On April 12, legal professionals passed a resolution to propose a “diverse recruitment plan” for judges at a subgroup of the preparatory committee for the Presidential Office’s National Congress on Judicial Reform.
How diversified should recruitment of judges be? Can the government not recruit people from different areas of expertise through its judicial personnel examination?
As the plan would inevitably have an effect on the recruitment quota for the judicial personnel examination, making it more difficult for non-legal talent to pass the exam, would it not instead reduce diversity?
“Diverse” recruitment must rely on human review of applications. Considering Taiwan’s bureaucratic culture, it makes one wonder of the fairness of such reviews can be guaranteed.
The reason for diversifying recruitment channels is to boost the professionalism of judges. However, to achieve this goal reforming legal education should be the first step.
I was fortunate to enroll in a special postgraduate program for non-law graduates founded by professor Li Mo (李模) in the Department of Law at Soochow University and was able to transfer from the medical to the legal profession. Many of my colleagues have taken a similar path.
A number of universities have established similar master’s programs, allowing more non-law graduates to enter the legal profession.
As for the admission qualifications for the postgraduate program that I enrolled in, people seeking admission to the program must be non-law graduates with several years of work experience.
Students came from all walks of life and included accountants, nurses and architects with no connections at all in legal circles. Because the judicial personnel examination was fair and recruitment quota sufficient, they were all willing to leave their professions and take up studies, hoping to devote themselves to law and add to the diversity of the legal profession.
In recent years, there have been calls for the resumption of a single joint college entrance examination, mostly because of flawed educational reforms. Although a joint college entrance examination might not necessarily be the best method, it could at least break down social class barriers, so that poor students also have a chance to fulfil their dreams if they study diligently.
However, such an examination system is intolerable to the powerful, who always want to exercise their influence.
Similarly, if diverse recruitment is adopted, an accountant, doctor, auto mechanic or waiter who wants to be a judicial officer someday will find that the recruitment quota for the judicial personnel examination has been reduced.
Moreover, those with the power to manipulate the policy would probably still say “no” to these potential examinees, because their minds are fixed on legal expertise and maintaining the flexibility they require if they would want to change jobs some time in the future.
Compared with the new diverse recruitment plan, qualification requirements for the judicial personnel examination are low, giving everyone a chance to take the exam and become a judicial officer. This is particularly beneficial to those young people who dream of a career in legal services.
On the other hand, with regards to the diversified recruitment channels, how meaningful would it be to guarantee the recruitment of professors in university law departments who are already qualified to take the judicial personnel examination?
Reform is a beautiful word, but the so-called diverse recruitment plan simply comes down to raising the threshold for ordinary people.
Sena Chen is a prosecutor.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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