Author (in Tibetan): Ugyen Tenpa
Translated by: Tenzin Cheme
It goes without saying that it was a commendable act when Kaydor la announced on November 17, 2025, that he is going to run for Sikyong in the upcoming election cycle. However, when he stated his reason for running, he mentioned that currently the three issues of Tibetan advocacy, unity, and financial resilience have deteriorated, and that he is running as a candidate in order to restore them. Naturally, this is a comparison between the previous Kashag and the current one, placing blame on the current Kashag for these deteriorations. This has raised concerns about what direction this election campaign might take.
During the 2021 general election, all candidates in both the preliminary and final rounds emphasized presenting their own policy platforms rather than criticizing each other. This has, in the last four years, assisted a great deal in moving a divided and fragmented society towards unity and strength. Therefore, it is needless to say that continuing the positive practices of the previous election is not only a fundamental responsibility of a Sikyong candidate but also a proven method that benefits both the public and private interests.
Unfortunately, the manner in which Kaydor la has run his campaign so far is a carbon copy of former Sikyong Lobsang Sangay la’s approach and naturally has raised a lot of concerns among the general public.
Former Sikyong Lobsang Sangay la has stated that due to personal and family difficulties, he will not run this time despite being eligible as a candidate. It would serve society better if he had remained silent. Instead, while posing as if he were a Sikyong candidate, he has been accusing and continues to accuse the current Kashag of being generally incompetent in their work. Furthermore, Kaydor la has also taken this election cycle to descend into a negative campaign. If Kaydor la, without conducting proper research, simply echoes such baseless rhetoric from the former Sikyong, then regardless of whether the Kashag directly refutes it or not, it is certain that those who can expose such false accusations will gradually emerge. Since Kaydor la’s own past mistakes, which have already become publicly known, will inevitably be discussed from all sides, there is no choice but to think twice or even three times about this approach.
Although there is not much room to speculate about Kaydor la’s motivation and objectives for running as a Sikyong candidate this time, his public statements of both yes and no, followed by a sudden announcement for candidacy, not only give the impression of lacking a well-prepared plan but also—since he has not been regularly following the functions of the current Kashag from 2021 onwards—many people share the common perception that he seems to have become a mouthpiece for those who continue to blast baseless criticisms.
Regarding the Tibetan cause and struggle, current Sikyong Penpa Tsering la travels to countries around the world every year to advocate for the Tibetan cause. The Sikyong and Kalons meet with political leaders and parliamentarians of various countries, hold discussions and give speeches at international political forums, think tanks, and universities. Through interviews with major news media of different countries, advocacy and publicity for the Tibetan cause continues to expand. Additionally, advocacy campaign groups have been established in 19 countries with approximately 800 members actively conducting advocacy work for the Tibetan cause. The Tibetan cause and struggle is reaching unprecedented breadth and depth in international news media. The U.S. government has passed the Resolve Tibet Act to promote resolution of the Tibet-China conflict, and parliaments of many countries including Canada, the UK, and Australia, as well as important international forums, continue to pass resolutions and hold discussions on the Tibetan issue. The World Parliamentarians’ Convention on Tibet and various Tibet support groups have become more comprehensive in membership and stronger in capacity. All these developments are clearly visible to all Tibetans in exile, so from where will evidence be brought to claim that the Tibetan cause and struggle has deteriorated? Similarly, the Sikyong has repeatedly stated that during this Kashag’s tenure, there has been some back-channel contact with the Chinese government, so it would be better not to use such general accusations of incompetence.
Unity is the main foundation of society and administration, and it has been included in the statements of both previous and current Kashags. Now when it is said that unity has deteriorated, naturally many questions arise. Through various measures such as constitutional amendments, this Kashag has been able to restore the Parliament, which was unable to take the oath of office, and has been able to appoint all three justices to the Supreme Justice Commission, which was close to shutting down. Moreover, over the past four years, through twice visiting settlements, monasteries, and Tibetan communities to provide briefings and through question-and-answer sessions to introduce the Kashag’s work methods and future plans, they have been able to clear the doubts and misconceptions of some who held pessimistic views. Through revisions to the charters of autonomous and branch organizations and administrative improvements, all Tibetans—including new arrivals from Tibet, those in difficult areas, and those living scattered—have been included under the comprehensive social welfare program, and resettlement work is proceeding well. Most of the root causes that prevent unity have been eliminated. So when it is said that unity has deteriorated, what is the benchmark on which unity is measured before it was “deteriorated”? In particular, during this Kashag’s tenure, supporters of both Middle Way and Independence approaches have been able to work together in advocacy for the Tibetan cause—while this achievement is visibly evident, to say that unity has deteriorated, isn’t this like the Tibetan proverb “a person with jaundice sees a white conch as yellow”?
