Jackie Chan: A little bit oppression may be good for the Chinese
It is clear that Jackie Chan strongly believes in freedom:
Action star Jackie Chan said Saturday he’s not sure if a free society is a good thing for China and that he’s starting to think “we Chinese need to be controlled.”
Chan’s comments drew applause from a predominantly Chinese audience of business leaders in China’s southern island province of Hainan.
He made the highly offensive remarks while participating in a panel at the annual Boao Forum.
“I’m not sure if it’s good to have freedom or not,” Chan said. “I’m really confused now. If you’re too free, you’re like the way Hong Kong is now. It’s very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.”
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.”
Yeah, we can’t have any of that, of course. People doing “what they want” – brr, that just scares the crap out of me. We should be controlled, forced to do what we do not want to do. After all, nobody has the natural human right to spend his life as he sees fit. The government is much better able to tell the Chinese what they should do then they are. This despite the rather inconvenient fact that government too is run by people.
It is an incredibly offensive remark by Chan. Tens of millions of Chinese have suffered – been locked up, persecuted, tortured and, yes, killed – because the authoritarians in charge of the country believe they have the right to “control” the people.
Perhaps Chan can answer this question: is this the kind of control you’re talking about?
Chinese torture victim
Or this?
Have a look at this article Mr. Chan, and let me know whether you have changed your mind (yet again).
I agree with Chan. As a North American, I am puzzled by the self-righteous people that claim to know what is best for the Chinese people. The vast majority of the Chinese population is happy with the government, happy with the direction the country is going, trust with their leaders. If we are truly democratic, why are you ignoring this fact that the large majority (not 51-49%) support their government?
Maybe we don’t believe that the people who express support are really speaking their true feelings about it, or that without a free press they don’t know what is really going on, anon.
Am I the only one seeing the above comment, or has my brain just decided to entertain itself?
As for the article: Do people seriously expect me to trudge on when I can’t even trust Jackie Chan, the lovable Kung Fu guy who gets hurt a lot and always rescues his family from smarmy gangsters that for some reason always speak English and never kill him at a distance with guns? First Chuck Norris goes nuts and now this. Tomorrow Mickey Mouse is going to advocate religious fundamentalism…
Aw, C Stanley, you snuck in while I was writing my comment.
Is that not self-righteousness? Is this what you are saying: “We hear you say that you support your government, but we don’t believe you. Instead, we will tell you what you are really thinking. Further, even though we live on the other side of the world, with a society and economy that is completely different, we know whats truly going on in your country and you people don’t have a clue.”
Sorry if I offended you, anon- it wasn’t meant as an insult against you.
But we’ve seen how a media that is free to criticize government leads to people knowing certain things that wouldn’t be known otherwise. And if you don’t have all of the information, your judgment is more clouded even if you are there and we are watching from a distance.
I do agree that Americans and Westerners in general are often too self righteous about what we believe being the best for everyone though. I just can’t say that I’d ever believe that severe restrictions on freedom would be acceptable to any person if he/she knew that there was an alternative. But how that works it’s way out in any given society is open to a lot of different interpretations, and no society is 100% free anyway.
Garland- I had a similar thought seeing this about Chan- I’ve always really liked him. I’ve pretty much gotten over thinking that there is any celebrity who’s personal views aren’t going to be anathema to my way of thinking though, and just started watching their craft without having opinion one way or another about their personal lives.
Case in point, I’ve finally forgiven Springfield and will be going to his concert next week.
Ack, Springsteen, not Springfield. Where in the world did that come from?
C Stanley – in no way did you offend me. I just feel that we should respect the wishes of the citizens of a foreign country. If the citizens of a country reject their government and struggle for revolution, then we have just cause to speak out and help them. Otherwise, I don’t feel we should try to force our views on them and our efforts are best spent improving our own country, society, std of living no? C Stanley, I appreciate your civil and rational comments. I wish all article comments I read are as considerate as yours.
Freedom yay!… I want freedom to drive very fast on the other side of the road and throw people who look at me funny down a big hole with lots of poisonous snakes…. What!!?? I can’t do that? What kind of totalitarian are you running here????
Just goes to show, when freedom avocates talk about freedom, they don’t mean it. Not literally anyway.
Those pictures you show can hardly compete what the americans did to the Muslim and Middle Eastern people.
I am disappointed as a fan. If Jackie grew up without the freedom he enjoyed in Taiwan and Hong Kong, he would still be a circus act in China. It was through his freedom that he was able to fully express his talent.
This whole thing is not about China or Freedom, it is about Jackie wanting to be the only top dog and everyone else is second class.
Shame on you Jackie. I will boycott every movie you put out from now on and will tell everyone I know to do the same.
DisappointedFan:
I’m more inclined to take this as a lack of intellectual thoughtfulness than a case of “I got mine, too bad for you.”
C Stanley,
Your analysis of the “freedom” situation in China is based on two very problematic, if not downright erroneous, assumptions.
1. You assume that the average Joe knows what is the best way to run a country. The fact is, China is achieving the kind of amazing growth due in no small part to a totalitarian government that does not try to pander to the masses and come up with policies that are only designed to garner election votes. Look at the mess the US, and Canada, is in right now. Then take a look at the prompt recovery China is seeing.
2. You assume that the average Chinese is not aware of the corruption and the state controlled media. You seem to think that we Chinese have been brainwashed to accept whatever the government says. (Which, ironically, is likely a product of Cold War brainwashing…) I can tell you with certainty that there are as many differing political opinions in China as there are in North America or Europe.
In fact, talk to any Chinese about politics, and he or she will happily tell you all about the grievances they have against the government. However, it won’t be the grievances you might expect. Practically no one is going to complain about their lack of “freedom of expression”, or their inability to vote. No, almost all their grievances will have something to do with money: the government gave them too little pension; they can’t afford medicare; their managers/directors are siphoning public/corporate funds; the housing market is too expensive, the government should be doing something about it; the government is making unjust rules curbing the rise of the housing market; etc.
And yes, this is from my first-hand experience. Maybe Jackie Chan just got disenchanted with the Taiwan political process (and yes, it is a big joke: their former, TWICE democratically-elected president is in jail on charges of corruption), and, after working and living in the Mainland for close to 20 years now, realized that something must be working right in China.
Bladesyz- I admit that my impressions are nothing more than that- impressions, and they’re based on my own biases just as everyone else’s impressions are (despite our attempts to overcome biases, attempts which are variable in degree and success from one individual to the next.)
And my bias in this case is one that I think almost every American shares- which is that freedom really is important unto itself and a largescale infringement on freedom isn’t tolerable even if the results of the authoritarian regime are preferable in some ways.
Of course, a large number of Americans seem to be gradually losing sight of this in regard to our own politics.
I certainly do feel that the Chinese government has made great leaps of economic success (and I’m sure you’re right if I understand you to be asserting that this is why the authoritarian nature of the government is accepted by some Chinese), but we differ on whether or not the ends justifies the means.
Everybody listen up. You know I am a clown all the time and you know I bang my head so many times that I don’t usually know what I am saying without a script and a coach. Chill and go see more movies and make me more money. You should go NOW. You are under MY CONTROL. HA HA HA HA!
C Stanley,
The ends justifies the means? What is this end, and what are the means in this case?
Are the millions of farmers being raised from abject poverty every year a means or an end? Are the millions of sweatshop workers who are gradually getting higher pay and better work protection a means or an end? Are the millions of urban professionals who are being saved from unemployment due to the government’s quick and decisive response, a means or an end?
When you say that “freedom really is important unto itself”, you are speaking ideology, and not practicality. The main reason why the CCP has been so successful in recent decades is precisely because they have abandoned the blind idealism of the Mao era and embraced practicalism.
When the Ontario government is still bickering about whether or not to raise minimum wages during this economic depression, the Chinese government has already quietly scrapped their plans to do the same.
Oh, and I have to ask, what are “Chinese torture victims” doing in cushy, and apparently, private, hospital rooms?
Blad: The improving situations of the Chinese groups you describe are the ‘ends’ and the means is what you previously described (though dismissively) in your earlier comment.
You said there that the Chinese don’t complain about their inability to vote or express opinions. Sure, fine, they don’t complain about a lack of the abstract rights of freedom of expression or self determination. But then you go on to list a litany of complaints that they do have about the effects of government policy. Those are complaints about lack of freedom of expression and freedom of self determination, but they’re coming out in pragmatic and not abstract ways. They’re complaining about the effects of not having those rights- and although the complaints might seem tolerable or worth the tradeoff since they see the overall positive growth and improvement, it may not always be so.
C Stanley,
So if you think that improving situations of the Chinese people are “ends”, and the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government are the “means”, then you clearly think that it is better for the Chinese to remain poor and work in dangerous sweatshops, as long as they can vote in elections. Forgive me if most Chinese would disagree with your assessment.
Complaints about government policy are NOT complaints about lack of freedom of expression! Otherwise, you would not hear of any complaints about government policy in the West, because ostensibly, you already have freedom of expression.
No, complaints about government policy demonstrate that, contrary to what you may think, there is a certain amount of freedom of expression in China. They do not happen only in private conversations either. There are TV shows in China that are dedicated towards debating public policy, and I’ve regularly followed one such show when I was in China recently.
Finally, I would caution you against using internet sources that you just googled up. The pictures you posted are clearly those of ordinary hospital patients, or do you really think the Chinese government puts their “torture victims” in comfortable hospital rooms? The site you linked also looks suspiciously like a mouthpiece of the FLG, an anti-CCP organization that is documented to fabricate stories in order to depict the Chinese government in a negative light.
Kinda interesting that someone claiming that there is a certain amount of freedom of expression in China would follow up with this sentence.
“Finally, I would caution you against using internet sources that you just googled up. The pictures you posted are clearly those of ordinary hospital patients, or do you really think the Chinese government puts their “torture victims” in comfortable hospital rooms?”
Certain amount indeed. Just don’t get on to the wrong subject.
So if you think that improving situations of the Chinese people are “ends”, and the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government are the “means”, then you clearly think that it is better for the Chinese to remain poor and work in dangerous sweatshops, as long as they can vote in elections.
With all due respect, the only thing that’s clear is that logic is absent from that statement. When someone says that the ends don’t justify the means, it does not mean that those means are unimportant- the person is simply asserting that other means should be used to achieve those ends.
A little disappointing for me as a Jackie Chan fan. I guess if it’s any consolation, even he thinks some Chinese products are a problem.
“Speaking fast with his voice rising, Chan said, ‘If I need to buy a TV, I’ll definitely buy a Japanese TV. A Chinese TV might explode.’”
Well, if Wen Jiabao was sitting at your feet, would you say otherwise? 大家都不要丢人
my respect for jackie chan just took a dive. too bad cause i like his movies.
Sorry, but you’re not making any sense. You do realize that I’m saying those are NOT pictures of torture victims (hence the quotes)? Or did you just skip over the sentence and read what you wanted to read?
That might make sense, if there were alternate paths that is certain, or just as likely, to lead to said end.
However, there isn’t. Russia is a prime example. Their headlong rush into “democracy” caused an economic disaster that reduced a super power into a beggar country. Ironically, it was only with Putin’s iron-fisted rule that Russia has returned to prosperity and stability.
Like I said, C Stanley, your views are founded on very problematic assumptions. You assume that if a country becomes democratic, it will automatically cure poverty and raise standards of living. That is simply NOT true.
When it comes to bettering the lives of the Chinese people in general, what the Chinese government is doing is working. What you are suggesting is that we should throw all that away and instead just take your magic pill of democracy, without any evidence that it would lead to further prosperity, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.