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
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