Is Jackie Chan Right or Wrong? Tell Me What You Think.
1,364 views
My good Email-buddy Philip See gave me this article written by Associate Press writer Annie Huwant in Taipei. The question is: Would too much democracy on a nation of many undisciplined citizenry destroy a society? Would the points tackled in this article be applicable to the Philippines too? Write me your thoughts and opinions in the comments. Please refrain from using foul languages and derogatory remarks or the comments will be blocked. You may vote on the Poll at the right as well.
HONG KONG - Action star Jackie Chan 's comments wondering whether Chinese people "need to be controlled" have drawn sharp rebuke in his native Hong Kong and in Taiwan.
Chan told a business forum in the southern Chinese province of Hainan that a free society may not be beneficial for China 's authoritarian mainland.
"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."
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?"
Former British colony Hong Kong enjoys Western-style civil liberties and some democratic elections under Chinese rule. Half of its 60-member legislature is elected, with the other half picked by special interest groups. But Hong Kong's leader is chosen by a panel stacked with Beijing loyalists.
In democratically self-ruled Taiwan, which split from mainland China during a civil war in 1949, legislator Huang Wei-che said Chan himself "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."
Chan's comments were reported by news outlets in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but were ignored by the mainland Chinese press.
Although Chan was a fierce critic of the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in June 1989, which killed at least hundreds, he has not publicly criticized China's government in recent years and is immensely popular on the mainland.
He performed during the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics and took part in the Olympic torch relay .
Chan also is vice chairman of the China Film Association, a key industry group.
You can also check out this article at: WTOP.com's Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash.
No related posts.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
true freedom is freely to do what is right
May 27th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Jackie Chan merely expresses his ideology about governance.
Nobody can say that democracy is better than monarchy or vice versa. Or another form of governance is better than the other. It is a state of belief and thrust of the people in a particular place.
Jewish people were governed by kings in Biblical times. Theocracy was the form of government. Since people there believe in God and the prophets, the form of government follows its people’s thrust how to govern themselves–following God’s orders and orders of the prophets and kings appointed by God himself.
American people did not want anymore to be governed by the monarchs of England, thus, they formed their own form of government–democracy.
Leaders in the past, like the Caesars of Rome, did not just come instantaneously. They were put by the people in their throne or authority, simply because the people wanted them to be governed as such.
For me, it is more of an evolution and influence why a form of government is in place in a certain country.
To “force” a form of government other than what the people therein believe is evil. It is the people in their own to choose which form of governance is appropriate for them. After all, what can a king, for instance do, if all the subjects do not anymore want to follow him?
In the Philippines, the problem is we were not the ones who chose which form of government is appropriate. We just woke up one day that we have democracy in place, courtesy of the Americans. Previously, we were governed by the monarchs of Spain. The Filipinos now are confused which is the better form of governance.
But since democracy is our current form of government, then we need to live with it. The problem now is that we do not know how to use it.
May 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Jackie Chan expressed his opinion. A lot of us may disagree, but we have to respect it.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Freedom / democracy is big and wide responsibility its like a gun, as an owner, you should be responsible enough to used it but not to abused it.
April 25th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Sorry, sorry…
addendum:
The chinese in the 1980s were limited in their freedom by bureaucrats the same way a man defending his life is. Whatever consequences they faced, they can always blame it on the bureaucrat/killer who made the choice for them. By giving negative freedom, they would have no one else to blame if they made bad choices with bad consequences. Making good responsible choices were rewarded with good consequences. Hence freedom to choose one’s fate is necessary (BUT INSUFFICIENT) in teaching responsible behavior.
April 25th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I would like to elaborate on:
“…you cannot expect people to take responsibility for choices they were not free to make…” (man I wish there was an edit button here : ) )
Example:
You cannot be held responsible for killing someone because he threatened your life and you had defend yourself. Your freedom to choose was limited.
I would like to point out that responsible behavior can only be inculcated in an environment of freedom.
Take China in the 1980s for example. My father went there and the people were VERY irresponsible. Why? Because they weren’t free to make their own choices. Some bureaucrat always made it for them. All they did was wait around till someone told em to do something to get paid. They were entitled to some agreed form of renumeration no matter what (positive freedom). Often, they would try to get away with doing nothing and expect to get paid nevertheless (that’s communism for you). Since then, China has made many free market reforms. People were now FREE to make their own choices, FREE to risk their own property, FREE to pursue their own careers BUT ALWAYS ALWAYS WERE FORCED TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE.
The result, NEGATIVE freedom taught them to behave responsibly. But it is crucial that people be FORCED to face the consequences of their own choices. This is what we need in our laws and constitution.
April 25th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I think we’re committing the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. This isn’t a choice between an absence of law/order and one where every single act is directed by law. A balance between the two can be made to achieve greater freedom for all.
It is certainly correct that some law and order is necessary to constrain individuals for a free society to function (e.g. killing just cuz you feel like it). But that does not imply individuals are completely incapable of making their own decisions in other cases or that the gov’t is always better at making said decisions.
In a sense Jackie is correct that the Chinese (in fact any people) require order. But that isn’t the problem. The problem is HOW MUCH order and in WHAT AREAS do we impose laws that constrain individuals while leaving others untouched.
Economics has one useful insight: minimizing negative externalities. Simply put it means you FORCE individuals to face the consequences of THEIR OWN choices. Our democracy is screwed up because people have used it to subsidize their own irresponsible behavior. All people have to do is make a group large and noisy enough and the govt will give in to your demands. Paid for by the taxpayers. Nor is giving greater powers to govt going to minimize this. How often has your business or life been held hostage by a bureaucrat that just sits on his hands because he demands grease money? He doesn’t face the consequence of his choice, you do.
You may not have freedom for long without responsible behavior. But you cannot expect people to take responsibility for choices they were not free to make either.
Regarding the definition of freedom…
There are two types that have been identified: negative and positive freedom. Negative freedom is the absence constraints to do what you want (e.g. nobody stops you from studying to be an engineer). Positive freedom is the presence of the means to act out what you want (e.g. you are given the financial ability to study engineering).
Now I believe religions often emphasis positive freedom and don’t care much for negative freedom. Pope John Paul summed it up best by saying: “Freedom doesn’t mean to be able to do whatever you want, but to be able to do what you ought.” The problem here is, who defines what we “ought to do?”. The standard answer of course is God, the Bible, or something to that effect. But the practical problem is who interprets what God wants? History is replete with people claiming to have authority to do so. Usually, they end up as corrupt tyrants. I believe that we need to expand negative freedom because “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” and cannot be trusted with such power.
Promoting negative freedom will not prevent people from behaving foolishly/sinfully nor will it bring heaven on earth, but what will? I’m wary of any ideology that promises such. The USA isn’t perfect, but the framers of its constitution has achieved a balance and a result that is better than any other system. As I see it, perfection isn’t the point. The point is can we come up with something better?