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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS