Chang Yu-feng (張瑜鳳), the division chief judge who oversaw Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng’s (王金平) case at the Taipei District Court, is the only one of the 34 chief judges recently reviewed by the Judicial Yuan committee to be removed. This has led to accusations by legislators across party lines that the move was belated revenge by the government for Chang’s favorable ruling toward Wang after the September Strife last year.
According to Article 10 of the Judges Act (法官法) and the regulations for the selection of division chief judges, the selection shall be based on the judges’ integrity, academic background, work, skills and performance in carrying out judicial duties, with clear reasons provided.
The appointment of a division chief judge reflects a judge’s dignity, reputation and integrity, and for such a judge to be relieved of their position is tantamount to casting suspicion over that judge’s integrity, academic background, work and ability.
With the exception of a small number of judges who have been relieved of their duties in the past due to involvement in corruption or serious disciplinary issues, under normal circumstances, division chief judges are generally allowed to continue in their duties following the review.
It is therefore incumbent upon the Judicial Yuan to provide an explanation of why, in this case, it was deemed inappropriate to allow Chang to continue in the capacity as a division chief judge. This cannot just be glossed over simply because it was, apparently, a decision arrived at via a majority vote.
The judges review committee is made up of 11 members: five government appointees, three external appointees and three elected members. In addition to the five government appointees, two of the three externally appointed members were chosen by individuals high up in the Judicial Yuan. That is to say, the Judicial Yuan was able to influence, either directly or indirectly, at least seven members of the committee.
How very convenient for the government to have political sway over more than half of the committee, and relieve, through “a majority vote,” the division chief judge who refused to toe President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) line.
This incident reminds me of one in 2008, when Shilin District Court Judge Hung Ying-hua (洪英花) told the media of her concerns over the procedural legitimacy of replacing a judge during the corruption case involving former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), saying that it violated the constitutional principle of judicial independence in the assigning of judges to cases.
The Ma administration was furious, and Hung was removed from the case by the Judicial Yuan, completely counter to legal procedure and without giving a reason for her dismissal.
The Judicial Yuan is back to the same old tricks, this time taking action against a division chief judge who dared to go against the government’s wishes.
The government has once again shown its willingness to trample over judicial independence in its desire to purge the judiciary of whom it sees as a political thorn in its side.
It has offended democratic principles, in what is also an insult to this country’s pretensions to being run by the rule of law.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS