Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years.
However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her.
Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge and use documents legally without consequences? Should not both women be considered coconspirators in Zhang’s case?
Zhang used her falsified Chinese resident identity card to enter Taiwan multiple times, contravening Article 212 of the Criminal Code, which states: “A person who forges or alters a passport, transportation ticket, exception permit, special permit; or a certificate, a letter of introduction, or the like concerning the character, capacity, service, or other qualification of a person and causes injury to the public or another shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year, short-term imprisonment, or a fine of not more than NT$9,000.”
In many cases, crimes like this are committed for convenience or to find work, which might invoke some sympathy, which is why lawmakers specifically endorsed the penalties. Identification documents, diplomas, exams, certificates and vehicle registration plates are common items that are abused in such cases.
Zhang used a forged Chinese ID to trick officials in Taiwan, ultimately obtaining a national ID card. Deceiving a public official using false documents undoubtedly falls into the scope of Article 214 of the Criminal Code, which says: “A person who causes a public official to make in a public document an entry which such a person knows to be false and causes injury to the public or another shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years, short-term imprisonment, or a fine of not more than NT$15,000.”
Could it be that the law does not apply in Zhang’s case?
Wang Chih-shao is a political consultant for the Taiwan Solidarity Union.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS