Hong Kong action star Jackie Chan won’t be included on Freedom House’s Christmas card list:
Hong Kong movie legend Jackie Chan has told a Chinese audience that too much political freedom can lead to chaos “like in Taiwan,” according to a newspaper report.
Chan, best-known for his martial-arts comedies, told an annual meeting of governments and business leaders that China should be wary of allowing too many freedoms, the Sunday Morning Post reported.
“I don’t know whether it is better to have freedom or to have no freedom,” he said at the Boao Forum for Asia.
“With too much freedom … it can get very chaotic, could end up like in Taiwan.”
No doubt recalling last year’s riot by Chinese punks in Seoul, Chan added that Chinese need to be controlled:
Chan added: “I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”
And just doing what we want, of course, is a privilege limited to wealthy movie stars and high-ranking CCP officials.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Jesus. At least some Hollywood movie stars are self-aware enough to parody themselves when they say something stupid-cum-nearly-incoherent ( http://tinyurl.com/ch6hwp ).
Though I would certainly agree that Taiwan hasn’t exactly taken best advantage of its political freedoms lately, electing a swimmer bozo who doesn’t call himself a president based on his glistening abs.
Good lord. Jackie Chan is brown-nosing like a champ and just lost any respect that I had for him. I suppose Chan would agree with Peking University Law Professor, Sun Dongdong, that claimed that 99% of China’s petitioners (people who petitioned the government for help) are mentally ill and that he supported forced hospitalization of them. That would mean that Chinese that were audacious enough to complain about their lack of due process should be considered insane since no sane person would consider complaining.
“since no sane person would consider complaining.”
Based on the ultimate fates of citizens who have complained to/about the Chinese government over the past 60 years, I’m not so sure the CCP is that far off on this one.
If I were Chinese, having my name on paper in any government file beyond the bare minimum would make me nervous.
He probably came to that conclusion after reading some Chinese message boards
What’s so surprising about his remarks? It’s a general feeling within most Chinese and Chinese Americans. With economic growth, along comes a sense national pride by Chinese all over the world. There is a sense that the West should butt out of China because China is going to be the superpower that will overshadow the United States, and that the West is just jealous of China’s economic success so that’s why they’re always bashing China and making up stuff to bash with. Most Chinese do not care about democracy or do they want it. Jackie Chan is right in that most Chinese do not mind being controlled as long as China keeps on growing and shows up the West.
. . . and most Chinese will never have it as good as I do because of this twisted nationalism and the ones that have it better do so at the expense of others.
Just how long can they prolong the magic?
As long as the Americans, Canadians, Europeans buy Walmart stuff, sell their technology for short term gains, and help out the Chinese economy.
I actually agree with Jackie. Chinese history is full of strife, rebellion, countless peasant uprisings and social unrest, interspersed with periods of calm under powerful (and oppressive) governments. People who want to see the CCP fail should be careful what they wish for – social unrest in China represents the biggest potential threat to stability in East Asia.
You know, I somehow knew you would.
@8:
Indian history is very similar. But they seem to have a functioning democracy. In fact one could say exactly the same thing about pre-modern Europe. But they’re doing all right as well.
Unless you’re suggesting the yellow man is exceptional and simply does not have the constitution for self-governance.
The dude is an actor…who cares what his opinion about politics is.
i think china’s current government matches the nations zeitgeist rather accordingly. china is an entity unto itself and a far more complex beast than the west can comprehend. the culture is collective, and the government is collective to – moreso than “communist.” yes, they are imperfect, illogical, and repressive – but they’ve worked wonders under that system. What does the US have to show for over the last 10 years other than wasting time and resources creating the devil we don’t know?
No, Indian history is not very similar. There was no “India” to speak of pre-19th century, for starters.
Um. No you can’t.
That’s exactly what you’re suggesting, albeit in a cowardly and circumspect manner.
China’s national pride is “no freedom” ? What young generation of overseas Chinese don’t know is that their parent either fled or left China for greater freedom. If Jackie Chan said that from his heart then he’s coward.
A democratic government can be as in/efficient as a dictatorship…
…but democracies are never as profitable, since money is best harvested from the oppressed.
Sagwamun: In my personal belief, I think that certain cultures and/or societies are NOT ready for self-governance. See Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and most of Africa for failed attempts at democratization from without… People can not simply have choice thrust on them. They must want it first.
Um. No you can’t.
The empire of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, interrupted by long periods of total chaos, “barbarian” invasions, etc. Sounds like what you’re talking about. Now imagine going back in time to the 19th century. You could make a solid argument (especially in the aftermath of the French Revolution) that Europeans just weren’t meant to have democratic governments. In fact the continent spent a good 150 years and millions of lives working out precisely that problem.
That’s exactly what you’re suggesting, albeit in a cowardly and circumspect manner.
You obviously are unfamiliar with sarcasm.
Sagwamun: In my personal belief, I think that certain cultures and/or societies are NOT ready for self-governance.
Perhaps. That’s a different debate. What Jackie and tinyflowers are suggesting is that China is not and will never be suited to democracy. Not that China is not “ready.”
And why do you include Korea on your list of societies not ready for democracy? I live here and things seem to be working out okay.
“What young generation of overseas Chinese don’t know is that their parent either fled or left China for greater freedom.”
That’s exactly why Jackie Chan’s parents fled to Hong Kong. According to his autobiography (it was a gift…no, really), they were so happy to have escaped the mainland that they named him Chan Kong-sang, “Born in Hong Kong” Chan. The story of how they parents met and fled to Hong Kong is an amazing one, the stuff of movies.
I believe he has step-brothers and sisters in China. Maybe that’s why he’s attempting to be ‘diplomatic’ in his views about mainland China.
…how his parents…
Korea is a great case study on democracy readiness. You’ll note that they were “given” a democratic republic by the US/UN and struggled with dictators and student protests for the next 40 years… Oh, I would never argue that they aren’t “ready” now… although the leaders have a harder time accepting that than the people…
My problem with “democracy readiness” analysis is that most of the now-democratic case study countries were affected so profoundly by external influences during the “development” phase, and show such wildly different trajectories and progress.
What are the criteria for a “democracy-ready” country? A skilled, large middle class? A robust civil society?
Japan had the former, but its reconstruction was heavily influenced by the need for a capitalist, democratic bulwark against the Soviet Union. Even today fewer than 50% of eligible Japanese vote, and Japan has an underdeveloped civil society for its size. So there are major question marks for me about applying the model there.
Meanwhile, in Korea, the utter devastation of the economy, combined with nearly zero support from the West after WWII (especially compared with Japan), undermined any chance Korean democracy had. Oh, and then there was the invasion by Kim Il Sung.
And afterward the constant threat of war tended to scare the people into acquiescing to a military dictatorship.
Singapore, on the other hand, seems perfectly capable of meeting both the criteria, yet it’s semi-democratic at best.
And let’s not forget Africa — there, slews of dictatorships have failed, while Botswana — a democracy since independence — has prospered only to be crushed demographically by AIDS.
So when people talk about calculating whether a state is “ready” for democracy, I question whether there’s enough there to build a solid theory. A lot of the case studies seem like just-so stories to me, with external factors the theory doesn’t account for playing a significant role.
But I’m prepared to be convinced, and I don’t deny that someone more thorough and patient than me could put together a good argument. I know I paint with an awfully broad brush and often talk about too many things about which I know nothing. Which I suppose makes the Internet the perfect place for me! ^^;
#21,
Yes, excellent points. Based on the criteria that you suggested, it could also be argued that only a handful of countries–mainly those in Northern Europe (sorry, Americans)–are ‘democratically ready’ or even ‘democratic’.
Sagwamun,
I think your argument is too broad. In saying that European and Chinese history are “very similar”, you’re essentially saying that human nature is the same everywhere, therefore, everyone is meant to have democratic governments.
Don’t be silly, no one suggested this. What I’m saying is – Chinese weren’t ready for democracy in 1949, they weren’t ready for democracy in 1989, and they’re not ready for democracy in 2009. At some point they may be, but even then they may choose not to pursue it.
No, you couldn’t make that argument at all, and I don’t know of credible historians or political scientists who would. The 19th century was when the Enlightenment was at its peak. Europe was ripe for democratization. Not really comparable to modern China at all.
My argument was broad because I was trying to demonstrate that your criteria in your first post were too broad.
And of course I wouldn’t argue that Europe wasn’t ready for democracy in the 19th century. But back then, people as dumb as Jackie did, and it led to a lot of bloodshed.
Fundamentally it’s extremely condescending to judge an entire population as ready or not to govern themselves. And it’s self-fulfilling — Why don’t we ask the Chinese if they think they’re ready for democracy? Oh wait, that would involve democracy.
Of course I agree with Thomas Jefferson that a well-informed citizenry is vital to a functional democracy. And China’s population certainly is not well-informed. But without democracy it seems it never will be — and then there are those inalienable rights he was always blathering on about. China’s not doing so good on those either.
You must log in to post a comment.