A national affairs conference on judicial reform is planned, but the sheer complexity of judicial reform means that it is unlikely to produce results, especially if certain core questions are not clarified.
First, how wide a scope is judicial reform actually supposed to cover? The narrow definition of “judicial organs” includes only the Judicial Yuan and the district, high and supreme courts that are subordinate to it, while the broad definition also includes prosecutors, police, the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau, prisons, detention centers and all other departments concerned with justice.
The issues concerning judicial organs in the broad sense cannot be resolved in a few short days. The conference should focus on the Judicial Yuan and its subordinate courts. The central idea of the separation of powers, namely the executive, legislative and judicial powers, is that they serve as checks and balances to one another.
The judiciary is the weakest of these three powers and this prevents it from performing its proper function. If the conference takes this as its central theme, all related departments, groups and individuals must do their utmost to work together to achieve their common goal of making judicial organs function better.
Second, should the judicial reform conference be defined as a consultative or policymaking body? How are its relations with the president of the Republic of China (ROC) and the president of the Judicial Yuan to be defined? Political accountability is one of the basic characteristics of democratic politics.
In accordance with this principle, Taiwanese authorize the president to exercise executive power and the president in turn appoints the president of the Judicial Yuan with the mandate of exercising the judicial administration aspect of judicial power, while the nation’s judges collectively hold the power of judicial judgement.
Since the presidents of the ROC and the Judicial Yuan are mandated to exercise their respective powers, they must bear full responsibility for doing so and cannot unload that responsibility onto anyone else. In view of this, the judicial reform conference should be defined as a consultative body and not a policymaking one.
Based on their respective powers and responsibilities, the presidents of the ROC and the Judicial Yuan should have absolute power regarding any resolutions adopted by the conference. Such an arrangement would comply with the basic concept of political accountability, as is the case with pension reforms.
If the conference is a consultative body, the question of whether it should arrive at its decisions by majority vote or consensus will not be a key concern.
Third, what criteria should be used to judge whether the reform is successful? The most essential requirement is that judicial bodies must be trusted by the public, so that degree of trust would be the best measure by which to judge its success.
However, the nature of the judiciary is such that, no matter how many people, time or resources are invested in it, there will never be a judiciary that enjoys the confidence of the entire public — it is only a matter of degrees.
So, following the conference, a specialized agency should be appointed to conduct public confidence surveys and take the results as the baseline, then continue to conduct such surveys once or twice a year to gauge confidence levels.
If confidence improves, it would be possible to say that judicial reform has been effective and successful.
Chen Chien-shun is a Hsinchu District Court judge.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath