President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has decided that a national conference on judicial reform should be convened in October. Presidential Office Secretary-General Lin Bih-jaw (林碧炤) is to head the preparatory committee, which is also to have three deputy conveners and 15 members. Leaving aside the issue of whether this is the best composition for a committee, there are also questions about whether this is a good arrangement and whether October is the right time for such a conference.
Tsai is intent on bringing about judicial reform and on putting together a preparatory committee of ambitious people. This is a move in the right direction and it should be welcomed by the public.
However, the judiciary should be independent and the Judicial Yuan is not administered by the Presidential Office, although the Judicial Yuan president and vice president are nominated by the president and approved by the legislature.
The question is how the judiciary should be reformed, and how the reforms should be implemented. As such reform touches on judges’ jurisdictional rights, there are a few issues that not even the nation’s president can approach, let alone the Presidential Office secretary-general. This is why it is wrong to appoint Lin as convener of the preparatory committee.
The right way to go about judicial reform is to let the president initiate it and then pass the task on to the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice.
A national conference on judicial reform was convened from July 6 to July 8, 1999, during the administration of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). The preparatory committee was made up of the secretary-general of the Judicial Yuan, the justice minister and vice justice minister, members of the Judges Association and the Taiwan Bar Association, as well as judges, prosecutors and academics — 11 people in all.
They addressed 12 issues, establishing the agenda rules for the judicial reform conference, the daily schedule for the conference and the status of the Judicial Yuan.
The preparatory committee met nine times, and in addition, it held an explanatory meeting. The judicial reform conference was attended by 125 people and was followed by the publication of a report on the conference. The report could be used as a reference when preparing the upcoming conference, as it could reduce uncertainty and improve the preparatory committee’s efficiency.
The president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan are stepping down in October, and it would be awkward to have the outgoing president and vice president participate in the preparatory work for the conference. After all, it is precisely because they failed to facilitate reform that the national reform conference is needed in the first place, so it would be an embarrassment for them to participate.
Furthermore, they are counting down their last days in office, so who would have the heart to tell them to participate in preparatory work? October is probably not the best time for the conference.
The proper way to go about this would be to wait until the next president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan have been nominated and approved. Rushing to hold the conference in October, before the new heads of Judicial Yuan have been appointed, would exclude them from the conference, and that could make it difficult to accomplish continuity and implement the conclusions reached at the conference, and the result could be that judicial reform fails.
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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