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.
There has been much catastrophizing in Taiwan recently about America becoming more unreliable as a bulwark against Chinese pressure. Some of this has been sparked by debates in Washington about whether the United States should defend Taiwan in event of conflict. There also were understandable anxieties about whether President Trump would sacrifice Taiwan’s interests for a trade deal when he sat down with President Xi (習近平) in late October. On top of that, Taiwan’s opposition political leaders have sought to score political points by attacking the Lai (賴清德) administration for mishandling relations with the United States. Part of this budding anxiety
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
Tokyo-Beijing relations have been rapidly deteriorating over the past two weeks as China tries to punish Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks about Taiwan earlier this month, and the off-ramp to this conflict is yet to be seen. Takaichi saying that a “Taiwan contingency” could cause a “situation threatening Japan’s survival” — which would allow Japan to act in self-defense — has drawn Beijing’s ire and sparked retaliatory measures. Her remark did not gain public attention until Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) made an apparent threat to behead her. The two sides lodged protests against each
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Nov. 5 recalled more than 150,000 eggs found to contain three times the legal limit of the pesticide metabolite fipronil-sulfone. Nearly half of the 1,169 affected egg cartons, which had been distributed across 10 districts, had already been sold. Using the new traceability system, officials quickly urged the public to avoid consuming eggs with the traceability code “I47045,” while the remainder were successfully recalled. Changhua County’s Wenya Farm — the source of the tainted eggs — was fined NT$120,000, and the Ministry of Agriculture instructed the county’s Animal Disease Control Center to require that
RSS