When the new legislative session starts at the end of the month, Premier William Lai (賴清德), who took office on Friday last week, will have to face legislators in general question-and-answer sessions.
A lot of people are wondering how he will handle questions about labor issues and pension reform for military personnel.
Apart from these issues, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus will prioritize legislation related to judicial reform, and it intends to enact some of the organizational restructuring and other proposals made by the National Congress on Judicial Reform, which held its summary meeting on Aug. 12.
This will fulfill one of the campaign pledges made by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) before she was elected, namely to make the judiciary into one that the public can trust.
This is an appropriate time to remind the legislature that it must rid the justice system of the toxins left over from the authoritarian era. Only then can the judiciary gain the trust of the public.
The regimes of former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) froze all kinds of rules that provided people with safeguards, turning the judiciary into a band of henchmen who helped the dictatorship get rid of its political opponents.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) happily used all kinds of rewards to absorb the entire judiciary into its web of complicity.
For example, for a long time the KMT collaborated with entities such as the Four Seas Gang and the Bamboo Union, and established a symbiotic relationship between prosecutors and organized crime.
Until quite recently, it was still quite common to hear reports about law enforcement officials shielding vice and gambling rackets, as well as obstructing investigations and evidence gathering.
In one of her speeches, Tsai asked rhetorically whether everyone who lived under authoritarian rule chose to be obedient.
During the authoritarian period, principles that apply in countries under the rule of law were shelved. From the point of view of human nature, one would not expect law enforcement officials of those days to stand up and resist tyranny.
Nowadays we enjoy freedom and the rule of law, but it still seems unlikely that judicial personnel who are used to obeying could, within a short time, break free of the bad habits formed over many long years and learn how to investigate and judge cases independently.
The way in which a judge was summarily replaced in the case against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the opaque manner in which prosecutors and the Special Investigation Division conducted the investigation involving then-legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) and DPP Legislator Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) are solid proof that some judicial personnel still do not act independently.
This is even more true of police officers, who serve on the judicial system’s front line.
When a student at a police training institute posted comments online criticizing people protesting pension reform, several former students of the institute threatened to make sure that the poster would not last in the police force.
The institute did nothing about the threats.
The police’s treatment of protests by retired former students compared with how they dealt with ordinary members of the public makes it hard for people to believe that such an organization can resist interference by its superiors or other powerful people.
Furthermore, it is well known that forbears’ traditions have greater weight than teaching about the rule of law at the Central Police University and the Taiwan Police College.
How can police who have been trained like this gain trust?
Of course, it is undeniable that judicial personnel have in recent years made considerable progress in terms of independence and professionalism. Nonetheless, the most pressing issue for judicial reform is how to excise the culture of obedience, which is a holdover from the authoritarian era that is still pervasive among judicial personnel, as well as the complicity that allows all kinds of outside interference.
Only by making a clean break with authoritarianism can the judiciary overcome the memories that have been deeply implanted in people’s minds over the decades.
There are three fundamental suggestions for lawmakers who claim to give high priority to judicial reform:
First, improve and oversee the independence of judicial personnel.
Second, eliminate the pervasive culture of obedience among judicial personnel.
Third, deconstruct the webs of complicity left over from the authoritarian era.
If the toxic legacy of authoritarianism in the judiciary keeps being overlooked, judicial reform will never succeed.
Lau Yi-te is chairman of the Taiwan Solidarity Union.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Burger King Taiwan on Wednesday last week posted an update on Facebook advertising a new “Wuhan pneumonia” (武漢肺炎) home delivery meal, catering to customers hankering for a Whopper, but who wished to avoid visiting one of its outlets. “Wuhan pneumonia” is the term commonly used in Taiwan to describe COVID-19. Beijing has been waging an extensive propaganda campaign against the use of the words “Wuhan” or “China” in reference to the novel coronavirus, calling it racist and discriminatory. Meanwhile, Chinese officials have claimed that the coronavirus might have originated in the US. The intention is obvious: to distract attention from the Chinese Communist
Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early-warning aircraft and Shenyang J-11 fighters on March 16 conducted a nighttime exercise in the waters southwest of Taiwan and, in doing so, came close to the nation’s air defense identification zone. Three days later, the PLA Navy’s fleet for Gulf of Aden escort mission sailed north in the Pacific off Taiwan’s east coast via the Miyako Strait on its way home. Meanwhile, the US carried out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and assembled the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group with the Expeditionary Strike Group to conduct
Italy, Spain, France, the UK and the US are all depending on social distancing to fight COVID-19 and have fallen into terrible situations, with mounting positive cases and many deaths. Social distancing might flatten the curve, so that the peak is not so high that hospitals are overwhelmed with patients, the problem is that the pandemic could extend further into the future, hurt the economy more and become unbearable for society. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Singapore have controlled the spread of COVID-19, and the main reason is that most Asians wear masks. It can be illustrated as follows: If someone contracts the
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on