Speaking at the annual Boao Forum from the Middle Kingdom of Pollution, Poison and Propaganda, Jackie Chan (成龍) presented some unusual and apparently personal insights.
In reality they were statements in support of authoritarian rule in the People’s Republic of China.
Chan declared, “We Chinese need to be controlled.”
And, “If you’re too free, you’re like the way Hong Kong is now. It’s very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.”
Chan’s remarks drew applause from the “fat cat” businesspeople attending, for obvious reasons. And although Chan has been raked over the coals by many for his words, if one reads deeper between the lines, what he did was inadvertently highlight the utter failure of Confucianism as a way of life in Chinese history.
At issue is the age-old argument between Confucianist and Legalist tradition. By attempting to argue that democracy would not work in China, Chan championed the Legalist tradition that justifies and supports strong control from a paternalistic, unaccountable central power — like Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party’s politburo.
The implication that Beijing would rather not reveal is that despite 5,000 years of culture, and nearly 3,000 years of Confucianism, Chinese need to be controlled because — though few will say it — they are too dumb, too stupid and too selfish to rule themselves democratically.
Too dumb, too stupid and too selfish to rule themselves. That is a bitter statement, indeed, but it is the unfortunate bottom line of what Chan is saying.
Despite 5,000 years of Chinese culture and despite nearly 3,000 years of harmony-seeking Confucianism, the end result remains that Chinese cannot be trusted with self-rule.
That does not say much for the old sage.
To understand the applause that Chan received from the businessmen and government officials in the audience, one must look at the Chinese psyche and Legalist justifications for the imposition of control.
When those on top in China say the people are too dumb, too stupid and too selfish to rule themselves, they do not include themselves among that number. They are referring to all “the other Chinese,” the common masses, or the “ugly Chinaman,” as Bo Yang (柏楊) liked to speak of them.
Most businesspeople and government officials see themselves in a different light; they are, after all, the “enlightened and magnanimous exceptions” to the rule.
They are the ones who must accept the heavy burden of governance.
These “enlightened despots” insist on a minimum of three requirements. First, there must never be transparency; such a thing would only confuse the masses.
Second, the rule of law must be forsaken; enlightened despots need freedom to operate without restraints.
Third, a critical free press must not be allowed: The dumb must not be allowed to question the enlightened.
Taiwan’s experience has been different, of course, but Taiwanese are different from Chinese: They live on the “chaotic” side of life.
Taiwanese have discovered that they are not too dumb, too stupid nor too selfish to rule themselves.
This doesn’t mean that they are perfect, but they have been freely electing their rulers since 1996 and operating with transparency, the rule of law and a free press.
So where does the world stand?
Does it agree with Chan, or does it see the Taiwanese experience as valid and the way of the future?
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with