Taiwan held its first international review meeting on the Republic of China’s (ROC) Initial Report Under the UN Convention Against Corruption last week. Among the various issues discussed, judicial corruption and accountability attracted the most attention. The reason is that anti-corruption regulations would exist in name only if the judicial system cannot enforce them.
An example of how the judiciary is malfunctioning is the case of former High Court prosecutor Chen Yu-chen (陳玉珍), who has been called “the greediest prosecutor in Taiwan’s history” for taking bribes of more than NT$23 million (US$748,430 at the current exchange rate) from gaming arcade operators.
After Chen was in 2014 sentenced to 12 years in prison in the court of first instance, the collegiate bench in the court of second instance allowed her to repeatedly take leave from court sessions, and she appeared only three times in the past three years.
This case is not an exception. If the judicial system is allowed to gloss over such corruption, the public will never believe in the government’s determination to crack down on corruption.
“Judicial accountability” is a core principle of the UN Convention Against Corruption, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is also an important mechanism in international law, which has established international standards for it.
In the end, the implementation of the concept under these covenants depends on whether an independent, effective and impartial judicial system can be established.
At the same time as judges, prosecutors and lawyers are protected by judicial independence, they should take responsibility for their own actions, and not use judicial independence to protect rampant corruption.
Hence, judicial independence and judicial accountability are two codependent elements. They are part of the judiciary’s obligations to the nation, and the executive or legislative branches cannot intervene.
People generally think that judicial accountability means punishing judicial personnel who neglect their duties.
However, international norms attach greater importance to providing effective relief to victims, such as compensation, restitution and satisfaction via apologies or commemoration in public, as well as avoiding recidivism and reviewing related laws and customs.
Only by providing concrete relief to innocent judicial victims is it possible to force the judiciary to engage in sincere reflection and correct its mistakes.
Thanks to the efforts of civil groups, such as the Taiwan Innocence Project and the Judicial Reform Foundation, more miscarriages of justice have been reversed in the past few years.
This is an indication of judicial progress, but also brings the issue of reparations to the forefront.
The National Conference on Judicial Reform last year issued a resolution demanding that the Judicial Yuan work harder to protect judicial victims.
However, the Judicial Yuan’s proposed draft amendments to the Compensation for Wrongful Detentions and Executions Act (刑事補償法) have fallen short of societal expectations and are not in line with UN standards.
According to international norms, judicial accountability not only extends to wrongful imprisonment, but also to judicial misconduct, such as misjudgments, delayed trials, discrimination or abuse of power, and judicial relief.
The scope of judicial victims includes the victims’ lineal or dependent relatives, as well as individuals or groups that suffer from helping a victim or stopping a crime. All these are excluded from the draft amendments proposed by the Judicial Yuan.
The Judicial Yuan is only willing to take responsibility for financial compensation, passing responsibility for other social compensation mechanisms to the Executive Yuan. This not only violates the state obligation of judicial accountability, but also hurts the image of judicial independence.
The biggest disappointment is that the Judicial Yuan has failed to respond to the national conference’s resolution on establishing a research center for wrongful cases. Judicial accountability should be about learning from cases to avoid repeating mistakes.
In Chen’s case, in addition to exempting illegal gaming arcade operators from prosecution, she instructed operators to wrongly accuse police officers of misconduct so that police investigation would be obstructed.
During her more than two decades as a prosecutor, she also blocked notoriously mishandled cases from being overturned.
Surely there should be a research center that could look into her corruption and negative effect on mishandled cases.
The judiciary can sometimes harm people. In addition to the victims who suffer wrongful imprisonment, the people hurt by a judiciary member’s abuse of power deserve to be addressed.
The Judicial Yuan should use the review meeting to gain a better understanding of the international standards for judicial accountability, and to severely punish judicial personnel who conceal corruption.
It should resubmit amendments to the Compensation for Wrongful Detentions and Executions Act that are both daring and in line with international trends, while at the same time building an effective protective mechanism for victims of the judiciary to demonstrate the government’s determination to fight corruption.
Hsiao I-min is a former director of the Judicial Reform Foundation’s judicial complaint center.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS