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
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS