Weng Yueh-sheng (翁岳生) retired as president of the Judicial Yuan on Sept. 30 on completion of his full term. In the preface to his book Eight Years of Judicial Reform, Weng wrote: "Judicial reform was instigated on behalf of the people. It is only with the support of the people that reforms will have momentum, and only with the trust of the people that they can be kept alive."
The idea that, in a democratized nation like Taiwan, the judiciary exists for the people paints a good picture of the fundamental values that underlie the judicial system. However, such noble words refer only to the ideal itself and do not adequately represent the reality.
Under Weng's tenure, many dissenting voices across the social spectrum were heard over political and judicial issues that he failed to address promptly. Indeed, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the wave of criticism was overwhelming.
However, if Weng's achievements during his tenure as judicial president were to be appraised on this alone, I'm afraid we would be ignoring the wider story. The above views are taken from the perspective of authority, but in this article I will try to look at things from the perspective of public interest.
A major amendment was made to Taiwan's Criminal Procedure Law (
But since the amendment, the prosecution is required to be present in court to present evidence and, together with defense lawyers, cross examine the witnesses to verify the reliability of their testimony. This enables the judge to hear the case more objectively as a third party to the proceedings to ensure an impartial verdict. Changes of this kind made court proceedings more transparent and helped improve public perception of the judicial system.
In April last year, the Judicial Yuan made a further amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law, placing restrictions on the ability of the public to bring litigation in an effort to lighten the workload of judges in courts of second instance. However, this met a huge public backlash as the integrity of decisions delivered in the courts of first instance had yet to come up to the level required to earn the public's trust.
This somewhat rash amendment had taken only the judges' case burden into consideration, raising the threshold of what could be taken to court and restricting the public's right to litigate, therefore making it difficult for the people to see flawed rulings put right. What had happened to the public's constitutionally guaranteed right to litigation?
The amendment finally foundered because of public obstruction. It did, however, succeed in bringing to light serious issues related to the question of whether judicial reform was actually being conducted with the public interest in mind. Put another way, if the starting point for judicial reform was simply to lighten the case burden for judges, it could only become increasingly divorced from the people.
Another case in point is the ongoing legislation of the Judges' Act (
Article 81 of the Constitution states that judges enjoy life-long tenure. It is therefore almost impossible to get rid of judges, including bad ones. A quick look at the disciplinary actions meted out by the Judicial Yuan's Committee on Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries over the past decade shows that fewer than 40 judges and prosecutors were removed from their positions as punishment.
Moreover, a majority of those punishments were related to issues of personal conduct. The number of cases resulting from flawed rulings was negligible, with the few instances cited arising from clear cut cases of unconstitutional custodial sentences. If we were to take away the number of prosecutors involved, the total would be even lower at less than 30 judges disciplined over the course of a decade, that is, less than three judges a year.
In order to remove judges who are not up to standards, a supervisory mechanism was set up and the Judicial Yuan started drawing up a Judges' Act a decade ago. This draft legislation only entered the review stage in the Legislative Yuan at the beginning of April this year.
A major piece of fundamental judicial legislation, the Judges' Act necessitates supervision by the Cabinet, the Examination Yuan and the Control Yuan and involves all kinds of peripheral considerations. Nevertheless, considering that the act has already been more than a decade in the making, what does that say about the efficiency of the judicial system in this country?
Skeptics have said that given the legislation's objective of removing bad judges, there is little chance that the act would pass because of self-interest and pressure from colleagues. While there is little evidence to back this assertion, it cannot be entirely ruled out.
Matters of justice and the judiciary are inherently complex and tweaking one aspect will invariably have repercussions throughout the system. If it is possible to conduct a thorough reform that places the interest of the people as its core driving principle, I believe the public will give such a project its whole-hearted support and will not shy away from showing due recognition.
Now that the presidency of the Judicial Yuan is changing hands, we have the perfect opportunity to take stock of the reforms so far, get a clear understanding of their goals and start anew. There is surely still much room to maneuver, and we can continue working toward the ideal of a judiciary for the people.
Lin Feng-cheng is president of the Judicial Reform Foundation and a lawyer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
RSS