Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) is being commended by awakened residents mostly for daring to challenge convention, daring to act and not being afraid of making mistakes.
Ko, a physician, thinks that the current death certification process takes too much time and that this counteracts the utility of organs donated after the heart stops beating.
Therefore, he selected patients who he judged to be lifeless — but who did not yet meet the legal definition of brain death — to subject to tests.
After their life-sustaining medical support was removed and the patients’ hearts stopped beating, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was used immediately, while ECMO coronary circulation was blocked to see whether the organs to be donated could be preserved, and that the donor’s heartbeat did not restart in the presence of the prosecutor present to confirm the death before organs could be donated.
Ko’s pioneering initiative has indeed increased the usability of organs from donors without a heartbeat, but during the tests, removing life-sustaining medical support — which was akin to ending a person’s life — had not been legalized.
In addition to the standard for determining brain death pertaining to organ donations, Ko invented a nonstandard for organ donations from people without heartbeats.
Consequently, doubts were raised that he was acting in a legal gray zone and obscuring the line between proclaiming and causing death.
Ko relies on his sense of justice in challenging national laws and regulations that he considers unreasonable. Regardless of whether the state presses charges against him and whether his self-proclaimed justice is all-encompassing, he still carries a bit of the moral prestige that comes with civil disobedience.
However, once he became mayor of Taipei, it became necessary to apply a different standard to examine his legal challenges.
Ko proposed the use of Taipei’s surveillance cameras at notorious illegal parking spots to crack down on illegal parking and streamline the use of police officers.
Although he said that the proposal is still under discussion and not yet finalized, he said — based on his legal point of view — that policymakers must not be restricted by the law.
Ko also criticized opponents, saying that those who use complex regulations to hinder well-intentioned policies “have shit for brains.”
However, Ko seems to not fully understand that just because a nation under the rule of law enacts legislation to restrict the use of surveillance cameras for law enforcement, it does not mean that such laws are not made to serve the public.
Dictators faced with social progress often refer to the public interest as an excuse to gradually increase the power of the state, while passing laws that restrict using government power as the last defense for public liberty.
Perhaps only mature democratic societies that have learned their lessons from past experience of dictatorship and autocracy are able to insist on the real value of the rule of law.
Presently, the biggest challenge for increasingly aware residents is not to distinguish between Ko’s high intelligence and self-confidence and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) stubbornness, but rather to discern the opposing relationship between the power of Taipei’s residents and its mayor.
Chiou Wen-tsong is a member of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers