Consider the following: How can a medical worker speaking about their own experience working at a hospital in any way constitute espionage?
If found guilty of espionage, by law they can be executed. Anyone who speaks up can be killed.
Trying to predict what China will execute people for is like reading entrails.
When you say "China", do you mean the Department of Health, or the Department of Defense, or the Department of Trade, or the Chinese government, or the Chinese people, or some Chinese guy?
It makes as much sense to attribute a Standard Operating Procedure to "China" as it does to attribute something like that to "America", or to say "Americans think...", which is not very much at all, because America, like all societies of more than one person, is a pluralist society.
China is 1.3 billion people. If you treat it as a collection of different interests and points of view, your analyses and predictions will have more cogency.
We call this deflecting. And it's a rhetorical device used when you are on the wrong side of the argument.
And the answer is "All Of The Above". All parts of the Chinese government leaders see very little problem with executing those who might upset their status quo.
1 . https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-policy-law/chinas-t...
Can you see the difference between those two propositions?
Apparently not, if you’re quoting one western account of one Chinese guys statement, and imaging that represents all of China monolithically.
In the West, we have an underlying belief that dissent and debate result in better decisions and more circumspect awareness of complicated situations. We tolerate insolence, dissent, and other unpleasant behaviors specifically because we know they serve a purpose.
That doesn't happen with a top-down ("democratic centralist") system. The vast majority of people have absolutely no power to change the course of decisions. Political offices do not turn over from party to party in a way that shakes up underlying corruption. The police enforce political assertions in addition to the laws of the land.
Your argument boils down to "there are many many people in China, so they must be ideologically and behaviorally diverse." Or, "as X approaches infinity, the number of viewpoints also approaches infinity." It's just not true for human behavior in an authoritarian collectivist society.
Well, apparently the CCP told the truth, the whole truth to the world. Authoritarian regime doesn't work.
/s
The pithiest example is the death of Li Wenliang. The doctor who was threatened and silenced for warning others of a SARS outbreak, himself died of the disease when it spread due to inaction.
Not every society of more than one person is pluralistic. Extrinsic forces and incentives make a major impact on human behavior.
Apparently it was available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128 too but not there now.
I found it here: https://img-prod.tgcom24.mediaset.it/images/2020/02/16/11472...