The Ministry of Labor on Monday said it will not appeal the verdict in a case involving more than 1,000 laid-off workers.
The case began in 2012, when the ministry’s predecessor, the Council of Labor Affairs, filed a lawsuit against workers who had failed to repay loans from the council. The council claimed the loans had been re-employment assistance after the employees were laid off without severance or retirement pay in the 1990s.
Regardless of the real reasons behind this policy change, the ministry’s press release makes it clear that it is displeased with the judiciary.
The ministry begins by pointing out that the verdict differs greatly from past decisions by district courts around the nation, which typically ruled in favor of the council. The press release also said that other courts had asked the Council of Grand Justices to issue a constitutional interpretation of the case, as it was clear that different courts and judges had different interpretations and opinions, meaning that it would be impossible to reach a final, uniform judgement in the short term.
These comments amount to an accusation against the judiciary and have an even deeper impact on the public and lawyers than on the parties involved in the case.
One reason that similar cases yield different rulings is that individual judges have different points of view and interpretations of the law. Allowing judges independent jurisdiction and respecting their free and discretionary evaluations are unavoidable effects of democracy, the rule of law and the insistence on an independent judiciary.
Rulings are almost always a zero-sum game. Unless a settlement is reached, the winning side will be thankful and happy, and the losing side unsatisfied and critical. There are also rulings in which both sides are dissatisfied. Given that modern law stresses judicial independence, a ruling from a judge who has received extensive training and possesses a lot of experience will search for the truth, be objective, be guided by the law and not influenced by external influences, including public opinion.
However, in cases like the ones mentioned here, the facts and evidence were the same, with the exception of the individual workers in each case. Yet still, the rulings differed. Even if the Judicial Yuan does not respond to the ministry’s accusations, it should still think deeply about how to best avoid repeating situations like this one, in which no one finds clarity and no agreement can be reached.
While the independent jurisdiction of judges is necessary for an independent judiciary, it is hard for people who lack legal knowledge to understand why some judges viewed the cases as falling under private law involving loans, while others viewed them as part of public law involving re-employment assistance. This will have a major negative impact on the public’s already flagging confidence in the judiciary.
Just as former grand justice Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力) has said, when it comes to legal disputes between the government and the public, lawyers interpreting the law should focus on protecting the weaker parties.
Judge Wen Tsung-ling (溫宗玲), who was instrumental in helping the laid-off workers win their cases and was the first person to show the courage to define the cases as disputes of public law, as well as Judge Wang Pi-fang (王碧芳), who presided over the turnaround of five recent cases at the Taipei High Administrative Court, are both admirable.
The Judicial Yuan should use this case as an opportunity to win back the public’s trust. Another urgent task is the reform of legal documents on rulings to make them understandable to the public.
Chan Shun-kuei is a lawyer and chairman of the Taiwan Bar Association’s environmental law committee.
Translated by Drew Cameron
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS