The Taiwan People’s Party has a two-year clause for its at-large seats in the Legislative Yuan, with eight legislators expected to resign in 2026. Among the nominees for a replacement is Li Zhenxiu (李貞秀), the Chinese spouse of a Taiwanese national. The question is whether she must give up her Chinese nationality.
This issue is simple in some ways and complex in others. The law clearly stipulates that individuals of foreign nationality cannot hold public office in Taiwan. So, according to the law, Li cannot hold public office. The issue becomes more complicated when considering this question: Are those holding People’s Republic of China (PRC) nationality considered foreign nationals? If so, how should one go about renouncing their PRC nationality?
One might argue that the preamble of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC) (中華民國憲法增修條文) states: “To meet the requisites of the nation prior to national unification,” while Article 1 of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) states: “This act is specially enacted for the purposes of ensuring the security and public welfare in the Taiwan Area ... before national unification.”
From these examples, it seems that those holding PRC nationality are not considered foreign nationals. However, these provisions present a false and unrealistic narrative — the reality is that some countries acknowledge that Taiwan — the ROC — is a country, while others acknowledge that the PRC is a country.
Many democratic states have indicated that UN Resolution 2758 does not involve Taiwan, and therefore does not preclude Taiwan from participating in international organizations. In other words, Taiwan and China are both countries — or, in the words of President William Lai (賴清德), they are not subordinate to each other.
The Nationality Act (國籍法) stipulates that “a national of the ROC who acquires the nationality of another country shall have no right to hold government offices of the ROC.”
Therefore, people must renounce their foreign nationality — Chinese included — if they hope to serve as a legislator. Article 3 of the Legislators’ Conduct Act (立法委員行為法) states that it is the responsibility of legislators to perform duties on behalf of nationals, and should therefore observe the Constitution and be loyal to the nation.
Additionally, according to Article 2 of the Oath Act (宣誓條), legislators are required to take the oath outlined in the act, including the content: “I do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will observe the Constitution, be loyal to the nation, and perform duties on behalf of nationals without playing favorites and committing irregularities, pursuing personal profits, taking bribes, or interfering in the judicial process. Should I break my oath, I shall be willing to submit myself to the severest punishment.”
To be loyal to the nation, however, could one really possess the nationality of another country? How can you truly be loyal as a foreign national?
It is entirely logical that legislators must first renounce foreign nationality before taking office.
However, if Li wants to renounce her PRC nationality, obtaining the necessary documents might prove difficult. Article 16 of the Chinese nationality law states: “Applications for ... renunciation of Chinese nationality are subject to examination and approval by the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China. The Ministry of Public Security shall issue a certificate to any person whose application has been approved.”
In this situation, it is unlikely that the Chinese Ministry of Public Security would approve Li’s application and provide her with the documents to renounce her PRC nationality.
There might be a workaround: When Li takes her oath of office to become a legislator, she could publicly present a document indicating her intent to renounce her Chinese nationality. In fact, Article 9, Section 4 of the Nationality Act states: “A foreign national may be exempted from submitting a certificate of loss of original nationality if ... he/she cannot obtain a certificate of loss of original nationality for reasons not attributable to himself/herself.”
If she wishes to serve as a legislator, but does not renounce her Chinese nationality, the situation would become even more tangled.
Yu Ying-fu is a lawyer and professor of law at Fu Jen Catholic University.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS