As much as 76 percent of the public has misgivings about prosecutors, while 84 percent do not trust judges, according to a survey by the National Chung Cheng University Crime Research Center, which shows that the public’s level of trust in the judiciary continues to decline.
Many judges and prosecutors would probably think that this is unfair, and some might harbor doubts about how the survey was conducted; such reactions and doubts are natural. Nevertheless, the public has long had its reasons to distrust the judiciary and these reservations have grown over time.
The remedy has to fit the malady. The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) decided to simultaneously tackle political corruption and implement judicial reform. The experience of the past few years has shown that this was the wrong prescription.
First, justice must not only be served; it must be seen to be served. The judiciary must take public relations seriously, otherwise the public would have no way of knowing if progress has been made.
Is it not a communication failure when considerable amounts of time and effort are devoted to preparing court rulings when nobody can understand what they mean? When they fail to announce their reasons to indict a person or not, or when they do not immediately announce a verdict and instead complain about TV hosts, do they have anyone else to blame but themselves for their diminishing public images?
Authentic communication comes in many ways. In the past, government institutions were aloof and remote, but after the lifting of martial law in Taiwan, civil society has been constantly chipping away at authoritarian power.
If the police, in addition to fighting crime, can impart a sense that they are there for the people on the street, then why cannot prosecutors shed some of their imposing, mysterious image?
Should the whole interrogation process not be brought down from its heady heights? The strong-arm investigation methods are unpleasant for anyone. The culture of treating the people like straw dogs shows no signs of changing and the judiciary continues to be an affront to ordinary people.
The best way of bringing about a thorough change is the democratization of the judiciary. Simply put, this entails creating the maximum amount of accountability, with the proviso that judicial independence is achieved and maintained.
For example, the issue that the public cares most about is the removal of judges and prosecutors unsuitable for their positions.
Being “unsuitable” does not refer to those being on the take or having extramarital affairs, it also refers to those who try to wrap cases up spuriously, who only do their superiors’ bidding and who put their own interests first.
Transparency, such as in the hiring of personnel or in how verdicts are arrived at, is equally important as the removal of unsuitable personnel.
The most extreme — and indeed the most contentious — suggestion has been to popularly elect judges or prosecutors — with some exceptions — or to allow more public participation in courts.
In addition to expecting a new approach from the incoming government, Taiwanese are also hoping to be more involved in the process, to be more empowered and to have more say in how things are run.
Then, perhaps, they will be able to see the judiciary in a more positive light.
Kao Jung-chih is a lawyer and executive director of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US