I mean I know western media outlets never tried to hide their bias, but this is like bingo night. Let's see how many hits we get:
Use of the word sweeping:
"China has approved a sweeping new law which claims to help promote "ethnic unity" - but critics say it will further erode the rights of minority groups."
Use of the word rubber-stamp:
"The law was approved on Thursday as the annual rubber-stamp parliamentary session drew to an end."
So-called expert using emotionally charged language:
"The law is consistent with a dramatic recent policy shift, to suppress the ethnic diversity formally recognised since 1949," Magnus Fiskesjö, an associate professor of anthropology at Cornell University said in a university report.
"The children of the next generation are now isolated and brutally forced to forget their own language and culture."
Again use of absolute language:
"The law was voted and passed on Thursday at the National People's Congress in Beijing, which has never rejected an item on its agenda."
Suspicious anonymous monk quotes:
When the BBC visited a monastery that had been at heart of Tibetan resistance in July last year, monks spoke of living under fear and intimidation.
"We Tibetans are denied basic human rights. The Chinese government continues to oppress and persecute us. It is not a government that serves the people," one of them told us.
Again some no-name "professor of government", lmao i mean truly bottom of the barrel:
"The Communist Party says it embraces different ethnicities. The country's constitution states that "each ethnicity has the right to use and develop their own language" and "have the right to self-rule".
But critics believe this new law will cement Xi's push toward assimilation.
"The law makes it clearer than ever that in Xi Jinping's PRC non-Han peoples must do more to integrate themselves with the Han majority, and above all else be loyal to Beijing," Allen Carlson, an associate professor of government at Cornell University said, referencing China by the initials of its official name.
This is not a China-specific comment, which makes the following sentence seem more broad as well. But, frankly, it is also incorrect even in a China-specific context. Firstly, because this is a law that mandates national-language education, and secondly, because you cannot possibly speak on behalf of every minority language speaker in China. there is nothing frank about that claim, just a claim to encompass entire populations based on the people you personally have met.
It would be just as wrong for me to claim that no minority language speakers want to learn Chinese because I have met Hakka Chinese who are bitter about needing to learn Mandarin.
As far as giving them opportunities: sure, this is true. But it could be just as possible a solution to expand minority-language opportunities as it is to legislate away minority-language education. It's a narrow-minded solution to a large problem that is easily brushed aside as a minority concern.
Just because your indigenous group's region is encompassed into a larger governing body does not mean you should need to learn another language. Why shouldn't the people governing you presume to learn your language if communicating with you is so important? If they are representing your group at a national level, if they lay claim to your ancestral territory, why aren't they able to take an effort to ensuring that your integration into a wider society doesn't come at the cost of your cultural identity?
This effort is what leads to reciprocal language exchange--and ultimately, inspires people to learn the dominant language out of choice, rather than coercion.