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.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS