[ap]Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash

he was never one my favorite actors, but in the last decade or so, i have heard many comments (not just today or political issues) from him that i completely agree with. he still is not one of my favorite actors, but i agree with his views. he is a die hard nationalist.

 

So you agree that the Chinese need to be controlled? Basically that is saying that individual Chinese are incapable of making big decisions for themselves.

Also doesn't Jackie Chan's family live in Australia?

 

i don't think he meant complete control at all. probably more like disciplined. i remember him saying things about preserving the culture and stuff. he is probably coming from a cultural aspect, not purely politically. but of course more personally freedom can be given, but to the conservatives, there is a limit.

 

His comments seem pretty straight forward.

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday. "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."

He went on to say that freedoms in Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies "chaotic."


Needless to say, I strongly disagree with him. I think there is a need for more freedom, not less, everywhere in the world. Not just in China.

 

did he say that in English or was it translated? i really think he didn't mean it this way. it's either translated badly, or he expressed it in a wrong way. i know he is a nationalist from previous comments and action. he is probably reading history books these days and day dreaming.

 

This is a funny distinction. There is no absolute freedom even in the "corrupted" US of A. While I shouldn't be reading Chan's comments out of context, which I don't know much of, if he equates "discipline" to "control", he is stupid.
With the ironclad Beijing has put on the people, tight controls, I will actually say "discipline", the just kind, is not nearly enough. The rule of law and government branches are not separate. People are not in the process deciding what the law is, and too much power, if not all, is left to the law enforcement. The government in fact tells the Court what the law is.
The paternalistic government in Beijing has been running on a 15th century theory that people can't be trusted, and the logic then extends to since people can't be trusted, we are the mandate of people to control people. If you buy that, I feel sorry for you.

 

Chan should just stick to his movie lines. He doesn't know the difference between freedom in the sense of democracy and freedom in the sense of rule of law.

 

Imagine if Jackie Chan lived in a controlled China, there probably wouldn't be a Jackie Chan.

 

Or stick to forums, like you.

 

you would be surprised on many people in China share his view.

 

You are not making sense even for insulting, if that's what you meant.

 

I know very well.
There is no denial that Beijing has done a laudable job ratcheting China from a backwards economy that Mao left China with to a manufacturing juggernaut that is ready to catch up with the advanced economy. But at the same time Beijing has to realize the paternalistic approach will not take the country very far.
What separates Beijing from the other dictator countries is that the government seems to be genuinely concerned with the wellness of the people. So while I sounded harsh, I still have confidence in Beijing, but my patience is losing "gradually".

 

well, Beijing is not a dictatorship. what more can you ask for if the government is genuinely concerned with the well being of the people? back to the topic, anyone got a video of Jackie saying that?

 

jackie chan needs the PRC to control his pants.

His family will thank them for it.

 

Beijing is not a dictatorship if you narrow dictatorship to the form like feudalism. It is a dictatorship because people cannot participate political process meaningfully , and there is no external check on CCCP. This is as close as a dictatorship as you can get outside emperor running his kingdom.
I will ask Beijing to actually improve the well being of the people across the board, not just those middle to up class people.

 

well, that's what their plan is right now. maybe more freedom after that? be patient.

 

I don't see it that way. It does not make sense there has to be an oder of operation in order to guarantee people's well being across the broad. How will those migrant workers' voice be heard and their rights be vindicated if the government's concern prioritizes on economy. If you agree communist's ideals and market economy are not compatible, I just don't see those ideals will ever going to work. Deng's ideal "let some be rich first", which implied all would be rich later, will never realize, because China has to compete in the global market that runs on core of capitalism forever and more. The reality would be those who are disadvantaged in China's economic process, the migrant workers, the less educated, the peasants, would have hard time achieving political equality if their voices cannot be heard easily without some form of display of dissatisfication. And I am not just limit the insular minority groups to the economic classification in terms political power, how about those gay people, religious people, hippies, on and on.

 

I prefer his dialogue more so in Rush Hour 1, 2 and 3.

I wonder if his comments are being taken out of context though. From the article, it looks pretty straight forward as to what he said, but I guess I'm just surprised.