in my opinion have violated the Tibetan Charter in Exile when they postponed the September Parliament session as they have infringed Article 40 of the Charter and the two Articles mentioned by the TPIE as in Article 6 and Clause 2 of Article 49 by the TPIE are not valid supporting articles. Covid-19 is a global emergency and it may be a valid reason but using that reason selectively is also problematic as could be seen in the case of the removal of Tibetan MP Thubten Wangchen. However, even if the reason may be valid, it cannot be against the Charter.
- Is “Suo Moto” valid? Based on my reading of Article 66, Article 58, Article 67 of the Charter of the Tibetan in Exile in as well as the Clause (i) of Article 69 of Public Interest Litigation Rules and Regulation of the TSJC, “Suo Moto” is valid. At the same time, “Suo Moto” has already been used by the TSJC previously during the nomination of Kashag Secretary Topgyal Tsering la in March, 2019 during the 7th session of the Tibetan Parliament. Topgyal Tsering la was not allowed to be sworn in by the TSJC and their reason for rejection was the violation of Article 22. Why didn’t the TPIE make an issue when that happened as this is a clear case of “Suo Moto” judgement. Also, it is imperative to understand that it is not the legislative which interprets the law.
- The removal of the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commissioners(TSJC’s) and whether that is legal under the Charter is more complex and my reading of the Charter Article 63 Clause 4 highlights the authority of TPIE to do and as such is legal but has some issues with regards to the premise of the resolution which is not valid as outlined in point 1 and 2. At the same time, the removal of TSJC’s was retaliatory in its nature which can be seen from the removal proceeding as well as the wordings in the resolution and the Speakers clarification statements and in my view is unconstitutional.
What can be done now?
This is a complex issue and I don’t think there is a silver bullet which will solve this issue but I have some suggestions which may be helpful.
- Maybe, the Kashag can step in to form an independent commission which can consist of former Tibetan Supreme Justices, Former Parliamentarians, and Constitutional Law experts to review each of the documents as presented by the TSJC and the TPIE.
- The TPIE will be holding a special session in May, 2021 during which I hope that a Tibetan MP can bring a private resolution to reinstate the TSJC’s and MP’s who voted for the earlier resolution can make it right by voting for that resolution. All of us Tibetans in Exile should call our elected members of parliament and get a firm resolution from them that they would vote for such a resolution. And this new vote should not be a secret vote as we need accountability from our MP’s.
- Another process must be undertaken where constitutional law experts review the Charter of Tibetans-in-Exile to evaluate some of the inconsistencies between the different Articles and make it concise so that there is clearer separation of powers of the three pillars of democracy along with clear checks and balances.
- How about instituting a Constitutional bench with representatives of the four pillars of democracy for resolving issues of “Substantial question of law in its interpretation”. (Including representative of the Press)
On April 11th, we have the final Tibetan General Election where we celebrate our Exile Democracy. With one pillar of our Exile Democracy removed, where is our democracy headed is a question that I believe each one of us must ponder upon especially those 31 Tibetan MP’s who voted for this resolution.
Please note: This is based on my research of the Charter of Tibetans-in-Exile and the numerous documents shared by the TSJC and the TPIE.
Disclaimer: The author is a Tibetan who is an official candidate for Utsang MP for the upcoming Tibetan General Election. All views expressed in this article are my own and do not represent the opinions of any entity whatsoever with which I have been, am now, or will be affiliated.
Issue 1: Postponement of the 10th Session of the 16th Tibetan Parliament-In-Exile
This issue revolves around the fact that the Tibetan Parliament had to postpone the 10th session of the 16th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile which was announced on 17th August, 2020 as per the decision taken at the 327th Standing Committee meeting on 13 August 2020, in accordance to the Article 6 and clause 2 of Article 49 of the Charter of Tibetans in exile.
དོན་ཚན་དྲུག་པ། རྒྱལ་སྤྱིའི་ཁྲིམས་ལུགས་དང༌། ཡུལ་ཁྲིམས་ལ་བརྩི་སྲུང༌།
བོད་མིའི་སྒྲིག་འཛུགས་ཀྱི་ཁྲིམས་ལུགས་དང༌། ཆབ་སྲིད་དབང་འཛིན་གྱི་བཀའ། སྒྲིག་གཞི་བཅས་རྒྱལ་སྤྱིའི་ཁྲིམས་ལུགས་དང༌། ལྷག་དོན་བོད་མིའི་གནས་ཡུལ་རྒྱལ་ཁབ་ཁག་གི་ཡུལ་ཁྲིམས་དང་མི་འགལ་བ་བྱ་རྒྱུ།
However, on August 21st, 2020, the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission passed a judgement that the postponement was against the Charter of the Tibetans in Exile and as such was against the Tibetan Charter by citing the Article 40 of the Charter of Tibetans in Exile.
འཆར་ཅན་སྤྱི་འཐུས་ལྷན་ཚོགས་ཀྱི་ཚོགས་འདུའི་ཚོགས་ཚེས་དང༌། དུས་ཡུན། ས་གནས་བཅས་སྤྱི་འཐུས་རྒྱུན་ལས་དང་གོ་བསྡུར་ཐོག་སྤྱི་འཐུས་ཚོགས་གཙོ་ལྷན་རྒྱས་ཀྱིས་གཏན་ལ་ཕབ་པ་ལྟར་ཚོགས་དྲུང་ལས་ཁུངས་ནས་སྤྱི་འཐུས་སོ་སོར་ཚོགས་བསྐོང་བརྡ་ཁྱབ་གཏོང་རྒྱུ་དང༌། ཚོགས་འདུ་སྔོན་མ་གྲོལ་བ་ནས་ཟླ་དྲུག་ནང་ཚུན་ཚོགས་འདུ་རྗེས་མ་དབུ་ཚུགས་ཟིན་པ་དགོས་རྒྱུ།
The basis for the Speaker and the Standing Committee that they have to abide by local laws and international law (Article 6) is not correct as India was not under lockdown in August, 2020 and was already in Unlock 3.0 via Ministry of Home Affair order No. 40-3/2020-DM-I(A) dated 29th July, 2020 where “Social/Political/Sports/entertainment, etc were permitted. …no restriction on inter-State and intra-state movement of persons and goods..”. There were no restrictions of travel all over India and international travel was also possible, however the concern that there is fear of Covid19 is valid but citing these two articles does not do any justice to the rationale of adhering to local law. And citing clause 2 of article 49 doesn’t even make sense as this article states that the Speaker has the right to postpone a session for a week in the absence of the minimum quorum required and has nothing to do with Covid-19 or suspending a session completely.
It is also important to note that Himachal Pradesh, where the Tibetan Parliament is based out of, held their Monsoon session from September 7th-17th, 2020. This is not to say that the Tibetan Parliament should have held a physical meeting, however why they couldn’t explore other options whether it is virtual or at-least have ⅔ of parliamentarians participate or some hybrid setup is questionable. During the back and forth between the TPIE and TSJC, it was even mentioned that there is no provision which allows virtual meetings but there is also no clause which states that virtual meetings are not allowed.
The Supreme Justice Commission mentioned in their ruling that they were asking the Speaker and the Standing committee members to explore other options as I have mentioned above as postponing such a session is against the Charter as per Article 40 which states that, “A time period of six months shall not pass between the last session and the date appointed for the next session.”
Well, then the question arises, Covid-19 was unprecedented and never seen before and we should have some “flexibility”. True, however this is also the fault of the parliamentarians, as this is not the first pandemic, SARS had already happened in 2003. How many of us were angry when the WHO refused to allow Taiwan to be a part of the WHO pandemic response because they were prepared and had taken steps after the SARS pandemic in 2002. Why didn’t we?
TPIE had a one day session on March 17th, 2020 and it begs the question, why didn’t they work on something that would allow them some emergency amendment as Covid19 was declared a global pandemic on 11 March, 2020 before the 9th session was held and we had already seen an issue where a Tibetan MP was unable to participate in the March session due to Covid-19 namely MP Thubten Wangchen.
At that same time, there is a legitimate question about Covid-19 and the risks associated with it, however when it came to Ven. Thubten Wangchen, the European and South America Tibetan MP, who was unable to attend the 9th TPIE session due to Covid-19 lockdown and a “State of Alarm” declared in Spain between 13th and 27 March 2020. In some ways, Article 6 of the fundamental principles could have applied to him but the Speaker decided to use a rule which is not even in the Charter but part of the rules and regulations of the TPIE and replaced him.
How did Covid-19 not feature in MP Thubten Wangchen la’s removal but could be used by the Speaker and the Standing committee as a valid reason when they deem it necessary even if postponing was directly against Article 40 of the Charter of Tibetans-in-Exile.
The TSJC in its judgement passed on 25th September, 2020 took away the voting rights till 11 March, 2021 for the 11 Standing Committee members of the 16th TPIE and as such all of them were unable to vote during the preliminary elections on January 3rd. The 11 Standing Committee members voting rights being withheld was also upheld by the Election Commission and as such they were not allowed. The Speaker of the TPIE in the same discussion of the removal mentioned that they didn’t vote because they didn’t want to cause any issues rather than accepting the judgement which is an unconstitutional statement and he should be held in contempt of court but there is no TSJC.
Issue 2: Suo Moto.
Suo Moto, meaning “on its own motion” is a legal term where someone usually a judge or a court takes action without a prior motion or request from parties.
The TSJC has used Suo Moto under the Clause (i)[ཏ] of Article 69 of the “སྤྱི་མང་གཏུག་བཤེར་འགྲོ་ལུགས་རྩ་འཛིན་ཁྲིམས་ཡིག” (Public Interest Litigation Procedural Rules) which states:
[ཏ] ཁྲིམས་ཀྱིས་ངོས་བཞེས། (Suo Moto)
ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་ཁང་ནས་བོད་ཀྱི་ཡུལ་མི་སུ་རུང་གི་གཞི་རྩའི་ཐོབ་ཐང་ངམ། ཁྲིམས་ཀྱི་ཐོབ་ཐང་གང་རུང་ལ་གནོད་འགལ་བྱུང་བའམ། སྤྱི་པའི་ཁེ་ཕན་ལ་གནོད་འགལ་བྱུང་བ་ཞིག་ཤེས་ཚོར་བྱུང་ཚེ། བྱ་རིམ་གཞན་ལ་བསྟུན་མ་དགོས་པར་ཁྲིམས་ཀྱིས་ངོས་བཞེས་བརྒྱུད། རྩོད་ལན་པར་བརྡ་ཐོ་བཏང་སྟེ་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་ཐག་གཅོད་བྱེད་ཆོག
The Public Litigation Procedural Rules (སྤྱི་མང་གཏུག་བཤེར་འགྲོ་ལུགས་རྩ་འཛིན་ཁྲིམས་ཡིག”) along with Powers of the TSJC, and Witness Guidelines after its first approval from His Holiness the Dalai Lama on March 28th, 1996 has undergone 5 amendments since then with the latest amendment on October 14th, 2019 which included the Suo Moto amendment and was given to both the Kashag and the TPIE on October 16th, 2019 and receipts were shown during the TSJC’s press conference, however just before secret voting, the Speaker of the TPIE said he didn’t see it which is an irresponsible remark to make in the parliament. All the parliamentarians are equally responsible for saying that they didn’t know about Suo Moto and discussing whether it is legal or not if it was already delivered to the parliament in 2019. If they believe that this amendment is illegal, what were they doing till now?
The TSJC quotes Article 67 of the Charter of Tibetan in Exile which states that: “Subject to the provisions of any law as specified in this Charter passed by the Tibetan Assembly, the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission shall make its own rules of procedure and codes of law, and once it has unanimous support from Supreme Justice Commission and the other two commissioners and they shall come into effect.”
དོན་ཚན་རེ་བདུན་པ། ཆེས་མཐོའི་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་ཁང་གི་རྩ་འཛིན་ཁྲིམས་ཡིག་དང༌། སྒྲིག་གཞི།
བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་འདི་དང༌། སྤྱི་འཐུས་ལྷན་ཚོགས་ནས་གཏན་ལ་ཕབ་པའི་ཁྲིམས་ལུགས་གང་རུང་གི་དོན་ཚན་ཁག་གཞིར་བཟུང་ཐོག་ཆེས་མཐོའི་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་ཁང་ནས་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་ཁང་གི་རྩ་འཛིན་ཁྲིམས་ཡིག་དང༌། འགྲོ་ལུགས་སྒྲིག་གཞི་བཅས་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་པ་ཆེ་བ་དང་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་པ་གཞན་གཉིས་བཅས་སྤྱི་མོས་ཀྱིས་བཟོ་འགོད་གཏན་འབེབས་ལྟར་རྩ་འཛིན་ལག་བསྟར་བྱ་རྒྱུ།
The TPIE says that the judgement passed by the TSJC is illegal under Article 58 which states:
Article 58 – Non-Liability of the Proceedings of the Tibetan Assembly
- (1) Any manner of the proceedings of the Tibetan Assembly shall not be called into question by any Tibetan Justice Commissioner under the pretext of any alleged irregularity or discrepancy with the regulations.
- (2) No member of the Tibetan Assembly who is empowered under this Charter with regard to the conduct of business, regulation, discipline or for maintaining order within the Tibetan Assembly shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any Tibetan Justice Commission.
༢ ལྷན་ཚོགས་ཀྱི་འགྲོ་ལུགས་དང༌། སྒྲིག་གཞི་བཟོ་འགོད་བཅས་ཀྱི་ཆེད་བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་འདི་ཐོག་ནས་སྤྲད་པའི་དབང་ཚད་ལག་བསྟར་བྱེད་ཕྱོགས་ལ་སྤྱི་འཐུས་ལྷན་ཚོགས་ཀྱི་ཚོགས་མི་སུ་ཡང་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་ཁང་གང་གིའང་ཁྱབ་ཁོངས་སུ་མེད།
Article 58 states that TSJC cannot interfere in the internal workings and procedures of the TPIE but there is no statement which states that TSJC cannot make a judgement when it comes to the Charters of Tibetans in Exile as Clause 2(༢ )- subsection A (ཀ )Article 66 gives TSJC the authority over the “Interpretations of the wordings of the Charter of the Tibetans in Exile”.
As such, TSJC has the authority to interpret the Charter, whereas the TPIE is a lawmaker and cannot contradict the interpretation of the law by the TSJC as TPIE is a lawmaker and not the interpreter of law. If the legislative has voted a law which is not clear, the TSJC can/should interpret it. If the TPIE has an issue with an interpretation of the law, they are welcome to amend it but can’t interpret it.
During the 7th session of the TPIE from March 19-29, 2019, when Kashag Secretary Topgyal Tsering la was nominated by Sikyong as a Kalon and won 21 votes out of 43, the TPIE said that according to their own way of counting, 21 is 50% as they disregard fraction as 50% of 43 is 21.5. The explanation given by the Speaker in this news video(0:40 sec) is that “this is the way that we have always done”. Once a mistake is identified, it must be rectified and saying that this is the way we have always done is not a valid reason when the Charter says something else and you are willingly violating the Charter.
འདེམས་ཐོན་ཐོག་དམ་འབུལ་ཟིན་པའི་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་དེས་རང་གི་བཀའ་ཤག་ལྷན་ཚོགས་སུ་བཀའ་བློན་ཇི་དགོས་མང་མཐའ་བདུན་ལས་མ་བརྒལ་བའི་མི་འགྲོའི་མིང་དང་ལོ་རྒྱུས་བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་དོན་ཚན་ ༢༡ པར་གསལ་བའི་འོས་ཆོས་ཚང་ལུགས་བཅས་སྤྱི་འཐུས་ལྷན་ཚོགས་སུ་གསལ་བཤད་དང་སྦྲགས་འབུལ་རྒྱུ་དང༌། དེའི་ཐོག་སྤྱི་མོས་བྱུང་ན་སྨོས་མེད། མ་བྱུང་ཚེ་སྤྱི་མོས་མ་བྱུང་བའི་འོས་གཞི་སོ་སོའི་ཐོག་ངོ་ཡོད་སྤྱི་འཐུས་ཡོངས་རྫོགས་ཀྱིས་གསང་བའི་འོས་ཤོག་འཕངས་ཏེ་འོས་འདེམས་བྱེད་དགོས། ངོ་ཡོད་སྤྱི་འཐུས་ཀྱི་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ལྔ་བཅུ་ལས་མ་ཉུང་བའི་འོས་ཤོག་ཐོབ་ན་བཀའ་བློན་དུ་འོས་ཐོན་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་བྱ་རྒྱུ། གྲོས་ཚོགས་སུ་སྤྱི་མོས་སམ་མང་མོས་ཐོན་པའི་རིགས་ལ་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གིས་བཀའ་བློན་དུ་བསྐོ་གཞག་བྱ་རྒྱུ། སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གིས་བཏོན་པའི་འོས་གཞི་ཡོངས་རྫོགས་སམ་གང་རུང་ལ་མང་མོས་མ་ཐོབ་ཚེ་འོས་གཞི་གསར་པ་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གིས་གོང་བཞིན་སྤྱི་འཐུས་ལྷན་ཚོགས་སུ་འབུལ་རྒྱུ།
The Article 22(above) states the nominee should not receive less than 50%, the TSJC wrote to the TPIE and Topgyal Tsering la’s nomination and appointment was cancelled as the TSJC didn’t allow him to swear in.
In what mathematical world is 21 more than 50% of 43, can someone please explain?
At that point, no-one from the TPIE questioned this move by the TSJC as this is a clear case of “Suo Moto”. If the TPIE is raising the issue of “Suo Moto” in their dismissal, the earlier action by the TSJC should have raised this issue and if they have not raised it, it shows the acceptance of “Suo Moto” in the Charter itself and the amendment in the Article 69 of the Public Interest Litigation is merely stating the obvious for clarity purposes as the power is already given to the TSJC under Article 66 as it states:
༡ ཆེས་མཐོའི་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་ཁང་ནི་བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མི་སྤྱི་སྒེར་ཡོངས་ཀྱི་མཐར་ཐུག་གི་ཞུ་གཏུགས་བྱ་ཡུལ་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་ཁང་དང༌། བོད་མིའི་སྒྲིག་འཛུགས་ཀྱི་ཁྲིམས་འཛིན་གོང་ན་མེད་པ་དེ་ཡིན།
Article 66 – Jurisdiction of the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission(1) The Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission shall be the supreme appellate court regarding legal issues involving individuals and public institutions of the Tibetans-in-Exile. It shall be the high-est judicial authority of the Tibetan Administration.
The Speaker and a number of parliaments have quoted this article by using “ཞུ་གཏུགས” and mentioning that without any body asking the TSJC, they cannot act. However, they forgot to mention the second part of this clause, “བོད་མིའི་སྒྲིག་འཛུགས་ཀྱི་ཁྲིམས་འཛིན་གོང་ན་མེད་པ་དེ་ཡིན།” which states that TSJC is the highest judicial authority.
So according to Article 66, the TSJC has the authority over the interpretations of the Charter of the Tibetans-in-Exile as well as being the highest judicial authority and therefore whoever violates the Charter, be it the TPIE or anyone else, TSJC has the full authority to make judgements and uphold the Charter when it is being broken. This does not violate Article 58 which is about the proceeding in the parliament and not about the Charter.
Issue 3: Removal of the TSJC’s
Article 63, clause 4:
༤ སྤྱི་འཐུས་ལྷན་ཚོགས་ཀྱི་སྤྱི་འཐུས་རྩ་འབོར་གྱི་གསུམ་ཆ་གཉིས་ཡན་གྱིས་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་པ་ཆེ་བ་དང༌། ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་པ་གཞན་གཉིས་བཅས་སུ་རུང་འཕོ་འགྱུར་དགོས་པའི་གྲོས་ཆོད་བཞག་སྟེ་འཕོ་འགྱུར་བྱེད་དགོས་བྱུང་ན་ལས་དེ་མིན་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་པ་ཆེ་བའི་ལས་རྒྱུན་ལོ་ལྔའམ། རང་ལོ་དྲུག་ཅུ་རེ་ལྔ་ཧྲིལ་པོ་ལོན་པ་གང་སྔའི་བར་ཡིན། ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་པ་གཞན་གཉིས་རང་ལོ་དྲུག་ཅུ་རེ་ལྔ་ཧྲིལ་པོ་མ་ལོན་བར་ལས་འཁུར་རྒྱུན་འཛིན་བྱ་རྒྱུ།
Under Clause 4, Article 63, the TPIE has the full authority to remove the TSJC’s and this is a right that has been given to them under the Charter. What is surprising is that there seems to be no requirement or guidelines for the impeachment process apart from a resolution which can be brought forth with no burden of proof. And how it was conducted via secret voting is also not clear and transparent.
The removal of TSJC according to the Charter of the Tibetans-in-Exile doesn’t seem to be illegal, however the resolution used to remove the TSJC’s has a lot of issues especially outlined above such as the usage of Article 6 and Clause 2 of Article 49 to postpone the Parliament session as well as the violation of the Article 40 which begs the questions, is the resolution itself unconstitutional.
There is also an ethical question here where the accused has not been able to present their case, in this case, the TSJC’s.
- Tibetan Parliamentary session on the removal of the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commissioners. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6nnaJBmZLI&feature=youtu.be
- Postponement of the 10th session press release by the Speaker and Standing Committee members. https://tibetanparliament.org/press-statement-of-the-tibetan-parliament-in-exile/
- Charter of the Tibetans-in-Exile. https://chithu.org/
- Tibetan Supreme Justice Commissioners Judgement on the infringement of the Charter by the 11 Standing Committee members. https://trimzin.net/
- India Unlock 3.0 Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 29th July, 2020: https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/Unlock3_29072020.pdf
- Monsoon session of Himachal Pradesh assembly begins under Covid shadow: Hindustan Times: https://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/himachal-s-monsoon-session-begins/story-WvzUDQE1rb7YgpcDyxmOhI.html
- Tibetan Parliament Budget Session held for one day on March 17, 2020. https://tibetanparliament.org/budget-session-for-the-fiscal-year-2020-2021-will-be-convened-for-a-day/
- MP Thubten Wangchen Replaced: http://www.phayul.com/2020/04/03/43030/
- State of Alarm declared in Spain between 13th and 27 March, 2020. https://www.garda.com/crisis24/news-alerts/322816/spain-government-activates-state-of-alert-nationwide-amid-covid-19-march-14-update-6
- Public Interest Litigation Procedural Rules: Includes Suo Moto(Page 63): https://trimzin.net/
- Kashag Secretary Topgyal Tsering la’s nomination and Suo Moto judgement by the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission and the interview with the Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2213671145563753
(Views expressed are his own)
The author is a digital security expert named among WIRED UK 2021’s smart list of 32 innovators. He is the Digital Security Program Director at Tibet Action Institute and is an aspiring candidate for the 2021 Tibetan Parliament in Exile from the Utsang constituency.