Taiwan’s judiciary has long suffered from a malaise and a lack of public trust. The government’s national conference on judicial reform that started on Monday is the first real effort at reform since the failure of the national conference in 1999.
Hopefully, viable proposals to improve the judicial system and its operational efficiency will be made this time, so that the judiciary can win back public trust.
Many of the reforms up for debate are issues that were not resolved 18 years ago. Taiwan has become a much more open and democratic society since then, and calls for meaningful reforms are much louder. A number of these issues are relatively easy to resolve, but systemic reform is another matter.
During former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration the will was there, but the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) controlled the legislature, and any bills geared toward reform that were sent to the legislature disappeared.
Chen made only modest progress during his two terms in office. His successor, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), despite having a law degree and having been minister of justice, was not committed to judicial reform, and his proposals were met with a tepid reception, despite his advantage in controlling the executive and legislative branches. For eight years under Ma, judicial reforms were ignored.
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration is far better placed to initiate reforms. Judicial Yuan President Hsu Zhong-li (許宗力) and Minister of Justice Chiu Tai-san (邱太三) are Tsai’s appointees. As convener of the national conference, Tsai is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the reforms.
For now, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is in the legislative majority and so there is unlikely to be resistance to draft proposals. This is a rare opportunity for judicial reform and it must be seized.
The latest opinion polls show that about 40 percent of Taiwanese have confidence in the Tsai government delivering judicial reforms. That means a majority remain doubtful. Public confidence has dropped 7.9 percentage points compared with a poll taken in August last year, suggesting most Taiwanese are pessimistic about reforms.
The lack of public confidence could be because of the apparently hurried preparations for the conference and questions about committee members, as well as the opaque way in which committee meetings have been conducted. There is a suspicion that the conference is purely formal and that many decisions have already been made.
The 1999 reform attempt was handled differently. It was overseen by the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice, sought comprehensive debate on, and restructuring of, the system from within, using a three-phase triangulated review process.
The latest attempt is overseen by the Presidential Office, with opinions solicited from outside.
Although opinions have been sought and despite the majority of committee members being from outside the judiciary, and regardless of efforts to include society’s input, judicial reform as a whole will rely on the judicial reform committee discussions to keep debates focused.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS