Recently, the Judicial Yuan has run large advertisements in the press to show its strong determination to push for judicial reform. The ads have received much public attention and they are an encouraging sign.
On July 6 last year, the Judges Act (法官法) was enacted, putting in place clear regulations about the employment, protection, evaluation and dismissal of judges and prosecutors. The Judge Evaluation Commission (JEC), initiated by the Ministry of Justice on Wednesday, deals with the dismissal and overall evaluation of individual judges. There is also a judicial disciplinary court scheduled to start operating on July 6 this year, which will review the performance of judges and is empowered to put them on trial or even dismiss them.
According to the Control Yuan’s figures, under the system that was in place from February 1999 until the end of last year, only 10 judicial officers were impeached and subsequently dismissed by the Judicial Yuan’s Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanctions Commission (PFDSC). Among the 10, half were judges and the other half were prosecutors. This falls way short of the public’s expectations.
Will the situation be improved by the Judges Act? Most experts say it is unlikely.
According to the new evaluation system, if one of the parties involved is unsatisfied with the conduct of a judicial official during an investigation or trial, they can file a complaint with the relevant authorities or the Control Yuan. They can also appeal to bar associations and civic groups — such as human rights or judicial reform groups — officially recognized by the Judicial Yuan.
If an investigation reveals that a case is eligible for a full review, an application would then be filed with the JEC, which is responsible for determining whether the judicial official should be punished. If so, the committee would report the case to the Judicial Yuan, which would transfer it to the Control Yuan for an impeachment review. The Control Yuan would then send it back to the Judicial Yuan’s court of judicial discipline for a trial and then the court would decide whether the official should be dismissed or relieved of their responsibilities.
With such a complex system in place, the whole process involves a considerable amount of overlap and duplication, which seems like a waste of social and judicial resources. It could also put the judicial official under review through a lot of unnecessary suffering, not to mention the fact that justice delayed could turn into a case of justice denied.
The public, including lawyers and judicial reform groups, are expecting the implementation of the new system to force all the unpalatable “dinosaur judges” into extinction. However, looking at the controversial ruling in a sexual assault case which triggered the “White Rose” movement, the controversy lay mostly in the appropriateness and applicability of the law. According to the Judges Act, it is not permissible to review rulings for individual cases which rest on an interpretation of the law, and it is certainly not possible to dole out any reprimands or disciplinary action for these.
The media recently reported that a controversial Kaohsiung District Court judge, surnamed Ke (柯), liked to humiliate parties in his court and even their lawyers, with his colorful and often offensive choice of words. Although his behavior was acknowledged to have violated people’s human rights and damaged the reputation of the judiciary, the PFDSC merely suspended him for one year. If the implementation of the act cannot push the judicial disciplinary court to issue tougher punishment, its effectiveness in eliminating poor judges will certainly be questionable.
In order to enable the JEC to carry out its task of removing bad judges, seven of the 11 commission members were chosen from outside the system. The Judicial Yuan believes that this can avoid professional bias and the practice of judges sheltering one another, and improve the commission’s independence and credibility.
Having the JEC taking over certain duties of the PFDSC does have its advantages, but what happens after the JEC members have assessed a given case? Are they, for example, to pass it on to the Control Yuan for an intermediary review to decide whether an impeachment is to go ahead? And then how would the five judges of the court of judicial discipline deal with the case? It is not clear whether the seven commission members from outside the system will actually be effective in facilitating the removal of bad judges from the system.
I remember Chu Chao-liang (朱朝亮) saying that prosecutors do not necessarily always desire a successful prosecution. Sometimes they merely want to teach the accused a lesson by virtue of the ordeal they go through. Similarly, some believe that with the new evaluation system, bad judges do not necessarily have to be dismissed or relieved of their duties, but rather putting them through an ordeal is sufficient.
Still, if the motives of the process are illegitimate or malicious, it would be as inhuman as what renowned law professor C.V. Chen (陳長文) described as people in judges’ robes abusing their own people. Such an attitude is also inhuman and should be avoided.
Su Yiu-chen is chairman of the Chinese Association for Human Rights.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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