This first paragraph seems to be an egregious and willful misrepresentation of the document by the New York Times.
No, if anything it is an understatement of how problematic this pledge is.
The only part that I don't quite understand is #6 where they talk about the "supervision of society".
"Supervision of society" is what the modern government of China has moved to as an quasi-alternative to traditional communist "Command and Control" planning[1].
It encompasses both the type of business regulation that is more familiar in the West (business licenses, safety regulations) along with comprehensive state surveillance of both financial/economic indicators as well as what many societies would consider "private speech".
No, if anything it is an understatement of how problematic this pledge is.
The only part that I don't quite understand is #6 where they talk about the "supervision of society".
"Supervision of society" is what the modern government of China has moved to as an quasi-alternative to traditional communist "Command and Control" planning[1].
It encompasses both the type of business regulation that is more familiar in the West (business licenses, safety regulations) along with comprehensive state surveillance of both financial/economic indicators as well as what many societies would consider "private speech".
[1] https://books.google.com.au/books?id=TfHGAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&lp...