In recent days, a KMT legislator has proposed eligibility criteria for the posts of president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan in a bill to amend the Organic Law of the Judicial Yuan (
Actually, the lawmaker's proposals are not just inappropriate; they offer no real benefits whatsoever.
Consider the age ceiling, for example. First, in the entire law of the land age ceilings are neither imposed on the nation's president, the vice president, nor heads of the four other branches of government. Why should the president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan be singled out?
Furthermore, if we look at the relevant laws of other nations, although there is a minimum age requirement of 40 for supreme court justices in Germany and Japan, there appear to be no examples of laws setting age ceilings. Moreover, the cultivation of legal experts requires time. Since most judges enjoy special privileges and are not required to retire at age 65, it's hard to understand why the highly respected grand justices should receive worse treatment than ordinary judges.
Many truly great legal scholars continue to conduct research after the age of 65. Wouldn't an age ceiling be a denial of potential breakthroughs in legal studies?
Further, consider the proposed requirement that candidates for the presidency and vice presidency of the Judicial Yuan must have served for at least three years as grand justices. First of all, Additional Article 5 of the Constitution states, "The Judicial Yuan shall have 15 grand justices ... two of whom will be president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan ..." Thus the Constitution only appears to require that the president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan be grand justices. It does not prescribe any other qualifications, nor delegate any authority to do so. Can it therefore be constitutional to pass legislation that will add requirements that aren't mentioned in the Constitution? We doubt it.
Moreover, apart from their responsibilities as grand justices, the primary duties of the president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan are to handle a raft of administrative matters, and administrative ability has little to do with serving for three years as a grand justice. Prescribing inappropriate qualifications in this way to rule out the promotion of the most outstanding and most suitable talent amounts to unreasonably restricting the president's ability to nominate candidates for the jobs.
Everyone knows that at present the most important challenge facing legal circles is to accelerate the pace of judicial reform in accord with the ardent wishes of the public in this critical period. We believe that the next president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan should have the following qualifications in addition to those explicitly listed in the Constitution: first, the courage to protect human rights, a mature understanding of democracy, constitutional ideals and legal expertise; second, a strong calling to defend judicial independence and the ability to improve the judicial environment and the quality of verdicts; third, commitment to judicial reform without fear of ridicule or slander or considerations of personal gain and loss; fourth, the ability to manage people and outstanding leadership skills. No restrictions on age or experience are necessary.
Outstanding leadership skills and the courage and determination to carry out reform are certainly far more important in a leader than the date of birth printed on his identity card. Since the president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan are the highest ranking leaders in the judiciary, they should naturally be appointed in accord with the above principles.
Unfortunately, in the proposal to require additional qualifications for the president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan, we see no demands for constructive leadership qualifications. Indeed, the proposals would rule out suitable candidates for the posts, which would be very damaging to the nation as a whole. Lawmakers should adopt the utmost caution as they review this proposal.
Ku Chung-hwa is a professor of sociology at National Chengchi University and chairman of the Taipei Society. Shirley Lin is executive general of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS