Jackie Chan: Chinese People Need to Be Controlled (Updated)
At the annual Boao Forum held on Hainan island, during a discussion on censorship, movies and society, Jackie Chan stated “we Chinese need to be controlled“:
“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.”…
The action hero complained that Chinese goods still have too many quality problems. He became emotional when discussing contaminated milk powder that sickened tens of thousands of Chinese babies in the past year.
His comments have caused a backlash in Taiwan and Hong Kong:
Chan’s comments drew applause from a predominantly Chinese audience of business leaders, but did not sit well with lawmakers in Taiwan and Hong Kong.
“He’s insulted the Chinese people. Chinese people aren’t pets,” Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator Leung Kwok-hung told The Associated Press. “Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and rule of law.”
Another lawmaker, Albert Ho, called the comments “racist,” adding: “People around the world are running their own countries. Why can’t Chinese do the same?”…Chan’s comments were reported by news outlets in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but were ignored by the mainland Chinese press.
POSTED COMMENTS: 19 Responses
Can someone please control this kung-fu actor? Maybe he should move to mainland China, then it would be easier to control him!
[...] rampant Western media frenzy over Jackie Chan supposedly saying that “Chinese people still need to be controlled ” during a panel discussion at the Boao Forum in Hainan, China [...]
Small brain symptom. Shame for him to have such a low esteem of Chinese race.
China people need kantol by govamen because govamant kive me maney and the me velly velly happy. Me also velly velly stong and the me do all the stun duling my picture shoting.
If its only a matter of Western media mis-translation, why are the people of Taiwan and Hong Kong and arguably mainlanders pissed off? They speak the same language as he does.
Is this crazy kungfu star is smartest chinese and else need to be controlled?. he must be jocking or may be is rubber stamp of communist regime. no wonder he gets an appearance during olympic game. i think he and the chinese communist regimes needs to be controlled.
Chinese people does not know how control themselves and does not know how to govern themselves. So, they need to be controlled.
Nice comment, Wang Zhi…
I can only remember having seen this guy in a movie once and I found it dumb. I only took it as my personal impression then.
Now this guy has outed himself as being really dumb. Congrats!
A singapornese has no right to talk about the freedom in china, shit!
having lived, reaped the benifit of Hong’s freedom and free market, now he wants other to be controlled. He should live in mainland as an ordinary citizen now, not as goverment puppet. He will realized the value of freedom then!
First, it’s so easy to purposely twist a person’s words and real intentions to suit a certain agenda.
My English paper here ( outside China)does not say that Jacky Chan said ” Chinese need to be controlled ” but , rather, Jacky questions whether it is good for the Chinese to have too much freedom.
There is a great difference between the two. Semantics is a powerful weapon to mould and influence an undiscerning mind to go down the slippery slope of seeing an innocuous ( even a correct one) as another confirmation of the stereotyped syndrome of the mindless ‘evil of chinese authoritarianism.’
While knee-jerk haters of everything Chinese ( they abound in CDT )prefer and insist on the former statement purportedly attributed to Jackie ( ie insinuating that Jackie supports the mindless Communist control of the Chinese populace),a more mature Chinese in his fifties will discern that Jackie was actually conveying the deeper wisdom of the latter statement – ie. that Chinese need to exercise more SELF-CONTROL over their egoism, their aggressive self-centredness,need to cultivate more consideration of the rights of his neighbours, and to learn to be LESS SELFISH , less egoistic, less greedy and less cocky.
Less of the Self, he was saying, and more of consideration for the others, more of love your neighbour as yourself.
An objective listener would discern that he was not actually calling for communist or dictatorial control of our public and personal lives, but for less anarchy and aggressiveness in the Chinese people themselves – the perennial problem traits of some Chinese ( not of all Chinese, I’d like to qualify here).
Those ’some Chinese’ are enough to paralyse, destroy, intimidate the whole race and damage the image of the Chinese as a whole, even though they do not represent the majority.
Damn it, only the Chinese themselves,especially those in their middle-age, understand the weaknesses and problems of the Chinese people better than other peoples.
What other non-Chinese impute to our statements are mostly knee-jerk stereotyped views and emotions in support of their nefarious agenda.
Note that the majority of the posters in this article and in CDT, purportedly having Chinese names, are actually non-Chinese and many are actually Tibetans -in-exile who have everything to gain and nothing to lose by bashing China at every chance.
The hidden agenda is that if democracy is achieved in China, then Tibetans will get ‘meaningful autonomy’ to the eventual goal of ’self-determination’ and then independence.
That’s why you see them jumping all over the articles in CDT, bashing China to implode, implode.
They overlook the fact that this article is NOT about the promise an eventual democracy ( in China) would herald for Tibetan ‘meaningful autonomy’ or independence, but rather about the Character ( or rather the nasty side ) of some of the Chinese who give hell to their own community and make other peoples hate the whole race.
So please get off our backs and lay off the democracy stuff and let us Chinese ponder on the merits and demerits of Jacky’s observations.
I think it’s a bit simplistic to think that democracy in China will invariably lead to Tibetan independence, for if you dig a bit deeper into the minds of the most vociferous pro-democracy Chinese activists outside and inside China, you will find that they all think that Tibet is a part of China.
Even the Kuomintang of Taiwan still thinks that Tibet is part of China.The KMT was angry with Mao for giving Southern Tibet ( Arunachal Pradesh)to India after the 1962 border war.
Of course the Chen Shui Bian and Lee Teng Hui partisans ( originally Hokkien people from Fujian province) think that Taiwan should belong to them, but I personally feel strongly that Taiwan should belong to THE ABORIGINES, the beautiful people immortalised by the Ali Shan di Gu Niang song genre. Take a running jump into the sea, you Taiwanese ‘democrats’, for it’s about time for the native aborigines to run their own government.If you are so vociferous about your self-rule and democratic rights, what about the rights of the natives ? They are lovelier people than you.
Democracy in China and separatism or independence for Tibet are two different ball games, 2 different parameters for even the most avowed die-hard democracy activists.
I am afraid Tibetan exiles will be disappointed again, if democracy comes suddenly to China.
It may or may not not translate into an immediate strong autonomy ( whatever ‘meaningful autonomy’ means),certainly not independence.
I certainly hope that it will lead to meaningful autonomy, without the hidden agenda of independence, if possible.
Again, I am not interested in a debate on the self-determination issue for Tibet ( I’ll leave it to other pundits or historians to discuss it ), nor do I have anything against Tibetans .I have met several Tibetans in New Delhi and we became good friends.
WHAT JACKY CHAN MAY HAVE WANTED TO SAY IS THAT FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY ( AND A CONSIDERATION , or better still, A LOVE FOR OTHERS TOO) GO HAND IN HAND.
THEY ARE INSEPARABLE AND INDISPENSABLE.
There cannot be Freedom First without the other ( responsibility and consideration for others).
If you are wont to exercise your freedom and rights always to the detriment and hurt of the others, then you’d better not be given this freedom in its entirety yet.
The sensible way about resolving this is to restrict some of these freedoms, either through self control or external control, until proper education and maturation through time will have prepared the individuals and society as a whole to effect a thorough change that allows them to exercise those rights with consideration for others.
We know this most painfully and acutely, for us who live OUTSIDE CHINA,in Chinese communities given full autonomy (democracy) in South East Asian countries ( but of course without being given any political rights or say).
My childhood in such an overseas Chinese community ( given every autonomy by the white colonialists and later by the independent indigenous governments) was one of fear, pain, hurt and intimidation inflicted by a minority of anarchistic, egoistic, self-impressed and self-centred ( and brutal)Chinese bullies, from primary school to adult life.I still feel the hurt and the resentment, even now.
If one can sum up or generalize about the structure of a Chinese community, I will say that 5 per cent ( a minority) are thugs ( BUT THEY ARE ENOUGH TO PARALYSE THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY), 10% are their hangers-on, 30% are “which way the wind blows type”( they will follow whoever is the stronger), the rest (45%) are ostriches with their heads in the sand, with only 2 – 3 per cent who really care and speak out against the brutal tyranny of the few and the apple-polishing or mind-our-own-business attitude of the vast majority.
As I am typing, gangs of Chinese youths are roaming and roaring around on the bikes in this city , carrying machetes, iron rods, knives, baseball bats and fearsome kwangdaos, looking for the rival gangs to kill, and intimidating the public in general.
The local non-Chinese police couldn’t be bothered cos it’s just chinks bashing chinks anyway, they say.
That’s why those who hate the Chinese will cry shrilly for full democracy and freedom for the Chinese, because this is the surest way for the Chinese to destroy themselves.
THE chinese are the best in destroying themselves.
Freedom and Democracy WE MUST HAVE, there is no doubt.It’s a matter of time. The eventual goal and the most priceless right of every individual, Chinese or Hungarian,is the freedom to speak out against ANY tyranny, not only of the government but of individuals. While the major flak and protests are directed against the CCP government,people forget conveniently that the MORE hurtful and damaging, MORE immediate,fundamental,pervasive dangerous, insidious and causative danger is the insensitive,casual and totally inconsiderate brutality inflicted by anarchistic Chinese INDIVIDUALS on others and on the broader population.
As Bertrand Russell, the famous British philosopher, remarked in his book The Problem of the Chinese, this “casual brutality” inflicted at the drop of a hat by a minority of lawless anarchistic Chinese thugs on their own people, is the bane and curse of the whole race.
Who doesn’t want freedom ? Everyone wants it, and above all I, so that I can highlight the hurts experienced by decent people.
But if freedom only increases the frequency and prevalence of such brutal hurts, then we had better postpone it until we can change the bulk of the population into one that is gentle, kind and worthy enough of such a precious gift -freedom.
If we are not worthy enough to value the preciousness of this freedom, this freedom will only be a poisoned gift.
To be worthy of such a priceless right ( freedom) , we must also have the COURAGE to stand up and speak out against tyrannic individuals and tyrannic government.
Have we Chinese got the real disinterested ( without any ulterior motives or personal agenda) COURAGE to honestly change ourselves to make ourselves worthy of the most precious gift on earth – freedom/democracy ?
BsinghDee,
You seems to be one of those tools used by communist regime. when there is no freedom what is the point of talking about independence. Tibetan side has already given a memorandum to chinese side and it is clearly mentioned that Tibetan are not seeking seperation rather a genuine autonomy. you say the same party line “first autonomy then independence”. Tibetan have no desire to play political games, all tibetan asking is religios right, environmental right and self rule under the central government. this is the win win for both Tibetan and chinese in the long run give the fact that Tibetan people plight are respected.
@BSinghDee
Interesting post.
I’m one Tibetan IE (and I know their is many more) that does not think democracy will bring automatic autonomy to Tibet. And why do you pretend to know a supposed ‘hidden agenda’? It sounds you are just a naive suspicious sceptic to me. Would the actual autonomy of Tibet be *so bad* for China? Oh the contrary! Is it this ridiculous suspicious scepticism that is holding the minority in power back from granting actual autonomy to Tibet? It surely seems that way…cause it is definitely a great day in China when Tibet is given the freedom to govern *itself* within the PRC. Oh no, their is probably one more thing besides the suspiciousness…its the raping/reeping the natural resources of the Tibetan plateau. Have I found China’s “hidden agenda”. :) Well I’m sure something could be worked out….this would be better than the current status in Tibet.
The day China does the right thing, and follows the rules of it’s own constitution, and allows Tibetans to govern and live the way that they wish….is the day Tibetans “get off our(your) backs” :)
Anyway, I repeat…I enjoyed reading the rest of your insights.
“Tibetans are betrayed by their hopefulness, the Chinese by their suspiciousness.” –old Tibetan saying
WHAT JACKY CHAN MAY HAVE WANTED TO SAY IS THAT FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY ( AND A CONSIDERATION , or better still, A LOVE FOR OTHERS TOO) GO HAND IN HAND.
THEY ARE INSEPARABLE AND INDISPENSABLE.
Right Sing Dhee I completely agree with your observation. Who know
Chinese better than the Chinese themselves.Based on my personal experience if you give the chinese complete freedom they are more than like to abuse it. There will be no freedom unless it come with responsibilty and fairplay. It is responsibility and fairplay that Chinese have a problem.
There is a good discussion going on right now on Fool Mountain about Meritocracy vs Democracy. A forum founded by Chinese Mainland and Taiwan in Silicon valley.There is now almost consensus among Chinese that at present stage of development democracy is not the right prescription for China. Here what Allen has to say about the prerequisite of Democracy
“You mentioned a perfectly meritocratic system is a pipe dream. But you fail to see true democracies are also pipe dreams.
The media has to be fair and objective to generate good public debates. The people have to be educated enough, well fed enough, and to care enough about the political process to participate in the political process. Money flow should be controlled in a way that does not distort the political process or pre-destine democratic results. The people need to also have a healthy sense of social awareness and public duty to exercise their political power judiciously for the good of their country – not just for themselves”
Tibetans-in-exile are stuffed/hopeless forever because all your white sponsors are in dire economic straits & hence unable to finance your struggle anymore. Better decide once & for all to convert to Indian nationality & lay dead your dreams of independent Tibet.
Some HK & Taiwan Chinese are considered pseudo Chinese at best. That isn’t surprising after all for these people have been ‘raped’(colonised) by the dirty Brits & Japs for too long to even able to recall their ancestry.
For those Manderin-illiterates, may I suggest you read Chinageeks to read all the translated Chinese posts on this subject to appreciate how the majority of Mainland Chinese tend to agree with Jackie.
SE Asian Chinese diaspora cannot be more proud with the achievements in all respects of human endeavour of tiny Singapore, especially when compared with its pathetic Malay neighbours all around it. Imagine the pathetic scenario Tibet may have been one of these poor & medieval Malay neighbours if they were given to govern themselves in an independent Tibet.
Jackie, you cannot have been more correct in your statement doesn’t matter if this should cause outrage from our detractors. Cheers to you!
So these guys have made it to Silicon valley, and not unlike Jackie Chan, they keep philosophing idly about the merits of authoritarianism while they are far removed from it…
Democracy is one side of the coin, but the other, more significantly, is rule of law and ideally human rights.
Meritocracy, fine, as long as it goes along with the above.
The issue sure looks different if you are a Han who has profited from the current system (to the extent of having made it to Meiguo) than it looks from the perspective of someone whose rights are abused (Tibetans, dissidents etc.).
And don’t give me that “absolute minority” answer again. Hold a referendum in Tibet and find out how many Tibetans are genuinely happy with CCP rule. There will be millions who aren’t. And according to your view these people are also Chinese, aren’t they?
For once, I more or less agree with John: a quick transition to democracy could be disruptive, freedoms should come with responsibilities, there’s no such thing as a perfect political system, etc, etc. Of course, most people agree with the above statements, not just majorities of mainland Chinese. The idea that people who urge more political reform on China want a revolution overnight… is basically a straw man.
However, it is not obvious to me what a “meritocratic” system means today (as opposed to in Qing China). My impression from debates online is that it basically means bourgeois dictatorship: rule by educated, well-paid young people with purely technical skills, some experience abroad and love of country. The fact that many netizens like this idea is not surprising, as many of them fit the description above themselves.
Of course, in a “meritocratic” system, farmers, petitioners, workers, Tibetans could all conceivably join the state and corporate elite… provided they passed some test and lost any of the unique characteristics of farmers, petitioners, workers and Tibetans. They wouldn’t represent, they would diagnose.
Anyway, it’s an interesting question and worth continuing.
P.S. The commentator “Mainlander outside China” is a racist.
For once, I more or less agree with John: a quick transition to democracy could be disruptive, freedoms should come with responsibilities, there’s no such thing as a perfect political system, etc, etc. Of course, most people agree with the above statements, not just majorities of mainland Chinese. The idea that those who urge more political reform on China want a revolution overnight… is basically a straw man.
However, it is not obvious to me what a “meritocratic” system means today (as opposed to what it meant in Qing China). My impression from debates online is that it basically means bourgeois dictatorship: rule by educated, well-paid young people with purely technical skills, some experience abroad and love of country. The fact that many netizens like this idea is not surprising, as many of them fit the description above themselves.
Of course, in a “meritocratic” system, farmers, petitioners, workers, Tibetans could all conceivably join the state and corporate elite… provided they passed some test and lost any of the unique characteristics of farmers, petitioners, workers and Tibetans. They wouldn’t represent, they would diagnose.
Anyway, it’s an interesting question and worth continuing.
P.S. The commentator “Mainlander outside China” is a racist.
Dammit. Sorry that posted twice. How embarrassing!
they need better manners and goverence
thier culture isnot the problem