The COVID-19 pandemic has radically transformed our everyday lives, introducing dramatic shifts in how we work, socialize, and interact with the world around us. As humans, we are not accustomed to changes, nor would we want to leave our comfort zone and challenge the status quo. However, sudden changes like these will inevitably spark significant resistance and protest among those affected, as seen in the early days of the pandemic in the United States. For instance, from day one, mask-wearing has been filled with controversy. It has more or less evolved from a public health recommendation to a political statement, illustrating the deep internal divisions within American society. Nevertheless, this type of political defiance is a distinctive and contemporary reflection of what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. described as civil disobedience, highlighting the enduring power of individuals and the respective effectiveness of their collective actions in challenging societal norms and policies. Despite the controversy, the U.S. Constitution provides us with a fundamental safeguard for these very expressions of dissent and activism, which have been repeatedly challenged in the different jurisdictions of courts and reaffirmed and upheld through our justices’ ruling decisions.

However, the narrative shifts dramatically when we turn our attention to China, particularly Wuhan, with the story of Dr. Li Wenliang. In the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak, Dr. Li, a relatively unknown ophthalmologist, emerged as an unrecognized hero. His early warnings about a novel coronavirus quietly circulating in Wuhan showcased an act of bravery and a commitment to public health. Dr. Li’s attempts to alert the medical community and the public about the potential human-to-human transmission of this deadly virus were initially met with wide criticism and suppression as it created a significant concern for the ruling Communist Party because of fears that it may stir discontent and dissent among the Chinese populace.

Nevertheless, as we dug deeper to analyze and explore Dr. Li’s actions, we noticed that his impact on Chinese society goes beyond simply being a kind doctor with ethics; it was also an incredibly precious social movement that significantly contributed to the wider enlightenment of the Chinese people, that is, for his bravery in speaking out against the possible dangers of the virus despite potential repercussions and the very sacrificial significance of his eventual demise. In fact, Dr. Li’s story is not just about the early days of an emerging global pandemic; it is also a true testament to the audacity of speaking truth against the people in positions of power and the importance of fostering diverse voices in a healthy and functioning society. Dr. Li awakened the Chinese people through his actions, and with the ultimate price he paid, he invoked this broader public conscience by encouraging them to question governmental narratives rather than mindlessly follow orders. His legacy serves as a beacon for the enduring significance of individual courage and the collective pursuit of truth in the face of adversity.

Now, Dr. Li was a 33-year-old ophthalmologist working at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, located in the heart of the city that would soon become known globally as the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. As a dedicated medical professional in one of the most prestigious hospitals in the city, as well as in Hubei province and its surrounding regions, Dr. Li was at the forefront of the battle against an emerging health crisis that was yet to be fully understood by the world. His role in the hospital positioned him uniquely to observe the early signs of the novel coronavirus outbreak, allowing him to witness firsthand accounts of these mysterious cases that would later spark a global pandemic.

From his position, Dr. Li began to notice an alarming trend that diverged from the usual pattern of seasonal illnesses such as the flu. As patients came into the hospital for routine checkups, he observed a substantial increase in hospitalizations among those otherwise healthy individuals presenting with flu-like symptoms. But what he witnessed next is that what initially appeared to be common viral infections soon escalated into severe cases of pneumonia, signaling a much graver situation. Dr. Li’s medical expertise and experience allowed him to draw parallels between these cases and the 2003 SARS epidemic, particularly noting the similar pathology and the strikingly similar modes of transmission. This observation was particularly concerning, given the rapid spread and high mortality rate associated with the SARS virus in 2003 that highlighted the inherent havoc this new virus is capable of imposing on public health if not adequately contained in the early stages.

Following his discerning observations and the growing concern for the well-being of his family, friends, and the wider community, Dr. Li took to social media to raise awareness about this potential threat. He sought to communicate his apprehensions more broadly by utilizing platforms like WeChat, a platform similar to Facebook Messenger, and Weibo, which is equivalent to Twitter in China. Dr. Li initially shared a candid warning about the emerging virus in a private WeChat group comprised of many of his fellow alums from his university, where he emphasized the importance of increased vigilance for a new and potentially deadly virus and the dire need to wear proper protective gear to safeguard themselves, the medical professionals against infections, all while underlining the frightful situation that he witnesses at his own hospital. This proactive approach to communicating critical information among his peers was a testament to Dr. Li’s medical ethics, dedication to public health, and utter and grave desire to prevent the spread of the virus, even when faced with uncertainty about the full scope of its impact and the potential consequence of his blunt and unfiltered speech.

Unfortunately for Dr. Li, his well-intentioned warning quickly led to significant personal repercussions, particularly given its timing just before the Spring Festival, China’s peak travel season and the most important holiday in the Chinese calendar, which celebrates the Chinese New Year. This period sees millions of Chinese citizens traveling across the country to reunite with family, significantly heightening the risk of spreading a contagious disease. Amidst this backdrop, Dr. Li’s message caught the attention of law enforcement authorities. The authorities summoned him and seven other doctors who had shared similar concerns about this virus. Despite their good intentions, they were eventually reprimanded for disseminating what the authorities considered as unverified claims, hence a lie, about a novel coronavirus. An accusation that the authorities solemnly believed could stoke unnecessary fear among the Chinese public and the imminent backlashes against public health officials for their inaction, all in the name of breaking holiday spirits and causing chaos.

In a coercive turn of events, Dr. Li and the seven other doctors were pressured into signing a statement affirming a vow to cease any further public discussion about the virus under the threat of potential legal action if it continued. This was grounded in a 1997 amendment to the People’s Republic of China’s criminal code, which criminalized “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” a broad and often purposefully and vaguely worded charge against dissenters in China (Rui & Rui, 2021). Dr. Li would have never thought that his commitment to public health and safety would lead him into a direct confrontation with the state’s stringent control over information propagation, forcing him into a precarious position between his professional integrity and the law (Steensma & Kyle, 2022).

Sadly, Dr. Li’s initial attempts to sound the alarm did not garner the widespread attention or support necessary to preempt the escalation of the outbreak. As the Spring Festival travel surged and carried on, it exacerbated and facilitated the virus’s rapid spread across China, and the public health situation quickly deteriorated with massive overcrowding of hospitals and mortuaries. In spite of this, it was still not until the virus had begun to take a significant death toll that Chinese health officials finally came out and publicly acknowledged the reality of human-to-human transmission, except for the fact that it was all to no avail, as this admission came too late for any possible preventative interventions that could have contained the virus way more effectively before it spread beyond control. In response to the rapidly elevating crisis, the Chinese government implemented stringent and, by many accounts, draconian lockdown measures in an attempt to curb the spread of the disease. These restrictions, which were among the most severe globally, ended up lasting for nearly three years, often profoundly and sometimes permanently altering the lives of millions of Chinese citizens, causing massive supply chain disruptions, and leading many average citizens to lose their jobs.

What is even more tragic in the unfolding of these events is that Dr. Li himself also contracted COVID-19 in early February 2020, succumbing to complications from the very disease he had tried to warn against and passing away shortly after that. The news of his death and the story of his early warnings, previously unheeded, quickly catapulted to the forefront of social media discussions across China. Despite the government’s stringent efforts to control the narrative and suppress the spread of information, the story of the courageous doctor from Wuhan penetrated the speech control algorithms and resonated deeply with the public.

The widespread outcry that followed Dr. Li’s death forced a rare moment of accountability upon the Chinese government. In an unprecedented move, the authorities acknowledged their mistake in silencing Dr. Li, though they strategically redirected the blame towards the Wuhan municipal authorities. Thus, this admission of fault led to significant repercussions within Wuhan’s city government, resulting in the eventual dismissal of several officials from their positions. The public’s reaction to Dr. Li’s story and the government’s subsequent response highlighted a crucial turning point in the tensions between the state and its citizens, highlighting that the power of public sentiment and the demand for transparency and accountability will eventually find its way into the lives of the average citizenry through means that typically happens, in times of crisis, a massive loss of life within their own families, and repeatedly being fed with false information and its accumulation of frustrations associated with that false information.

Before his untimely death, Dr. Li had the opportunity to share his thoughts in a rare interview with Caixin, a news agency in China renowned for its commitment to investigative journalism despite the prevalent pressures to self-censor. In this interview, Dr. Li voiced a profound belief that would soon resonate widely with the public: “A healthy society should not be restricted to only one voice. (“健康的社会不应只有一种声音” 新冠肺炎“吹哨人”李文亮去世, 2020) ” He articulated a vision for a society where meaningful public discussions are encouraged rather than suppressed by the excessive intervention of public authorities. This statement not only notates his dedication to transparency in public health but also highlights his advocacy for the importance of fostering diverse perspectives in a resilient and informed community. Dr. Li’s words, captured in this interview, became a rallying cry for those advocating for change, embodying the spirit of his initial warnings and his hope for a future where open dialogue and differing viewpoints would contribute to the health and well-being of society.

Some of these rallying cries and enlightenment brought on by Dr. Li are shining bright as we look at the other protests that happened in Chinese society in the years following Dr. Li’s death. A good example of that is the infamous Hong Kong extradition bill protest that took place during the same time period. Although this protest started in 2019, and while these protests were initially ignited over the concerns of diminishing judicial autonomy in Hong Kong in the aftermath of the passage of the proposed “Hong Kong National Security Law” legislation by the National People’s Congress as it opened the pandora’s box for the central government to assert total juridical control over Hong Kong by opening up the possibility of extraditing potential dissenters in Hong Kong to mainland China for trial; the event of Dr. Li’s death in early February 2020 brought on and added another depth to this social movement.

The protesters in Hong Kong, characterized by their fierce resistance and unity, had already enshrined considerable doubt in regard to the central government’s ability to carry out legal proceedings fairly and transparently. Yet, the news of Dr. Li’s attempt to warn about the deadly coronavirus, only to be silenced by authorities, deepened this sense of urgency to resist and has further solidified this broader sentiment of distrust among the protesters. And to make matters worse, the Hong Kong government’s response to these protests, particularly under the leadership of then-Chief Executive Carrie Lam, further eroded this faltering trust in the authorities and worsened the fear of unjust legal proceedings, that is, even in a city where the Basic Law promised a degree of protection and judicial autonomy could still use state apparatus to harshly crackdown on demonstrations through to use of violence, thus, making the potential consequences associated of being extradited to mainland China an ever more frightful for the protesters.

In fact, this deepening mistrust and the quest for preserving civil liberties provided fertile ground for subsequent movements that emerged in response to the central government’s policies, particularly with its Zero-COVID lockdown measures. The apartment building fire that unfolded in Urumqi in 2022 and the emergence of the White Paper Movement were not isolated incidents but rather a continuation of the public’s expression of dissatisfaction. These movements, while sparked by different immediate concerns—namely, the appalling consequences of lockdown measures that took the lives of ten innocent civilians and the utter frustrations of the Zero-COVID lockdown measures that affected one’s abilities to work and survive—were the foundations of the same underlying sentiment that had been brewing since the Hong Kong extradition bill protests, the death of Dr. Li, and the lack of accountability.

The common thread linking these events was a collective awakening to the importance of preserving civil liberties, a demand for transparency, and a growing willingness to challenge the status quo and criticize the central government’s horrific crisis management and style of governance that focuses only and primarily on the silencing of dissents. What is also fascinating and quite remarkably enough is that some protesters even dared to direct their frustration squarely and objectively at the central leadership, particularly at the Party Secretary Xi Jinping, and calls for him to resign—a level of direct criticism not seen in decades, reliving the fervor for change that is, the symbolic nature of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.

In reflecting upon the story of Dr. Li and his incredible contributions to society, from the early warnings he issued against an emerging health crisis to his tragic demise, we find a powerful testament to the significance of individual courage and collective action. Despite facing suppression and censure, Dr. Li’s efforts to alert the world to the dangers of COVID-19 encapsulate a universal truth that the potential for change exists even within the most restrictive environments and that his belief in the importance of diverse voices in maintaining a healthy society, expressed pitifully and helplessly in his final interview, echoes the principles of civil disobedience championed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Both men understood and are well aware that reform is the most preferable solution that should precede any revolution, advocating for peaceful, determined action to achieve societal change.

As we conclude, it is clear that Dr. Li’s actions, much like those of Dr. King, serve as a beacon of hope and a call to action. Despite being a party member, Dr. Li spoke out from the purest nature of love, kindness, and care. They remind us that the power of collective action and having a determined purpose can indeed make a very significant difference in society, even within a non-democratic authoritarian state like China. However, the path to reform is often fraught with challenges, as it too often requires those in power to voluntarily relinquish some of their control—a notion that all too often goes against the frailty of human nature. This tension between the ideal of reform and the reality of power dynamics shows us very distinctively the complex nature of promoting social change. While it is not always necessary to practice, revolution remains a critical concept in the discourse on change, representing the ultimate expression of collective will against entrenched systems of power. Thus, Dr. Li’s legacy should not only be treated as a symbol of courage and bravery but should also serve as a reminder for all of us of the ongoing struggle for a more open, equitable, and healthy society.

References

Rui, G., & Rui, G. (2021, August 25). ‘Picking quarrels and provoking trouble’: how China’s catch-all crime muzzles dissent. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3146188/picking-quarrels-and-provoking-trouble-how-chinas-catch-all

Steensma, D. P., & Kyle, R. A. (2022). Dr Li Wenliang: Wuhan “Whistleblower” and Early COVID-19 Victim. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2022.05.033

“健康的社会不应只有一种声音” 新冠肺炎“吹哨人”李文亮去世. (2020, February 7). https://china.caixin.com/2020-02-07/101512460.html