Judges are supposed to uphold justice. They should be the last line of defense in the judicial system. It is surprising, then, that Taiwanese judges have come close to the bottom in the recently published Taiwan Social Trust Survey. This unfortunate fact is more than a warning. It is an absolute disgrace.
The fact that the judiciary has arrived at this sorry state of affairs is certainly not without reason. Huang Jui-hua (黃瑞華) recently resigned as president of the Yilan District Court to protest the manner in which court officials and members of the Judicial Yuan tend to close ranks. This is another example of how bad things are. One is forced to conclude that the judiciary is something of a lost cause.
Huang quit because as head of the district court she was not happy with the decision by the court’s disciplinary committee to downgrade a disciplinary action imposed on the hapless Judge Chen Jia-nien (陳嘉年) from a written admonishment, as she had recommended, to a mere reprimand. Then the Judicial Yuan’s Judicial Personnel Review Committee declined even to issue a reprimand, letting Chen off with just a verbal warning.
With the disciplinary committee on one side and the personnel review committee on the other, both working to “protect their own,” Huang’s attempts at reform were destined to be thwarted. This being the case, her position became untenable. How could she not step down?
To see Huang’s resignation as nothing more than a dig at the Judicial Yuan is to give the issue less gravity than it deserves.
The important thing is that the Judicial Yuan missed an opportunity to redeem itself. In its own institutional self-interest, it frustrated Huang in her determination for reform and disciplinary action and subverted her authority as president of the district court.
Judges operate with impunity, handing down harsh penalties to defendants while tolerating each other’s abuses. Good judges follow suit, and disregard the rights of the public, unconcerned about trust in the judiciary. This is the beginning of a very slippery slope.
Huang began her resignation letter to Judicial Yuan President Rai Hau-min (賴浩敏) by asking him whether she was wrong. She asked him, when the interests of the judiciary come into conflict with the rights of the public, with which party the Judicial Yuan sides.
Huang knows whom she sides with: The public.
For her, Chen’s actions were a serious detriment to the rights of individuals involved in the cases he was hearing. First he neglected to ask social workers to attend the victim in a sexual assault trial, as is required, thereby subjecting her to a grueling cross-examination that ultimately resulted in her running from the court in tears. Chen had also delayed submitting papers for a year and 10 months. He has continually shown himself over the past three years to be a “dinosaur judge.”
Rather than Chen being sacrificed to the cause of judicial reform, however, it has been Huang, the person who has been trying to live up to public expectations, who has been cast as the bad guy.
Huang’s departure is but one chapter in this saga, but it at least shows us that courageous souls do still exist in that world, beacons of light in the darkness. We can only hope that she continues to shine, one day to rekindle the judiciary, to guide it back into the light.
Well done, Huang Jui-hua. We applaud you.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
RSS