By Mark Pollard | Published April 21, 2009

Update: Solon So, chief executive of JC Group and Jackie Chan’s spokesman has provided a response to the AP regarding the news agency’s article that quoted Chan as saying that “Chinese need to be controlled.” According to So, Chan was referring to freedom in the entertainment industry and not Chinese society at large. So went on to suggest that people were deliberately using ulterior motives to misinterpret what Chan said. The rest of the article points out more criticism and public condemnation while also suggesting that the original AP reporter disagrees with So’s “entertainment” as context claim.

I would quote the added contextual information that the AP has provided to suggest that Chan’s spokesman is blowing smoke to cover the actor’s tracks but seeing as how the news agency is currently on a mission to squelch any unlicensed use of their articles’ content online, I’ll refer readers to the original article and hope they don’t send Bolo Yeung after me for even referencing the article.

-

On Saturday, while speaking to a group of business leaders at a Boao Forum for Asia in Southern China during a panel discussion, Jackie Chan was quoted 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 continued to heap more political fuel on those incendiary words. “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.”

These comments were followed by Chan’s criticism of Chinese youth and manufacturing standards on the mainland. (See Associated Press article for more details.)

Not surprisingly, his thoughts about the need for Chinese to be controlled have sparked condemnation in pro-democratic Taiwan and Hong Kong, as well as confusion and outrage among bloggers and commentators throughout Asia and the rest of the world.

The Hong Kong tourism board is considering dropping Chan as their spokesman. The Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan has called on the Taipei City Government to drop Chan as a spokesman for the Deaflympics. There have also been calls for boycotts of his movies and concerts. One blog even calls Chan a “know-nothing, self loathing racist.”

Looking at the comments that many people have been posting all over the web in response to both Chan’s initial statements and the subsequent criticism of the action star, it is apparent that Chan’s sentiments have tapped into a larger debate on what’s best for the Chinese people and whether the majority support authoritarian rule and the tighter control and relative safety that it provides or democracy and the freedom and relative uncertainty that it provides. Unfortunately, since criticism of the government is censored in China, it’s difficult to know how many people would support democracy there if given the opportunity to talk about it openly and honestly.

There is also the issue of Chan using his celebrity status to push forward his beliefs which is something that always leads to trouble when those beliefs are controversial. It can be disheartening to discover that someone you greatly admire as an entertainer can have a political opinion diametrically opposed to your own.

What makes this situation more complicated is that Hong Kong celebrities have much to be gained by playing along with Beijing versus criticizing any anti-democratic action such as the mainland ban on Chan’s latest film, THE SHINJUKU INCIDENT. Making movies or singing tunes that pass muster with PRC ideologue improves the chances of wide distribution among China’s vast mainland population. The next best thing may be publicly talking in support of authoritarian rule or appearing in propaganda films.

I’m not accusing Chan of anything. He may be sincere in his convictions and have good intentions. There is a credible argument for regulating businesses and socializing various services in a country so that, for instance, children from disadvantaged families have equal access to quality education and medical care. That debate is raging in the U.S. right now. However, I wonder if Chan understands the full implication of what he is suggesting, even if unintentional. Allowing citizens the freedom to make mistakes by doing what they want can have disastrous results but so can stifling that freedom in order to protect citizens from themselves. There needs to be balance between order and liberty and more importantly, civil authorities need to be servants of the people and not become a controlling elite themselves as tends to be the problem with communism, socialism and a democratic republic like the United States.

I had hoped that in the two days since this news broke, Chan would have offered some clarification on his statements. It’s possible that they were taken out of context or became mixed up in translation. It would be unfortunate if his incredible legacy as an action film star ends up being overshadowed by controversial and potentially misunderstood political views.

This news has already caused a stir on our forums. I invite readers to join in the discussion either by logging into the forums or by posting a comment below.

Sources: Taipei Times, The Wall Street Journal

Related Topics:
Jackie Chan