Regarding fundraising, looking at the proposals that this Kashag presented to Parliament for fiscal years 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26, the budget capital from fiscal year 2016-17 was 1,941.01 million Indian rupees, which became 3,543.89 million in 2020-21, and 5,301.98 million in 2023-24. Compared to the previous Kashag’s fiscal year 2020-21, the current Kashag has been able to increase the Tibetan administration’s budget capital by over 1,758 million Indian rupees, which amounts to approximately a 49.6% increase. Just this fact alone should be enough to put an end to the claim that fundraising has deteriorated. After the new U.S. administration blocked funding in 2024, the Kashag was able to secure interim relief by raising over 1.7 billion Indian rupees for three to four months of expenses, and the restoration of U.S. PRM assistance funding on March 7, 2025, can be seen in this year’s budget session proceedings. On July 2, the Sikyong announced at the 15th Religious Conference of Tibetans press conference that $6.8 million was restored, so on what basis do such false accusations of weakened fundraising stand? If it is true that Kalsang Dorjee personally claims to have greater fundraising capacity than the current Kashag, one cannot forget the data extracted from the U.S. State Department website by Todd Stein of the U.S. Office of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, comparing the contact numbers with the U.S. government when both Kaydor la and Penpa Tsering la served as North American Representatives. It showed that Penpa Tsering la averaged 10.9 meetings per month with U.S. administration officials and Congress members over one year, while Kaydor la averaged only 1.9 per month over three years. There are still many questions remaining that cannot be ignored, such as how Kaydor la used his authority before taking responsibility for work in collaboration with the former Sikyong to secure U.S. government funding for personal projects.
One of the most important expected outcomes of a Sikyong election is that each candidate’s political and administrative views and approaches should be widely publicized and discussed in society to bring public attention and focus to the administration. In particular, it is important to expose what is inappropriate or inadequate in the current Kashag’s approach to accomplishing fundamental objectives and social welfare with evidence-based criticism and to propose improvement measures. Moreover, critically examining the personal baggage of thoughts and rhetoric related to a Sikyong candidate’s own official affairs is an established common practice in democratic countries everywhere. For example, who would object to having an in-depth discussion about the very Gang-jong Development Finance Private Limited that Kaydor la counts as his greatest achievement, regarding the Kashag’s policy decision to shut it down?
Unfortunately, the thought unavoidably arose in my mind that the three reasons Kaydor la gave for why he must run as a Sikyong candidate this time seem to have stumbled from the very first step. Looking at Kaydor la’s experience of service within the administration, during his long tenure as Representative, he allowed Dolgyal practitioners access to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and when His Holiness visited San Diego University, he let all Tibetans gather inside the hall while giving Dolgyal followers the opportunity to protest outside. He heavily interfered in Sikyong election proceedings from his position as Representative without regard to the charter, and other mistakes that had to be discussed in Parliament and even required the establishment of an investigation committee. Issues such as removing photos of His Holiness the Great 14th Dalai Lama, and when handing over duties between old and new Representatives, taking the office laptop to Switzerland instead of handing it over, and upon returning, official emails, documents, and even the operating system deleted—such personal misconduct recorded in Supreme Justice Commission verdict number 20—although no one raised questions about these in 2021, if the election direction goes toward a negative campaign, much information about Kaydor la can easily be searched on the internet. So one wonders whether he will remain responding to whatever criticisms are made against him, or whether he intends to introduce his own future plans.
Kaydor la, everyone already saw what little influence the former Sikyong had during the 2021 general election. You have no responsibility to carry the former Kashag’s burdens. If you go down the path of a negative campaign election, you will be the one to suffer the consequences. If you stumble from where you place your foot, you won’t be able to take the next step. Rather than that, please use your own independent judgment and abilities to present new political and administrative plans, new approaches, and new methods, and create a substantive campaign platform for this Sikyong election, and make efforts to win the election through that. This is my request.
If Kaydor la continues in the direction of a negative campaign election, many Tibetans will gradually emerge to change that outdated approach.
*The views and opinion expressed above are those of the authors*
