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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS