I found my comment (more like a thesis hahah).
Okay, so about our number one green flag Jing. We should all be rooting for him unconditionally, yet this is not what's happening for a big portion of the LYF fans. I haven't read the book (only plenty of excerpts), but the way his character is being presented on screen probably isn't achieving the intended purpose of garnering unequivocal sympathy and unanimous support. Though it should be, considering he is the ideal choice.
In terms of storytelling, this type of character could be considered flat. Basically, as it’s been pointed out several times, he’s the ultimate Good Guy™. Good at the beginning, has the purest love of all, and remains the super Good Guy™ at the end. No evil intentions, no hidden motives, not a smudge on his résumé, just the ideal guy doing what ideal guys usually do. This means a straight line, instead of an arch, which means no character development. Not saying he is 2-dimensional, it's just that the way he’s constructed and the execution so far doesn’t really allow space for any growth. How can the super good guy be an even better good guy?
Remember, I’m talking in terms of storytelling and fiction, not real life. Sure, we should all stay away from the red flags and stop wanting to fix the bad guys, yes. Especially the ones who bite your neck (eh, I’m gonna stop here). But in fiction, this doesn’t always apply.
Let’s reverse things. In Breaking Bad (which is a show I adore and it’s not for nothing that it’s considered one of the best shows of all time, bravo Vince!), the fascinating thing to see is Walt’s descent into a Bad Guy™. No one would watch a show about how the good high-school chemistry teacher just stays good for five seasons. Heisenberg is what people wanted to see. Another example in the same vein is Better Call Saul. I love Jimmy McGill, his antics, his tricks, and I got so nervous every time he did something that would eventually bring him one step closer to being Saul Goodman. I was so terrified that he would end up killing Kim with his shenanigans. But what I wanted the most was to see him become Saul and witness every event in his life that pushed him to become the character we fell in love with during his very few appearances on BB. Fun fact: villains are always more realistic and closer to actual human beings than heroes.
Another one of my favorites: The Phantom of the Opera. Sure, Raul is the Good Guy™. A childhood friend of Christine. Perfect in every way. He doesn’t go around killing people on stage nor terrorizing the girl he loves, yet I could say 99% of the PotO lovers are intrigued and fascinated by the Phantom, not good boi Raul. Even Andrew Lloyd Webber himself wrote Love Never Dies to “adjust” the ending of his masterpiece because he realised his good boi Raul was actually so boring. The Phantom and Christine even had a kid (but when was Gustave conceived, though, that’s the million dollar question heheh) because that’s how much of a shipper ALW is.
So, what I’m saying is that while in real life Jing is the ideal everything, in film, TV shows, books, musicals, podcasts, or whatever piece of media you can come up with, his kind of character is not inherently interesting to audiences. There’s usually zero character development, which means zero space to grow or, as is the case with villains, no descent into evil. He's just there, being a good guy and hoping that’s more than enough to have people flock to his side. One of the purposes of storytelling is to arouse and engage the audience, but characters like him don't usually do that.
In the end, even though most people already know how things will go and they sort of made their peace with it, the feeling of frustration can't be helped. Sure, that's the way the story was written, but the bittersweetness starts to verge on the side of trolling the audience. That was too long, sorry!