Taiwan's Legislative Yuan is set to swear in six replacement at-large legislators today, including Taiwan People's Party (TPP) nominee Li Zhenxiu(李貞秀). While public attention has focused on her personal background, the controversy surrounding her seating raises a more consequential constitutional question: who has the legal authority to disqualify an elected official, and through what process should that decision be made?
（Related：
Hedging Against Trump Risk: How Global Trade Is Quietly Moving On
｜
Latest
）
A Collision of Jurisdictions
The Central Election Commission (CEC) has already certified Li's eligibility in accordance with existing procedures. In contrast, the Ministry of the Interior (MOI) has intervened, demanding proof that Li has renounced her People's Republic of China (PRC) nationality. The ministry argues that failure to provide such documentation obligates the Legislative Yuan to remove her from office.
The legislature has rejected this interpretation. As a lawmaking body, it maintains that it is not an enforcement authority and does not possess unilateral power to strip an elected legislator of their seat. Proceeding with the swearing-in, therefore, does not constitute an endorsement of any individual, but rather a defense of institutional boundaries.
The Problem of an “Impossible” Standard
At the center of this dispute lies a fundamental issue of legal feasibility. Within Taiwan's unique geopolitical context, requiring formal nationality renunciation documents from the PRC—a government that does not recognize Taiwan's sovereignty—creates a compliance standard that is often structurally unattainable.
When a legal system demands proof that cannot realistically be obtained, enforcement risks becoming arbitrary rather than rule-based. Such practices erode legal certainty and invite selective application, undermining the very principles that due process is meant to protect.
Restoring the Rule of Law
The question, then, is not whether nationality laws should be enforced, but how they are enforced. Past disputes involving nationality status were resolved through formal inter-agency verification and, where necessary, judicial review—processes designed to ensure legitimacy and accountability.
In any constitutional democracy, removing an elected representative is a measure of last resort. It must be grounded in transparent authority, clearly defined procedures, and legally attainable standards—not administrative assertion or institutional ambiguity.
The Bottom Line
Regardless of one's view on Li Zhenxiu's individual case, the principle at stake is broader and enduring. When eligibility is contested, procedure must come first. Without a clear, predictable legal path, the credibility of Taiwan's democratic system—and public confidence in its institutions—faces unnecessary risk.
You've read it. Now let's talk. Follow us on X. Editor: Penny Wang
