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 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