Because China doesn't believe in individualism. You are defined by your party affiliation, friends, family, race (Han vs non-Han), and skin color (brown/"dirty"脏 Asian vs white Asian).

This is underrated comment.

Mainlanders firmly believe in collectivism; whereas, western audiences in individuality.

Therefore, Chinese people believe it is okay to kill a person to save the group. Whereas, other countries do not.

Mainlanders think that is being selfish.

Actually, it's more of a conformist than collectivist society. The misconception comes from studies done in China regarding collectivism vs individualism in the 80s and 90s, that were 'Margaret Mead'ed: sitting people down in a formal classroom to take a test being administered by scientists with government permission didn't have the same effect in China and the western countries it was being compared to.

Collectivism is commonly seen as a valuable presentation in conformism-driven social environments.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.561...

This isn't killing sometime to save a group, though. This is guilt by association. And it isn't even that (that's just the dishonest justification), it's just a shady hope that by detaining this fraudster's incident offspring, they can lure him back to China to arrest him. It's disgusting and reprehensible.

I don't think the government thinks the kids are guilty, I think the parent is implying something even worse: that they'd be willing to essentially throw these innocent kids under a bus to arrest the parents.

No, I definitely got that (and apparently mistyped "innocent" as "incident"). The issue isn't that I object to "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I think that is appropriate in some situations. But this doesn't feel like that; arresting this guy won't go and help or save a bunch of people. It's just revenge, and they're throwing the likely-innocent kids under the bus to get it.

Again you have your individualist lens on and you are judging the situation purely based on that moral framework.

I don't think I am.

The idea of prioritizing collective good means that it's ok to sacrifice one (or more) people if even more people will benefit from that action by a certain threshold amount.

This... isn't that. Arresting this guy won't help or save a bunch of people. The government just wants revenge for his financial crimes, and they're unethically using his kids to try to get it.

Other countries will make up terms like “collateral damage” when they drone strike a wedding just to kill one target.

Mainlanders believe that progress requires unity and sometimes it's okay that progress or unity costs lives.

1. There’s a good chance they have information relevant to the spying.

2. To get leverage on the spy.

3. To send a message to other spies and spouses.

Those are three common-sense reasons I can think of. I’m sure there are a dozen others.

Sounds more like how the mafia operates than a legal system.

For the same reason the spouse would be taken in, questioned, and possibly passport taken away in the US - to ensure the spouse doesn’t know anything of interest to investigators.

I mean, let’s not be daft. If Snowden hadn’t shielded his g/f as well as he did, Ms. Mills would have never been allowed to leave the US.

She either would have been charged with espionage, or for breaking one of the innumerable laws we all break in a daily basis.

The US hasn’t held the spouses or children of any Chinese people accused or convicted Of spying. Please stop with the obviously false claims.

Consider it being put on the No Fly List.

You don’t have to be charged to be put on it.

> For the same reason the spouse would be taken in, questioned, and possibly passport taken away in the US

Only if that person is actually charged with a crime, has due process.

This isn't about that. This is about China not charging someone with a crime, and not giving them due process.

If you want to take away someone's passport, then you should charge them with a crime first.