政治籌碼、國家認同與公民身分：僑民參政權的法律史考察

Abstract

本文以「移出者公民身分」角度，考察中華民國大陸時期、臺灣關於僑民參政權（包含僑選制度、僑民選舉總統等權利）的變遷，除了探究國家與社會形塑、挑戰僑民參政權制度的動力，以及如何安置海外公民政治權利的正當性爭議外，亦關注法律如何在選舉資格中，劃定僑民身分及國民內部界線。本文認為，臺灣（中華民國）僑民參政權的制度形構，與國家當下所追求的政治利益緊密相關，而在民主轉型過程中，僑民定義及背後（曾）象徵的政治意義，則共構了今日有限度的僑民參政權體制。

首先，清末民初中國各版國籍法允許雙重國籍、出籍從嚴，以中國國族主義涵納效忠祖國的海外華人，隨之而生「僑民即國民」的平等論述，則為「僑選制度」納入中華民國憲法本文的論據之一。然而，僑民參政權在中華民國史並非毫無爭議，民初參議院曾激烈爭辯僑選制度的正當性，行憲後更曾受僑居國以侵犯主權為由強烈抵制。1945年後，原「臺灣華僑」（在臺中國人）的僑民身分亦隨之更易，1945年前「臺灣華僑」所選出的臺灣「僑選代表」，卻經國府當然列為1945年後「臺灣省」制憲國代的區域代表之一，實違民主原則。

國民黨政權於1949年敗退來臺後，將海外僑民視為反共重要力量，於1972年起舉行「增額中央民意代表僑選制度」，狀似號召僑民「回國參政」，惟自遴選方式、僑選代表名額比例、遴選工作委員會組成、總統解職權等制度設計，僑選制度實另有穩定政權、和緩增額中央民意代表選舉衝擊之政治目的。換言之，增額遴選僑選制度儼然為國民黨政權的政治籌碼──表面上爭取海外僑民對「新祖國」的認同與支持，另方面則遴選得以聽令行政權行事的僑選代表進入國會，形成「雙贏」。

相較1980年代臺灣社會興起對僑選制度的質疑，國民黨非主流派於1990年代憲政改革中，將海外僑民政治參與，視為避免「臺獨國會／總統」的政治象徵。憲法增修條文最終有限度維持、建構僑民參政權體制，是國民黨政權追求國會改選、總統直選等修憲政治利益，斡旋於大中國／臺灣國族意識形態拉鋸所生的制度設計。至於當今僑民（華僑）身分，固然在法律具相對明確的定義，惟在參政權資格劃定上，「戶籍」才是有無僑居資格、為國內／國外選民的真實劃界，且因「有無定期入境我國」為戶籍逕為遷出之要件，進而成為劃分國內／國外選民的癥結。

本文認為，臺灣（中華民國）僑民參政權制度的形構，與過去國家或執政者曾賦予僑民政治權利不同的政治意義相關，今日的僑民返國選舉制度，則是修憲時異質國族想像拉扯、執政黨政治利益追求等角力中的共構與妥協；另方面，僑民定義的困難、僑民背後所具政治象徵等爭議，為構築臺灣僑民參政權制度的特殊脈絡。至於未來境外投票相關制度變革，除了考量選舉制度執行上的公平性外，仍應有重新探究民主政治社群成員身分的邊界及資格之必要。

Through the perspective of “emigrant citizenship”, this study reveals the evolution of political rights for citizens abroad, including the system of reserved overseas representatives and the right of citizens abroad to vote in presidential elections, during the ROC period in mainland China and in Taiwan. It explores the forces shaping and challenging the political participation of citizens abroad, the legitimacy of enfranchising citizens abroad, and how the law defines the boundaries of both resident citizens and citizens abroad in electoral qualifications. The study argues that the political participation system for citizens abroad in Taiwan (ROC) is closely tied to the political interests pursued by the state. During Taiwan’s democratic transition, the evolving definition of citizens abroad and their political symbolism have jointly shaped today’s limited system of political rights for citizens abroad.

First, during the late Qing Dynasty and early ROC period, nationality laws permitted dual nationality but strictly regulated the renunciation of Chinese citizenship. This approach was influenced by Chinese nationalism, which aimed to retain loyalty from overseas Chinese, giving rise to the notion of "overseas Chinese as citizens." This concept became one of the arguments for incorporating the system of reserved overseas representatives into the ROC Constitution. However, the political rights of citizens abroad were not without controversy. In the early ROC period, the Senate engaged in fierce debates over the legitimacy of the reserved seat for citizens abroad. After implementing the Constitution, some host countries of citizens abroad also opposed the system, claiming it infringed on their sovereignty. Following 1945, the status of citizens abroad for “Taiwan Huaqiao” (i.e., ROC nationals in Taiwan) changed. Despite this shift, representatives elected by these “Taiwan Huaqiao" before 1945 were automatically listed as regional representatives under the new constitutional framework for Taiwan Province, violating democratic principles.

After retreating to Taiwan in 1949, the Kuomintang (KMT) government viewed overseas Chinese as crucial allies in its anti-communist efforts. In 1972, the government introduced an expanded system of reserved central representatives for citizens abroad, ostensibly to encourage political participation from overseas. However, the actual design of the system, including selection methods, proportional representation, committee composition, and the president's authority to dismiss representatives, served political purposes—namely, stabilizing the regime and mitigating the impact of elections held in Taiwan. The system thus became a political bargaining tool for the KMT, symbolically securing the support of citizens abroad for the “new homeland” while ensuring that the selected representatives acted in alignment with the KMT, thereby creating a “win-win” scenario.

By the 1980s, increasing criticism of the reserved seat for citizens abroad emerged in Taiwanese society. During constitutional reforms in the 1990s, the KMT's non-mainstream faction framed the political participation of citizens abroad as a measure to prevent from "Taiwan independence." The Amendment of the Constitution of ROC maintained a limited system of political rights for citizens abroad, reflecting a compromise shaped by the KMT’s pursuit of political gains (e.g., legislative reelections and direct presidential elections) and the ideological tension between Chinese nationalism and Taiwanese nationalism. Today, while the legal definition of “Huaqiao” is relatively clear, household registration is the primary criterion distinguishing overseas voters from domestic voters. Since regular entry into Taiwan affects household registration, it has also become a critical factor in determining electoral qualifications.

This study concludes that the construction of Taiwan's political rights system for citizens abroad is deeply connected to the shifting political significance attributed to these rights by the state or ruling parties over time. The current system for overseas voting results from competing visions of national identity and the pursuit of political interests during constitutional reforms. Additionally, the ambiguous definition of citizens abroad and their political symbolism have shaped the unique context of Taiwan's system of political rights for citizens abroad. Future reforms related to external voting should not only address the fairness of electoral processes but also reconsider the boundaries and qualifications for membership in the democratic political community.