As indicated in WTN issue of December 6, 1996, there is going to be series of 4 articles appearing in "The Philadelphia Inquirer". Here is the Part 1 of 4. We encourage our readers to send your comments to .

Dec. 8, 1996

Forty-seven years after seizing control of Tibet, China continues to jail and torture thousands of Tibetans in a campaign to erase Tibet's culture and its independence movement.

Part 1 Dec. 8, 1996

Victims tell their stories:

Drablha: Placed in concrete box 22 hours every day.

Kelsang Pelmo: Was among four others tortured for chanting for freedom.

Tashi Gyatso: Underwent electric shocks in a room filled with water.

Passang: Punched and shocked during interrogation.

Dorjee Tseten: Beaten with sticks and electric pods.

Dawa Kyizom: Struck repeatedly on the head by one officer after another.

Part 2 Dec. 9, 1996

How China replaced the Tibetan school system with one that teaches Chinese propaganda.

Part 3 Dec. 10, 1996

How China has tried to crush Buddhism in Tibet by jailing and torturing monks and nuns and destroying monasteries.

Part 4 Dec. 11, 1996

The story of Lobsang Choedon and three young nuns who were arrested and jailed for singing freedom songs and died after the torture.

OFFICIAL CHINESE RESPONSE

The Inquirer called the Embassy of the People's Republic of China, in Washington, to allow officials an opportunity to respond fully to this series on Tibet.

Lu Wen Xiang, first secretary in the press office, said this about reports of torture in Chinese jails in Tibet: ``This is not the government policy. Chinese law forbids torture in jail.''

Asked if there was torture in Chinese jails, Lu said: ``I can't say this never happens. It depends on certain people. Just like in the U.S. - torture is not allowed in jails. Still, sometimes it happens.''

Asked about numerous reports by human-rights groups alleging that there is torture in Chinese jails in Tibet, Lu said: ``Those human-rights groups carry bias toward China. Most of those articles are biased and most of their accusations are groundless.''

The Inquirer offered to send Lu a detailed letter outlining the content of the Inquirer articles, and to allow China to respond more specifically. Lu said he did not want the letter. The Inquirer offered again, and Lu declined again.