It’s always risky when entertainers make the jump from the arts to politics. There’s always a chance that they will make fools of themselves by displaying ignorance of political subtleties and the complexity of the problems they discuss.
Prominent artists such as Sean Penn, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie have backed political causes that could not avoid ruffling feathers, but by and large have done so with a degree of tact and strategy.
Over the weekend, another well-known personality from the silver screen joined the fray of artists who would contribute to political discourse. Sadly for this individual, however, his comments blew up in his face and discredited him. It was Hong Kong-born action star Jackie Chan (成龍).
In Chan’s worldview, too much freedom and political liberty is a bad thing. Chinese, when not “controlled” by political authorities, are entropic, meaning they tend toward chaos.
To prove this fantastic theory, Chan singled out Hong Kong and Taiwan — solitary islands of democracy in the so-called Greater China — as being too free and thus chaotic. Vehicular traffic in the south and news media aside, those who know anything about Taiwan know that there is no correlation between freedom and chaos. Ironically, Taiwan has been lauded by the outside world for the opposite: the orderliness of its political transitions and changes in government, standing in contrast to, say, Thailand.
Chan has not only insulted Taiwanese, who spilled blood building their democracy, and people in Hong Kong, who have worked hard to retain freedom in the territory since the handover to China, but has also come very close to expressing racist sentiment in genetic terms.
If, as he claims, Chinese need to be “controlled,” then this implies that they are genetically predisposed to chaos and incapable of functioning without a system that imposes order — an authoritarian system.
This, of course, is utter poppycock. There is no shortage of Chinese who have given their lives fighting to ensure that future generations can live in freedom; their valid complaint is that the Chinese government exploits fear of disorder to rationalize its monopoly on power and largely unaccountable use of violence against ordinary people.
If Chinese were genetically incapable of appreciating freedom or using it wisely, then Chan would argue that the hundreds of thousands of students, teachers and, yes, sympathetic soldiers and government officials in Tiananmen Square in 1989 were deluded and required “control.”
The same would apply to the reporters, bloggers, rights activists and authors — the Liu Xiaobos (劉曉波) — who have forsaken personal safety in the name of freedom and building a just system of government.
We can assume that Chan would label all of these people as misfits, as if they were potential and deserving outcasts in a Chinese version of Brave New World — somehow deficient and hence to be purged.
Chan, once again, has shown his true colors. He is on the authoritarian side of the political barrier, and would deny freedom to his compatriots. His comments have made it most clear that the image of heroic everyman that he has carefully crafted over the decades is hollow.
The Taipei City Government should do the right thing and replace Chan as its spokesperson for this summer’s Deaflympics. The last celebrity that disabled people deserve to be represented by is a man who supports systems of control over those who lack autonomy, dignity and power.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS