The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is pushing to amend the Nationality Act (國籍法) so that People’s Republic of China (PRC) spouses would no longer need to renounce PRC nationality before taking office. To justify this change, its legislators repeat two claims: First, that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is refusing to give PRC spouses political rights. Second, that under the Republic of China (ROC) constitutional framework, the PRC is not a “foreign state,” so PRC nationality should not be treated as foreign at all.
In fact, as a democracy, Taiwan already guarantees PRC spouses who hold ROC national IDs the same basic political rights as any other citizen. They can vote and register as candidates. The real legal issue begins only after they win an election. At that stage, Article 20 of the Nationality Act requires certain public officials to hold only ROC nationality. This rule does not target PRC spouses. It defines what it means to exercise public power in a sovereign state.
The Mainland Affairs Council has reiterated that the core of this rule is allegiance. A public official should owe loyalty to one country. Whether someone has dual nationality is a question of fact, not ideology. It does not matter whether the other nationality belongs to a state that Taiwan recognizes diplomatically or to a “political entity” such as the PRC. Article 20 does not speak of “foreign states.” It refers to “any nationality other than ROC nationality,” which clearly covers holding a PRC passport.
This requirement also applies to all dual nationals in sensitive positions. Some countries, for example Argentina, do not allow their citizens to give up their nationality. A dual national from such a country who runs for public office in Taiwan faces the same hurdle as a PRC spouse. If they cannot prove loss of the other nationality, they cannot legally take or keep the job. The principle is the same in every case. The barrier comes from the law of the other state, not from discrimination by Taiwan.
PRC spouses are stuck in a trap that was built in Beijing, not in Taipei. PRC law tightly controls loss of nationality and household registration. It does not offer a simple and transparent route for people who have settled abroad and wish to give up that status. Asking Taiwan to “solve” this by weakening its own safeguards, and by giving the PRC passport a shortcut that no other passport enjoys, turns a problem created in Beijing into a concession forced on Taipei. It is also deeply unfair to immigrants from Southeast Asia, North America, Europe and elsewhere who already went through the painful process of renouncing their original citizenship to commit fully to Taiwan.
However, this does not mean the state can simply walk away. Once someone holds an ROC ID, the government has a duty to protect that person’s right to take part in public affairs. The real question is how to offer relief in hard cases, while still respecting the principle of single allegiance.
Here Taiwan already has a concrete model. Article 28 of the Public Functionaries Appointment Act (公務人員任用法) allows, in exceptional situations, the appointment of people who have done everything required by Taiwan to renounce a foreign nationality, but are prevented by another state’s law. Even in such cases, they may only work in positions that do not involve national security or state secrets. In other words, Taiwanese law already recognizes that some countries refuse to let their citizens go, and it responds with targeted, case by case remedies instead of abandoning the basic rule.
By contrast, the KMT proposal would carve PRC spouses out of Article 20 entirely and pretend that the allegiance problem simply disappears. It does not. The Constitution and 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) clearly distinguish “Taiwan area people” from “Mainland area people,” who are governed by special rules precisely because they are not treated as ordinary citizens in practice. If PRC citizens were truly just ROC nationals, we would have to abolish the cross-strait act, let PRC passport holders live, move and vote here like domestic citizens, and cancel existing security screening. No major party is prepared to argue for that outcome.
Taiwan should treat PRC spouses with dignity and fairness, and preserve paths to residency, family life, naturalization and meaningful participation in public life. Yet when it comes to serving in public office, the principle of single allegiance needs to remain firm. PRC spouses who hope one day to serve in public life deserve our respect. They should not be turned into an excuse to weaken Taiwan’s safeguards.
Gahon Chiang is a congressional staff member in the office of Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Chen Kuan-ting, focusing on national security policy.
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
RSS