Too much freedom in China can lead to 'chaos', says Jackie Chan Chan is looking at Ma

London, Apr 20 : Action star Jackie Chan has sparked an outrage after claiming that too much political freedom in China isn't good, and that people need to be controlled.

While speaking at the Boao Forum for Asia, the 55-year-old actor said that he wasn't sure if a free society was what the country needed, as too much freedom could lead to chaos like in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not. 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," the Independent quoted Chan as saying.

"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 added.

Chan's comments have been panned by Hong Kong pro-democracy legislators.

"He's insulted the Chinese people. Chinese people aren't pets," said pro-democracy legislator Leung Kwok-hung.

"Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and the rule of law," he added.

Veteran Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator Albert Ho also branded Chan's remarks as "racist".

"People around the world are running their own countries. Why can't Chinese do the same?" he added.

Democratic Taiwan, MP Huang Wei-che said Chan "has enjoyed freedom and democracy and has reaped the economic benefits of capitalism. But he has yet to grasp the true meaning of freedom and democracy".

--

Comments on this story

By China Hand, 04-20-09, 04:02 PM Too much freedom in China can lead to 'chaos', says Jackie Chan

Chan is looking at Mainland and sees a strong powerful China and assumes that the CCP has something to do with it. Hi chauvinist pro-Han side is proud of the new China and he would support anything that makes China and the Chinese people (and himself) number one. Its sad because the only thing the CCP ever did was finally get out of the Chinese people’s way. The Chinese government is the only thing that can hold the Chinese people down and he is all for keeping his own people down for misguided racial pride. By future log, 04-22-09, 01:01 PM

Oh my, China! I've lived in China and so can understand his point of view. I might not agree with it, but I can understand it and it does have its merits. But for a Canadian who's never lived in China, this thread must be completely foreign to him. I doubt many Canadians can understand the appeal of a strong central government dominated by a particular ethnic group.

Hi Machjo,Would you agree that Canada has allot more potential then China and in order to reach it , Canadian government has to get out of the Canadian peoples way ;simple and logical .

Jackie Chan presumably has lots of freedom and I won't take him seriously until he gives it up.

As for China giving its citizens more freedom, I have heard many Chinese express fear that more corruption in Chinese society would follow more freedom, and so fear more freedom. I would argue that corruption would remain either way, but that the best way to end corruption, or at least reduce it, would simply be moral education in school along with more freedom.

While I do agree that there is such a thing as exces freedom, I'd say even Canada can afford to give more freedom to its citizens overall.

As for Canada having more potential than China, that depends on what you mean. As long as China continues with all the restrictions it has now, it will never catch up to Canada on a per-capita basis, but might still grow a little more simply owing to its poverty advantage (resulting in lower salaries), but would settle at a lower rate than Canada.

Now if China decided, in a gradual and steady manner, to grant more freedom to its citizens (as it's doing now to some degree, assuming the trend continues) while at the same time reforming its education system to teach moral education more effectively to help the population deal with their new-found freedom, then China's economy will likely continue to grow to eventually catch up with Canada's... on a per capita basis!

I don't think Jackie Chan differs much from other successful celebrities who are vocal about their beliefs, many of whose beliefs involve government intervention into peoples' lives. Take Paul McCartney who wants the world to pressure Canada into banning the seal hunt, if he wishes to pay the fishermen not to hunt seals in the off season I might take hime seriously. How about Bono, (Paul Martin's hero), he doesn't ask regular folks to donate as much as he pressures governments to extort money from its citizens to support his cause. Even our own Sarah Polley got on the soap box in support of the NDP's efforts to raise taxes not so many years ago.

I guess if the Academy and other awards ceremonies don't satisfy their insecurities or stroke their egos they need another outlet to prove their self importance. Or maybe they really do think they know everything about what is best for humanity

And they don't realize how corrupt it is now. Their fear is understandable though, having had several generations growing up under totalitarianism no one knows what real freedom is and they are ill equipped to handle it. This is what happened in the former Soviet Union, although the government had few resourses to give their citizens a decent standard of living, (which is normal in a closed society such as this),the people had no choice but to rely on the state for what they did have. When the end came so suddenly it was like having a coddled child, (or more accurately, an abused child) put out on the street without the skills to be independent. Immediate need is a great motivator and the quickest route to survival is the law of the jungle. Gangsterism and thuggery led to chaos and corruption, and the old timers crying for the return of socialism.

It is highly unlikely that China will willingly grant more freedom, no totalitarian state has ever done so, they do window dressing that gives the illusion of freedom, but its not the same thing. Freedom is something that is incumbent upon the citizens to take from the state. The state education system will promote the views of the state, its just the nature of the beast. It is Capitalism and new found independance that is going to give the people more power to wrest the control out of state's hands. I imagine that it will be gradual and not without growing pains, but probably not as chaotic as in Russia. The government hydra is a mighty beast to slay and will probably buck every move to usurp its power.

Amen to that.

It does seem there's a relation between the size of a celebrities ego and having all the answers.

Free media, independent judiciary, and free elections is what China and more Asian countries need. Nowadays, this is what's called progress. Jackie Chan is holding his country back. That's his fault, not ours.

Gov't is to assist the people, to serve the people, not dominate them. China does not have a doctrine where the people are sovereign. But as was learned in Iraq, you can't give people democracy. Democracy lags in Asia for some pretty plain reasons.

Yeah, we need that too.

You guys have obviously never been to China. Their culture is very different, and there are a few points to consider:

1. Many Chinese still get no more than about 9 years of schooling.

2. As for the more educated Chinese, in spite of communism, there is a strong sense of elitism. You don't feel it among the older generation as much, where friends of varying levels of education, from nearly illiterate to highly educated, from rich to poor, will mix and mingle no problem (and where wealth and education don't even necessarily go hand in hand). But among many of the younger generation, exceptions aside, a strong sense of classism exists. To take but a few examples:

An older friend of mine, a professor at one university, was debating with a university student from a famous university one day. He was criticising the number of English words in the local paper preventing the locals from understanding the articles. The student simply replied that she could understand them, so no problem!

The professor was quite surprised at this response, so reminded her that he wasn't talking about a thesis paper but the local common newspaper intended to inform the general population of current events.

She responded that the average population doesn't need to understand these articles, that current events are for the educated to deal with.

The professor blew up at this comment. He was dumbfounded and angry, and pointed out of his room down the hallway to a construction worker on his break, his construction hat still on, and reading the very paper he was talking about. He added that he often spoke to these guys and that they often felt frustrated by all the English words in there. He then added that in Japan, they have a law that newspaper articles may not use words that are not generally understood by the 60+ age group, and that everyone ought to have access to current events, and not just the English-knowing class.

The student agreed with him only because she could see he was angry and didn't want to continue the conversation. But it was clear that she saw absolutely no problem whatsoever with the idea that the monolingual class coldn't fully access the local newspaper.

This was an extreme example, but I have met less extreme similar examples common among many university students in China, whereby they figure English is the key o the world, and less educated Chinese don't need to know about it. Essentially, it becomes a gateway language, and does influence their world view in a very negative way, promoting ever more classism.

Now I gave an example concerning their attitudes towards access to information above, but this kind of attitude permeates other aspects of their society as well.

As for Jackie Chan supporting more controls, he might have some legitimate aguments there. Corruption is rampant in China. If he's referring to controls to protect the less educated from exploitation, I could fully agree with him, such as the example of the law in Japan restricting vocabulary in thei newspapers, similar to Quebec's Bill 101 also aimed at ensuring general access to information and economic resources among the general population.

I don't know his motives or what he was referring to precisely, but he might have a legitimate argument depending on what kinds of controls he's referring to precisely.

Also, his ideas are not that unique in China.

Machjo those were interesting intergenerational comments you made. I wonder if China can escape the destruction of capitalism. I would be very shocked to see the mistakes repeated in the western way.

If you'd like a good analysis of how language affects the world economy, psychology, military, etc., I'd strongly recommend Robert Phillipson's Linguistic Imperialism. His book is a fascinating analysis of the phenomenon, and means even more to me since I've witnessed the impact of it at the grassroots. Why do you think English-speaking countries are so wealthy? His book analyses the relationship between language and economics in considerable depth.

That was done two decades ago China and you know it. Canada has no realizable potential at all with it's present corrupt parliamentry system and it's capitalist pigs still free at large. You want further deregulation for capitalists China, how about decommisioning instead. You can't even spell depression can you. Canada is not an independent country we do what our Zionist masters tell us to do, when we should talk we walk when we should rebuild we bomb, we still support the lie of 9/11, and our filthy lying slimebag politicians are the worst specimins of humanity we could possibly have allowed to govern.
The Canadian government has to become Canadian.

"Why do you think English-speaking countries are so wealthy?"

It is because the old city of london is the center of world reserve private banking. English has been the primary language of commerce for centurys. thanks for the title

Also, according to Francois Grin, professor of economics at the university of Geneva and specialist in language economics, the EU is subsidzing the UK economy from 17 to 18 thousand million euros per year on second-language instruction alone! And this in spite of the fact that the UK is the wealthiest member already. This does not include:

opportunity costs (what they could be spending their time and money on instead).
Translation costs (Britonssave some money there too comparatively).
legal costs caused by misunderstandings, and loss of advantage owing to slower processing of infromation in an English contract, which the native speaker can process, digest, and analyse much more quickly.
Inabilityto pick up nuances which again give English-proficient mediators an advantage.
Access to much more information in their own mother-tongue, along with quicker reading speeds.

Etc. etc. etc.

Likewise according to Francois Grin, the switch to an easier language such as Esperanto could save the EU, including the UK and Ireland, about 25 thousand million euros annually just on second-language instruction alone!

Now I take it you're a communist, or at least a socialist? Imagine how many poor people this money could feed, clothe, educate, house, provide medical care for, etc. And if the rest of the EU stopped subsidizing the UK, wouldn't that also help put an end to the flow of wealth from rich country to poor?

Yet, irony of ironies, the only Esperanto-speaking Member of the European Parliament happens to represent a free-market-leaning party:

--


So it would seem that in the European Parliament at least, a pro-free-market candidate has more progressive-leaning ideas on language policy than even the socialists, as is shown in this petition that she herself has put her name on:

--

In Canada, among the NDP there is but one MLA who's stood up for the same kind of language equality in international relations:

--

Though even he hasn't been half as vocal about it.

So let's not think for one moment that socialists and communists have a monopoly on policies that could help promote more economic equality. Even the NDP officially supports Official Bilingualism even though better educated bilinguals, thus comprising a more elite segment of the population, are the greatest beneficiaries of such a policy.

Now to be fair, I will point out that such language movements are usually dominated by the moderate left, but I'm just pointing out that they do not have a monopoly as has been shown in the European Parliament where a fre-market politician has proven more vocal than the socialists themselves.

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows: S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997.


At the Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her Majesty an pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is please, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:
"This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997."
Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice stating in court that he takes his orders from England?
This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law. Remember, King George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America." See: Treaty of Peace (1783) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large 80.. Great Britain which is the agent for the Pope, is in charge of the USA ..'
What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers and King George were working hand-in-hand to bring the people of America to their knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. and 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)
The United States is not a land mass, it is a corporation.
Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.
On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is d

--

I agree with Chan. Freedom should be a slow immersion. For example: taking someone who's been just barely eating enough to survive and thrust 5 course meals in front of them and say, "have at it" would likely result in a Marlon Brando.

Machjo ,
ni xu yao zhong guo he zhong guo xu yao ni ,
hui lai Machjo .

Kenong yi hou hui qv.

Zai Zhonguo you hen duo hao pengyou.

Machjo
I do Machjo and I'm sure you also have .