Civic groups in Taiwan on 14 June condemned China's upcoming law on promoting ethnic unity and progress, set to be promulgated on 1 July, describing it as a tool for forced assimilation and cultural cleansing. The condemnation was voiced publicly on Saturday, with activists and academics warning that the legislation threatens the distinct identities of multiple ethnic and regional communities under Beijing's rule.

What the Law Does

According to the groups, the law will impose a singular national identity across sectors including education, housing, population movement, community life, culture, tourism, and development. Critics argue it is designed to weaken the identities of non-Han ethnic groups and accelerate the so-called 'integration' of diverse communities into a monolithic Chinese national framework.

Taiwan Economic Democracy Union convener Lai Chung-chiang described the law as repression disguised as unity, arguing it specifically targets Uyghurs, Tibetans, Southern Mongolians, Hong Kongers, and Taiwanese. He also flagged a deliberate linguistic manoeuvre — the law exploits the similarity in wording between zhonghua minzu ('the Chinese nation') and zhonghua minguo ('the Republic of China') to undermine Taiwan's standing in international cooperation efforts.

The Reunification Angle

Lai argued that the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) stated goal of the 'great revival of the zhonghua minzu' is, at its core, a reunification project — both territorial and ethnic. He pointed to Chinese President Xi Jinping's 2019 'Five-point Plan' and a 2022 white paper issued by China's Taiwan Affairs Office — titled 'The Taiwan Question and China's Reunification in the New Era' — as documents that explicitly link the concept of national rejuvenation with the objective of reunification with Taiwan.

Soochow University political science associate professor Chen Fang-yu said on Saturday that the underlying logic of Chinese nationalism demands that people in Taiwan and Hong Kong identify as 'Chinese' or 'Han', adding that such nationalism structurally cannot accommodate ethnic plurality.

Taiwan's Counter-Definition

The civic groups drew a sharp contrast between Beijing's and Taipei's concepts of 'unity'. They contended that for the CCP, unity rests on state coercion and the erasure of cultural dignity, while Taiwan's own framework prioritises the protection of ethnic diversity and autonomous cultural expression. Critics accused Beijing of making little effort to conceal its expansionist ambitions, warning that Taiwan is increasingly likely to face hegemonic pressure as the law takes effect.

Parallel Concern: Chinese App Security Risks

The civic alarm over the ethnic unity law comes alongside a separate but related digital security warning. In May, Taiwan's Ministry of Digital Affairs (MODA) urged citizens to stay alert to cybersecurity risks from four Chinese-developed mobile apps: Amap, bilibili, iQIYI, and BIMOBIMO. Amap was flagged as carrying the highest number of risk behaviours, including continuously reading users' location, accessing contacts, and requesting microphone and audiovisual permissions on both major operating systems.

MODA's Administration for Cyber Security (ACS) noted that these apps may be legally obligated to share user data with Chinese authorities under China's Cybersecurity Law and National Intelligence Law, posing what officials described as 'a greater risk to national security.' Senior ACS official Lee Yu-wei urged citizens to scrutinise app permissions broadly — not only for Chinese-developed apps — and to use cybersecurity tools where necessary.

Together, the ethnic unity law and the digital surveillance concerns reflect a deepening anxiety in Taiwan about the multiple vectors through which Beijing is seen to be extending its influence.