Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Legislator Li Zhenxiu (李貞秀), who was born in China and moved to Taiwan after marrying a Taiwanese citizen, is one of the party’s new legislators-at-large. However, she has not yet renounced her Chinese nationality.
Article 20 of the Nationality Act (國籍法) clearly stipulates: “If a national of the Republic of China [ROC] who concurrently has the nationality of another country wants to hold a government office limited by nationality as determined by this Article, they shall handle the waiver of the other country’s nationality before taking office and complete the loss of that country’s nationality and the acquisition of certification documents within one year from the date of taking office.”
Taiwan’s laws explicitly prohibit people with dual nationality from holding public office. I myself was once subject to this requirement, and my experience might serve as a reference. In 1993, I was selected as a legislator-at-large for the Democratic Progressive Party. Upon returning to Taiwan, I followed regulations and inquired with the American Institute in Taiwan about the procedures for renouncing my US citizenship. I was informed that because Taiwan and the US have no official diplomatic relations, I had to travel to another country with a US embassy to take an oath of renunciation.
I promptly booked a flight to the US embassy in Japan. On the morning of my arrival, US officials inquired about my reasons for renouncing my citizenship and urged me to reconsider. I explained my legal obligation to assume public office in Taiwan. Although they respected my decision, they still asked me to take half a day to reflect. I left the embassy temporarily and returned later that afternoon to reaffirm my intent. They then issued me a document titled “Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States,” which contained my personal information and the signature of a US official. After returning to Taiwan, I immediately submitted the renunciation certificate to the Legislative Yuan — only then was the legal procedure for assuming public office with a single nationality considered complete.
In Li’s case, the possibility exists that China might refuse to allow Chinese spouses to renounce their nationality. This highlights the paradox for people with such status holding public office in Taiwan. The Chinese government not only denies the legitimacy of Taiwan’s government system, but has also threatened military force — therefore, for a Chinese national to hold public office in Taiwan clearly creates a conflict of loyalty.
Moreover, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly clarified the duty of loyalty required of civil servants. Interpretation No. 618 states: “No person from the Mainland Area who has been permitted to enter into the Taiwan Area may serve as a public functionary unless he or she has had a household registration in the Taiwan Area for at least 10 years.”
It further emphasizes that “a public functionary, once appointed and employed by the State, shall be entrusted with official duties by the State under public law and shall owe a duty of loyalty to the State.” Granting differentiated treatment regarding their eligibility to serve as a civil servant was thus deemed reasonable.
Furthermore, Interpretation No. 768 states that people with dual nationality may not work as government-contracted physicians. The grand justices held that physicians working in public hospitals also fall within the category of civil servants as defined under the Civil Service Employment Act (公務人員任用法). As such, they are subject to the same restrictions applicable to civil servants with dual nationality — those already appointed must be dismissed. This was deemed to serve the legitimate purpose of maintaining loyalty between the state and its civil servants.
A comprehensive review of the two constitutional interpretations shows that their core principles are firmly grounded in the duty of loyalty required of public officials. Their reasoning is clear — given that many Western countries are generally friendly toward Taiwan, a person who holds Canadian citizenship is generally seen as posing fewer national security concerns, yet they are still barred from serving as government-contracted physicians. By contrast, China allows people who hold People’s Republic of China citizenship to serve as ROC legislators. This clearly deviates from empirical reasoning. Even if current laws and regulations are still imperfect, according to the legal argument of minori ad maius — what is true for a smaller, less important case must be even more true for a larger, more significant one — it is a clear breach of the duty of loyalty.
Mark Chen is a former minister of foreign affairs.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS