Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), a straight talker who says what is on his mind, has become a media darling. As he challenges big corporations and religious organizations, he has also gained the support of many Taipei residents and netizens. Despite all this, his plan to set up cameras where illegal parking is common has encountered stiff resistance from many academics, judges and netizens.
To save on human resources, Ko does not want police officers “to stand like scarecrows” at such locations 24 hours per day. This is the thinking behind an idea to issue parking tickets based on video recordings.
Ko says that video recordings are used to issue speeding tickets on freeways and proposes this method to improve law enforcement efficiency and reduce costs.
Opponents of the idea have raised several issues. For example, Taoyuan District Court Judge Chien Chien-jung (錢建榮) said that private vehicles fall under Article 22 of the Constitution, which gives people the right to determine where, how, to whom and to what extent their personal information should be provided, and that using surveillance cameras to maintain social order and prevent parking violations might be a violation of human rights.
Chien mentioned constitutional Interpretation No. 603 — which says that the Household Registration Act (戶籍法) requirement for people to have their fingerprints taken is unconstitutional — to highlight that the government is not permitted to record private information for the sake of administrative expediency.
The law is there to serve the public and it lays down restrictions to protect people from breaches and to prevent the government from violating people’s rights. The law is a contract between the state and the public, and an individual’s actions will be restricted by whether something is determined to be illegal, just as it places restrictions on the state apparatus.
Ko might say that “there is no law saying that it is not allowed,” but as long as constitutionally protected rights are involved, the government cannot arbitrarily implement a rule that goes against them.
According to the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (道路交通管理處罰條例), a driver shall receive a citation, not necessarily at the scene, if the driver breaches certain regulations, including any violation that can be proved by scientific instruments. This regulation also includes illegal parking, but only if the driver is not present at the scene. This means that a police officer would be required to provide evidence that the driver was not present, which would require additional time and resources.
The cost would not vary much from the cost of regular law enforcement, but there is the added risk that human rights will be sacrificed in the process. Even if surveillance cameras were only put in place as a “scarecrow,” aimed at deterring parking violations, it would mean that Big Brother is watching and threatening the public, and this is neither wise nor ideal.
As a physician and not a veteran politician or government official, Ko can come up with suggestions and unprecedented ways of how to deal with problems, but handling public affairs is different from medical crises. It entails more complicated issues such as the Constitution and the law, as well as political and public reactions. This means that something cannot be implemented just because there is no law explicitly prohibiting it.
On the other hand, when freedoms and rights are involved, they must not be restricted or compromised in any way unless it is explicitly allowed by the law. This is the legal lesson that Ko must draw from the surveillance-camera affair.
However, if he can obtain legal authorization to follow through on his suggestion, that would be a different matter altogether.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with