"Not being able to speak is not the same as not speaking."

(Associated Press photo)

Last week, Jackie Chan found himself in a different kind of spotlight, one that is a far cry from the Hollywood glitz and glamour he is used to. The star of such (in my opinion poorly acted and low class) movies as Rush Hour and Who am I, perhaps Chan was a little lost when he uttered that "Chinese need to be controlled", and "if [Chinese] are not being controlled, [Chinese] will just do what we want". To make matters worse, he called freedom-aspring Hong Kong and freedom-practising Taiwan "chaotic".

In fact, Chan has recetly not simply jibed at Chinese people in general, or insulted the democratic societies of Hong Kong or Taiwan. In the same week or so, on a visit to the single-party city-State of Singapore, he claimed that because Singaporeans lack "self-respect", the Singaporeans too need a government to control them.

Chan's statement is at best a poor generalisation, and at worst outright an outright patronising (and verging on racist) remark that Chinese people cannot govern by themselves, "as if they were potential and deserving outcasts in a Chinese version of Brave New World — somehow deficient and hence to be purged". The kung-fu legend seems to believe that people in Hong Kong and Taiwan are like the Chinese in China; that they think alike, act alike, and therefore must be governed and controlled alike. This, depsite the fact that both the peoples of Hong Kong and Taiwan (and lest we forget, Singapore) have experienced completely different versions of history and democratic processes compared to China:

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.

Behind Chan’s words is a deeper, more profound debate about modern democratic theory and the ability a Confucian society is able to adapt itself to inherently Western ideas such as freedom and democracy. Taiwan (and to some limited extent Hong Kong) have proven that it is possible:

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.

I guess Chan can afford to make these thoughtless (and yet provocative) comments, because he is now living the American dream in his big mansion in Los Angeles, far, far away from the the "chaotic" societies which he so-proudly claims need to be "controlled". This is, after all the same guy who sang at Beijing much touted (though at times mimed and carefully orchestrated) coming-out event last year at the 2008 Olympics. The same guy who will soon be singing at the "Believe in China" concert. However well the star-cum-sing can sing, his "Chinese need to be controlled" statement must have been:

Music to the ears of the government of Beijing, which has long been peddling the “we're the only thing holding this place together line,” and laughable nonsense to democrats in Hong Kong and Taipei, who seem to like their chaos just fine thank you. And all in time to mark 60 years since the Communists seized power in China and the Kuomintang in Taiwan went their own way.

It's worth noting that Chan, who was born in colonial-era Hong Kong and has made millions of dollars as a Hollywood film star, has never lived in the sort of repressive regime that he's advocating for his countrymen. As he proved by his comments this weekend, he obviously feels quite free to say whatever he wants.

Ironically, Chan often plays the part of kung-fu heroes "who have grabbed initiative and refused to accept fate", who kicked and punched for justice, for the poor and disenfranchised against the mean and oppressive. With his remarks, Chan seems to be playing the role of an anti-hero:

As the economies of the democracies have tumbled, the world’s autocracies have been on the march. Chan’s words, however, have put China’s authoritarians on the defensive for the moment. And they’ll remain there as long as thousands of Chinese continue to act like Jackie Chan characters, heroes seizing initiative and refusing to accept fate.

The star's agent was of course quick to defend that Chan's statement has been grossly misinterpreted and taken out of context, because his comment was in response to a question about censorship in the entertainment industry. If that is the case, then Chan would be happy to note that his latest movie Shinjuku Incident has been banned by the Chinese government because of its "unflattering portrayal of illegal Chinese immigrants and for its violence". Of course, Chan should have no problem with the ban, because in his own skewed world-view, the ban must be justified order to curtail freedom of information and knowledge, or otherwise people would start unleashing "chaos" and fighting and killing on the streets.

Unfortunately, whether purposely or not , the "kung-fu clown's":

... argument echoes precisely the same line that colonialists everywhere invoked as justification of their continued occupation of their colonies. It's also the same argument that the power elite in China, including Communist Party members and the business barons who cut deals with them, invoke to justify the perpetuation of one-party authoritarian rule in China and the abridgement of a range of freedoms for its people.

Chan made his comments shortly after Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jia-boa delivered the keynote speech at the Boao Forum For Asia. Indeed, the Chinese government/Chinese Communist Party's (remember, in China the Party=Government and Government=Party ) propoganda mouthpiece, the People's Daily was quick to manipulate Chan's remarks to justifiy its authoritarian control and (of course) deride Taiwan's democratic credentials:

"...if a society has yet to form a common sense of social morality, individuals will always need someone to look over their shoulders and to keep them in line. People in such a situation seem not to be able to afford the absence of a functioning government, or they will be thrown into the state of anarchy and feel confused. The Chinese mainland is generally a society in which government still plays an instructive or even enlightening role in standardizing the public conduct. The reason may lie in both history and reality: the whole decade of the so-called 'cultural revolution' wrought untold havoc to the time-honored Chinese civilizations, suffocating almost all the human ethics and courtesies."

The People's Daily's commentary said the backlash against Chan and the angry response of netizens were uncalled for. All an illogical result from "feeling of confused and petrified" about what "freedom" really means. So the Party has, to the benefit of all freedom-loving people around the world, kindlyelaborated what freedom really means in practice:

The linchpin of [...]logic is but a simple balance between freedom and discipline. In this light, if freedom outweighs discipline, there will be chaos; and vice versa, if too much discipline or 'control' is exerted upon the public, there will be less freedom guaranteed to them. Following the above logic, people will easily form the common knowledge that one cannot have both freedom and discipline at the same time. Extendedly speaking, this logic also means that the Chinese have yet to keep a good equilibrium between the two. Once the discipline imposed on them is relaxed, the Chinese will be 'too free' to be tamed, and disorderly conduct will thereby arise. So was born Chan's conclusion: We Chinese need to be controlled.

It's as if people were pets that need to be taught and "tamed", or otherwise they'd run wild and (yes) free. No doubt as to who will be in charge of the "taming" process.

Hollywood stars are prominent celebrities, whose words and actions speak loudly and leave indeligible impressions on millions of fans around the world. Some take up the noble cause of championing greater attention for the ongoing genocide in Darfur, some the speak out against the continuous oppression and "cultural genoicide" in Tibet, while others remind us of the realities of global warming, animal rights, refugee crises, and the plight of AIDS orphans.

And then you have a star like Jackie Chan, who seems content to be repeating the Orwellian newspeak of the Chinese government and defend why it is that millions of Chinese people should have to live under a state of control with the "government [playing] an instructive or even enlightening role in standardizing the public conduct". Even Steven Spielberg was quick to distance himself from the Chinese regime when he realised working for the Opening Ceremony of the Bejing Olympics was asking for trouble.

I end with a memorable quote by Chief Inspector Lee, whom Jackie Chan played in Rush Hour 2. Perhaps when Chan was memorising the line, he did not fully grasp its meaning. Or its significance:

Not being able to speak is not the same as not speaking. You seem as if you like to talk. I like to let people talk who like to talk. It makes it easier to find out how full of shit they are.