The tragic case of judge Lin Hsiao-cheng (
It is well known that excessive caseloads are one of the root causes of the chronic problems in Taiwan's legal system. At every level, even the most conscientious prosecutors and judges are forced to cut corners. And in so doing, they inevitably raise the risk of mistakes being made. Not surprisingly, public satisfaction with the system is miserably low.
If a specific weak cog in the system could be found, perhaps a remedy would be more easily proposed. But institutional factors must take most of the blame for this sorry state of affairs. It begins with the police, who shift their work on to the prosecutors thanks to a warped bonus system that rewards officers for every case transferred to the judiciary, rather than only for convictions. The prosecutors then bear the primary responsibility for investigating the cases, which ought to be handled by police detectives. Prosecutors are also legally required to look into every case they are given, including those brought by ordinary citizens.
But before anyone starts weeping for the prosecutors it should be noted that they, in turn, shift a portion of their workload to judges. They, too, have an evaluation system based on the number of cases sent to court, rather than on convictions. And since prosecutors typically do not appear in court to participate in the trials, judges are left to interrogate the witnesses and suspects. This not only wastes the judges' time, but also leads them inexorably into assuming the role of the prosecutor, which is to actively seek convictions.
If only it ended there. Unfortunately, however, prosecutors are able to appeal acquittals ad nauseam and often do so frivolously. Moreover, the second trial typically rehashes to entire first trial, with all the witnesses and evidence presented again, creating a massive duplication of effort.
Tackling this many-headed monster demands a concerted effort. And part of the effort will undoubtedly require increased expenditure. Personnel need to be hired, including staff to assist judges and prosecutors. Police officers need to have more and better training to conduct investigations of criminal cases themselves, freeing up prosecutors to prepare their legal briefs. Hopefully, the 1997 constitutional amendment that grants the Judicial Yuan the right to draft its own budget will go some way toward addressing the problem.
But money will not, in the end, be enough. Institutional reforms are also vital. The points systems that reward police officers and prosecutors must be revamped. As for the trials themselves, much talk at last year's National Judicial Reform Conference focussed on whether to adopt a whole new type of trial, for example an Anglo-American jury system. Such radical changes ought to be at least considered, but in the meantime there are other reforms that could be implemented. District Court trials need to become more professional and complete to reduce the need for appeals, and appeals should be restricted to specific issues.
A positive start has already been made by civil society groups and a number of progressive lawyers. The judicial establishment has remained strongly conservative, but with public interest in the issue gradually increasing, recent cracks in its facade seem to provide the best hope for meaningful change.
During a mass judicial reform demonstration that took place in Taipei at the end of 1997, people were surprised by the participation of a tiny number of judges. In 1998, the creation of the Prosecutors Association marked the first time that a group of judicial officers organized themselves to push for changes. If the death of Justice Lin pushes judges to do likewise, he will not have passed in vain.
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