Chinese shouldn't get more freedom, says Jackie Chan
Tal
April 20, 2009, 03:24 AM posted in General DiscussionI've just enjoyed reading this piece from the UK's Independent web site, and it's such a hot potato, (or maybe I should say a hot chestnut - lol) that I can't resist sharing it here.
I can't help thinking that Mr. Chan himself probably enjoys considerable freedom that most of his compatriots don't. Nevertheless maybe there is something in what he says after all? Liberty is precious after all, "so precious that it must be rationed".
pearltowerpete
April 22, 2009, 02:01 AMHi tvan,
I agree-- 成龍大哥 made some funny movies in his day, and that's about all we can ask of him. It's silly to give his political opinions too much weight.
Like Will Smith, he was much better known as a singer before his acting career took off. 真心英雄 is a karaoke classic.
miantiao
April 20, 2009, 10:18 AM难道他用口说话吗？希望他记得带卫生纸差屁股！
changye
April 20, 2009, 11:55 AM忠言往往是逆耳的。在我看来，现在中国人已经十分“自由”。
tvan
April 20, 2009, 01:12 PM宗教自由权, 言论自由权, 媒体自有, 这些我们都认识. 可是我觉得经济自由权可能是最伟大的自由权.
jckeith
April 20, 2009, 04:52 PMI wish I could remember who described this as Collective Stockholm Syndrome. Apologies to Mr. Chan if he's just being sly.
@tvan: Agreed. Well said! In this regard, Hong Kong is far more free than the U.S.
ouwen
April 21, 2009, 05:04 AMThe revolt of June 1989 was not pro-democracy. It was in support of Chinese intellectuals (most of them CCP members) who favored implementing the reforms of Gorbachev's Glastnost, and some other things, but American democracy had nothing to do with it.
Some seriously biased reporting. But, of course it drew support from some of Hong Kong's British rule left overs. They certainly don't favor oversight from a government that punishes fraud and corruption as "treason against the people", punishable by death.
Jackie Chan was in tune with the Chinese people in 1989, and he is in tune with them now.
changye
April 21, 2009, 05:33 AMIt's tough to be everybody's hero.
susanlande
April 20, 2009, 07:11 AMi bet he wasn't saying that in his operation condor days. . .
bababardwan
April 21, 2009, 06:38 AMjckeith,
Great and interesting comment.Thanks.Nils Bejerot coined the term Stockholm sydrome.I like your very intelligent looking dog,and with Changye's always insightful comments I can see dog avatars are a good sign in a Poddie,so I hope you don't mind if I join your illustrious group.Do you think dogs suffer from Stockholm Syndrome?
jckeith
April 21, 2009, 06:51 AMHaha. You're welcome and thank you! :)
New dog avatars are always welcome, although yours looks rather, er, evolved. I must admit that my knowledge of canine psychology is sorely lacking. Perhaps Changye can shed some light on your question?
zhenlijiang
April 21, 2009, 07:37 AMi don't know canine psychology either (anybody out there own a "bow-lingual"?). but from the number of dogs that show unabiding "loyalty" to owners who don't treat them right--i think we could say yes, they do suffer.
though he may regret it yet later on, jackie chan knows what he's doing. he's been a show business icon, taking care of his bankability for how long now? an action star (= pro at risk assessment, though often not demonstrating the best judgment) with fans all over the world. he said what he did in the most ridiculous extreme way possible. he's not surprised at the ensuing heat and attacks on him. i don't think he's so much in tune w/the people as testing to see how much power he has at this point. long past his prime and still not any less famous, having endured bs-ers and smarmy journalists for decades to keep a positive public image--why not flout all that now, given the opportunity, if you were jackie chan?
miantiao
April 21, 2009, 12:16 PM@jckeith
in regards corruption and prosecution, you have nailed it. like selective hearing. like throwing the occasional christian to the lions to appease the anger of the masses. it's a joke.
and when jacky chan trotts out the tripe he has in that article one must ask just how much is he being paid or what 'special' benefits to his business interests are on offer.
张艺谋 used to have his movies banned in the mainland, now he's the star of the big brother olympics. the last time jackboots escorted the national flag into an olympic opening ceremony i think was in 1936.
one important point about tiananmen is that it was not a tiananmen only phenomenon, it started there and spread very quickly to other major cities, shanghai, xian, and guangzhou to name a few until the ccp cut the media. soldiers, sailors, labourers, academics , you name a profession and they were there. 赵紫阳 was on their side.
rising nationalism is carefully manipulated by the ccp propaganda depts, they work overtime creating wonderful television dramas and colourful news stories ensuring conitinuity of the ever present external threats( the evil japanese who are preparing to invade again, the murdering and bullying 19th century british forcing opium down the throats of babies, present US plans to dominate the world and make everyone speak english, sarkozy and carrefour and some poor bugger living in his jocks on the south pole, yadda yadda yadda)
all this in an effort to deflect internal anger and frustration. because the powers at be know there is no external threat and are acutely aware of threats within, their biggest fear are the people they rule.
jckeith
April 21, 2009, 02:10 PMVery perceptive, Miantiao. Well said.
pearltowerpete
April 22, 2009, 01:58 AMHi miantiao
Well put. I've said it before, Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia makes for chilling contrasts with the recently concluded Games.
One note: Zhao Ziyang, who was such a voice of moderation during the 1989 unrest, does not come off well in the book Tombstone, about the famines in the 1950s and 60s. He made the situation in Guangdong much worse by pushing hardline Maoism. Of course, he's been redeemed in the eyes of history because of his later sympathy for political reform.
Just goes to show you, politicians are a tricky bunch. Artists and creative types (張藝謀, this means you) should keep a respectful distance.
jckeith
April 21, 2009, 05:51 AMThe revolt of June 1989 was not pro-democracy. It was in support of Chinese intellectuals (most of them CCP members) who favored implementing the reforms of Gorbachev's Glastnost, and some other things, but American democracy had nothing to do with it.
You speak as if the protesters were some sort of hive mind. In reality, the student demands incorporated a whole host of market and democratic reforms. To claim that American-style democracy was not among them is just not true, especially considering that they even erected a statue in the square called the Goddess of Democracy (read the inscription if you still have doubts).
But, of course it drew support from some of Hong Kong's British rule left overs. They certainly don't favor oversight from a government that punishes fraud and corruption as "treason against the people", punishable by death.
Of course, it's questionable whether or not governments should have the power to put their own citizens to death, especially for non-violent offenses. Regardless, the idea that the CCP takes corruption seriously is just silly. They didn't start going through the motions until they realized that anger over corruption was beginning to threaten their stranglehold over the country. Moreover, since China has no free-press or democratic institutions, the anti-corruption initiatives are destined to fail (maybe by design) because the fox is watching the hen house. Corruption is endemic in the CCP, yet only the CCP is allowed to police itself.
Jackie Chan was in tune with the Chinese people in 1989, and he is in tune with them now.
Sadly, this may very well be true. Like I said, Collective Stockholm Syndrome.
kimiik
April 20, 2009, 06:36 AMIt reminds me of the expression "Freedom in moderation" ... another time, another place.