Executive Yuan Minister Chen Chien-min (
Article 81 of the Constitution reads as follows: "Judges should hold office for life. No judge shall be removed from office unless he has been found guilty of a criminal offense or subjected to disciplinary measure or declared to be under interdiction. No judge shall, except in accordance with law, be suspended or transferred or have his salary reduced."
However, under the prolonged political rule and monopolization of power by the KMT, the significance underlying the constitutional guarantee of judges' life-long tenure has been long overlooked. In fact, the office of "judge" has long been seen by many as a stepping stone into a political career. Judges who are interested in becoming politicians keep their eyes open for "golden opportunities" to curry favor with those in power, even as they sit in their chambers.
From the standpoint of a constitutional separation of power between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, this type of behavior needs to be corrected. Some judges' fascination with a career in politics is seemingly more important than their work in the judiciary. This explains their inability to shirk political interference.
Government administrators who once served as judges have abandoned their supposedly "beloved" judicial offices without looking back when faced with calls by those in power. Now that the KMT has been defeated in the election, their passion for "judicial reform" has suddenly been revived.
This change of attitude is simply too abrupt and the judiciary has good reasons to take a cautious stance so that government administrators who have become jobless as a result of the KMT's defeat do not treat the judiciary as a bomb shelter against political storms. They should not treat positions within the judiciary as a political panacea.
Perhaps the rotation of political parties could bring about a new beginning for the judiciary and help it establish an impartial image. This is the only way that judges and prosecutors can learn to appreciate the significance of a life-tenure system under which they have no need to conform with the values of political power.
Both Shou Chi-yang (
Actually, severing the umbilical cord between law and politics isn't all that difficult. Former commissioner of the Provincial Council Hsieh Chin-ting (
The judicial system has long-striven for progress in terms of separating judicial and political power. Hopefully, the judiciary will never ever again take the back road.
The times are changing, the tide is changing as well and beliefs, therefore, must also change. Of course, judges can still choose to become politicians. However, they must be held responsible for their choices.
Chang Sheng-hsin is a judge in the Taichung district court.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS