作者：李聪玲

       2026年7月1日，《中华人民共和国民族团结进步促进法》正式施行。中国政府表示，这部法律旨在铸牢中华民族共同体意识，维护国家统一，促进各民族共同发展。然而，在我看来，这部法律并非真正促进民族团结，而是进一步强化中国共产党对民族、文化、教育、宗教和言论领域的控制封锁的一项立法。我反对这部法律，因为我认为，真正的团结并不能建立在独裁统治的基础上，而应建立在自由、平等、尊重和多元之上。

       民族团结从来不是要求所有民族拥有同一种思想、同一种文化、同一种历史叙事。一个真正成熟和自信的国家，应当能够包容不同民族保留自己的语言、宗教、传统和历史记忆，而不是通过法律去塑造一种唯一正确的民族认同。当国家将特定的民族观念上升为法律要求，并贯穿教育、文化、媒体和社会治理时，这已经最大程度压缩了合法表达和文化发展的空间。

        对于许多流亡藏人而言，这部法律进一步加深了他们长期以来的忧虑。西藏的藏语教育、宗教活动和传统文化近年来受到越来越严格的管理，因此担心新法律会进一步强化这一趋势，使民族文化和宗教传统的传承更加困难。中国政府则表示，依法保障各民族合法权益，并持续投入资源保护藏族文化、发展教育和改善民生。围绕这些政策的实际效果及其影响，各方长期存在明显分歧。对于许多流亡藏人而言，这部法律的出台，不仅是一项新的立法，更像是他们长期担忧不断累积后的又一个象征。

       就在这部法律生效后不久，一名被流亡藏人组织确认身份的藏人活动人士Lobga Rangzen，在纽约联合国总部外自焚身亡，希望借此引起国际社会对西藏问题的关注。据警方，这名男子因严重烧伤死亡；流亡藏人组织表示，他希望通过这一极端方式呼吁国际社会关注西藏的未来以及藏人的处境。中国政府则一贯表示，西藏事务属于中国内政，依法保障各民族合法权益，并反对任何分裂国家的活动。

       没有任何生命应该以这样的方式结束。无论人们如何评价他的政治立场，自焚都是一场无法挽回的人间悲剧。它也提醒世人，当一个人认为自己的声音长期无法被听见时，可能会采取极端而悲剧性的方式表达诉求。这起事件再次引发了国际社会对西藏问题的关注，也让许多流亡藏人感到，他们的民族认同、文化传承和宗教自由仍然面临严峻挑战。事实上，自2009年以来，已有一百多名藏人在中国境内以及流亡社区发生自焚事件。这些事件在流亡藏人看来，是对西藏现状的绝望抗议；而中国政府则认为，这些行为受到分裂势力煽动，危害社会稳定，并依法予以打击。

       对于许多维吾尔人而言，这部法律同样引发担忧。近年来，新疆政策持续受到国际关注。一些联合国专家、人权组织以及部分国家政府批评当地存在严重的人权问题，并对文化、宗教和社会生活受到限制表示关切；中国政府则坚决否认这些指控，表示相关措施属于依法反恐、去极端化和促进发展的政策，并认为外界批评存在政治化倾向。正是在这种持续存在重大争议的背景下，这部法律可能进一步巩固现有民族治理模式，使民族文化和宗教表达面临更大的压力。

       台湾，中华民国，长期以来拥有自己的政府、军队、司法体系、货币、护照、选举制度以及完整的公共行政体系，形成了独立运作的政治和社会制度。基于这一现实，我认为台湾应由生活在台湾的人民决定自己的未来，中华人民共和国的法律不应成为约束台湾社会的依据，也不应通过国内立法影响台湾人民的政治选择。这其实是侵略台湾的另一种说辞。

       在我看来，一个真正稳定的国家，不应害怕人民保留自己的文化和身份认同。真正的国家自信，不需要依赖法律去规定人民应该如何理解自己的民族，也不需要通过统一的政治叙事来证明国家的合法性。历史反复说明，民族认同无法依靠命令形成，也无法依靠法律消除。任何忽视文化多样性的政策，都可能削弱信任，而不是增强团结。《民族团结进步促进法》如果在实践中进一步强化对民族认同、宗教活动、语言教育和文化表达的管控，而缺乏充分保障合法文化权利和表达空间，可能会进一步加深部分少数民族群体的疏离感，而不是实现真正意义上的民族团结。

       我反对《中华人民共和国民族团结进步促进法》。我希望未来有关民族事务的立法能够更多建立在尊重人权、保护文化多样性、保障公民自由和坚持法治原则的基础上。我相信，一个真正团结的社会，不是所有人都说同一种声音，而是不同民族都能够在平等、尊严和自由中生活，共同塑造彼此信任的未来。真正的民族团结，不是统一思想，而是尊重差异；真正的国家强大，不是消除多元，而是能够包容多元；真正持久的稳定，不是来自恐惧，而是来自人民对公平、自由和尊严的共同信任。

编辑：李晶 校对：王滨 翻译：沈美花

In the Name of Unity, in Practice an Act of Encroachment

Author: Li Congling

On July 1, 2026, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress officially came into effect.

The Chinese government states that this law is intended to strengthen the consciousness of the Chinese national community, safeguard national unity, and promote the common development of all ethnic groups. In my view, however, this law does not genuinely promote ethnic unity. Rather, it constitutes another piece of legislation that further strengthens the Chinese Communist Party’s control over ethnicity, culture, education, religion, and freedom of expression.

I oppose this law because I believe that genuine unity cannot be built upon authoritarian rule. Instead, it should be founded on freedom, equality, respect, and diversity.

Ethnic unity has never meant requiring all ethnic groups to possess the same ideas, the same culture, or the same historical narrative.

A truly mature and confident country should be able to accommodate different ethnic groups in preserving their own languages, religions, traditions, and historical memories, rather than using legislation to shape a single, officially sanctioned ethnic identity.

When the state elevates a particular concept of ethnicity into a legal requirement and embeds it throughout education, culture, media, and social governance, the space for legitimate expression and cultural development is already being compressed to the greatest extent possible.

For many Tibetans living in exile, this law further deepens concerns they have held for many years.

In recent years, Tibetan-language education, religious activities, and traditional culture in Tibet have come under increasingly strict regulation. As a result, many fear that the new law will reinforce this trend, making it even more difficult to preserve ethnic culture and religious traditions.

The Chinese government, meanwhile, maintains that it protects the lawful rights and interests of all ethnic groups in accordance with the law and continues to invest resources in preserving Tibetan culture, developing education, and improving living standards.

There have long been significant disagreements among different parties regarding the actual effects and consequences of these policies.

For many Tibetans in exile, the enactment of this law is not merely new legislation; it is another symbol of concerns that have accumulated over many years.

Shortly after the law took effect, a Tibetan activist identified by Tibetan exile organizations as Lobga Rangzen died after setting himself on fire outside the United Nations headquarters in New York, hoping to draw international attention to the issue of Tibet.

According to police reports, the man died from severe burn injuries. Tibetan exile organizations stated that he chose this extreme act in the hope of drawing international attention to Tibet’s future and the situation facing Tibetans.

The Chinese government has consistently maintained that affairs related to Tibet are China’s internal affairs, that the lawful rights and interests of all ethnic groups are protected under the law, and that any activities aimed at separating the country are firmly opposed.

No human life should end in such a manner.

Regardless of how one evaluates his political views, self-immolation is an irreparable human tragedy.

It also serves as a reminder that when people believe their voices cannot be heard for a prolonged period of time, they may resort to extreme and tragic means to express their demands.

This incident once again drew international attention to the Tibet issue and led many Tibetans in exile to feel that their ethnic identity, cultural heritage, and religious freedom continue to face serious challenges.

In fact, since 2009, more than one hundred Tibetans have carried out acts of self-immolation either within China or in Tibetan exile communities.

To many Tibetans in exile, these incidents represent desperate protests against conditions in Tibet. The Chinese government, however, maintains that such actions are instigated by separatist forces, threaten social stability, and are therefore subject to legal suppression.

For many Uyghurs, this law also raises concerns.

In recent years, policies in Xinjiang have remained the subject of sustained international attention.

Some United Nations experts, human rights organizations, and the governments of several countries have criticized what they describe as serious human rights problems in the region and have expressed concern about restrictions on cultural, religious, and social life.

The Chinese government firmly rejects these allegations, arguing that the relevant measures constitute lawful policies aimed at counterterrorism, de-radicalization, and development, and that external criticism is politically motivated.

Against this backdrop of continuing and substantial controversy, the law may further consolidate the existing model of ethnic governance and place additional pressure on ethnic cultural and religious expression.

Taiwan, the Republic of China, has long maintained its own government, military, judicial system, currency, passport, electoral institutions, and comprehensive public administration, forming a political and social system that operates independently.

Based on this reality, I believe that Taiwan’s future should be determined by the people who live in Taiwan.

The laws of the People’s Republic of China should not serve as a basis for governing Taiwanese society, nor should domestic legislation be used to influence the political choices of the Taiwanese people.

In essence, this is simply another rhetorical justification for the invasion of Taiwan.

In my view, a truly stable country should not fear its people retaining their own cultures and identities.

True national confidence does not require laws that dictate how citizens should understand their own ethnicity, nor does it require a unified political narrative to prove the legitimacy of the state.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that ethnic identity cannot be created by command, nor can it be erased by legislation.

Any policy that disregards cultural diversity may weaken trust rather than strengthen unity.

If, in practice, the Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress further strengthens control over ethnic identity, religious activities, language education, and cultural expression without adequately protecting lawful cultural rights and spaces for expression, it may deepen feelings of alienation among some ethnic minority communities rather than achieve genuine ethnic unity.

I oppose the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress.

I hope that future legislation concerning ethnic affairs will be based more firmly on respect for human rights, protection of cultural diversity, guarantees of civil liberties, and adherence to the rule of law.

I believe that a truly united society is not one in which everyone speaks with the same voice, but one in which different ethnic groups can live with equality, dignity, and freedom while together shaping a future founded on mutual trust.

True ethnic unity is not the uniformity of thought, but respect for differences.

True national strength is not the elimination of diversity, but the ability to embrace diversity.

True and lasting stability does not arise from fear, but from the people’s shared trust in fairness, freedom, and dignity.

Editor: Li JingProofreader: Wang BinTranslator: Shen Meihua