Judges are supposed to uphold justice. They should be the last line of defense in the judicial system. It is surprising, then, that Taiwanese judges have come close to the bottom in the recently published Taiwan Social Trust Survey. This unfortunate fact is more than a warning. It is an absolute disgrace.
The fact that the judiciary has arrived at this sorry state of affairs is certainly not without reason. Huang Jui-hua (黃瑞華) recently resigned as president of the Yilan District Court to protest the manner in which court officials and members of the Judicial Yuan tend to close ranks. This is another example of how bad things are. One is forced to conclude that the judiciary is something of a lost cause.
Huang quit because as head of the district court she was not happy with the decision by the court’s disciplinary committee to downgrade a disciplinary action imposed on the hapless Judge Chen Jia-nien (陳嘉年) from a written admonishment, as she had recommended, to a mere reprimand. Then the Judicial Yuan’s Judicial Personnel Review Committee declined even to issue a reprimand, letting Chen off with just a verbal warning.
With the disciplinary committee on one side and the personnel review committee on the other, both working to “protect their own,” Huang’s attempts at reform were destined to be thwarted. This being the case, her position became untenable. How could she not step down?
To see Huang’s resignation as nothing more than a dig at the Judicial Yuan is to give the issue less gravity than it deserves.
The important thing is that the Judicial Yuan missed an opportunity to redeem itself. In its own institutional self-interest, it frustrated Huang in her determination for reform and disciplinary action and subverted her authority as president of the district court.
Judges operate with impunity, handing down harsh penalties to defendants while tolerating each other’s abuses. Good judges follow suit, and disregard the rights of the public, unconcerned about trust in the judiciary. This is the beginning of a very slippery slope.
Huang began her resignation letter to Judicial Yuan President Rai Hau-min (賴浩敏) by asking him whether she was wrong. She asked him, when the interests of the judiciary come into conflict with the rights of the public, with which party the Judicial Yuan sides.
Huang knows whom she sides with: The public.
For her, Chen’s actions were a serious detriment to the rights of individuals involved in the cases he was hearing. First he neglected to ask social workers to attend the victim in a sexual assault trial, as is required, thereby subjecting her to a grueling cross-examination that ultimately resulted in her running from the court in tears. Chen had also delayed submitting papers for a year and 10 months. He has continually shown himself over the past three years to be a “dinosaur judge.”
Rather than Chen being sacrificed to the cause of judicial reform, however, it has been Huang, the person who has been trying to live up to public expectations, who has been cast as the bad guy.
Huang’s departure is but one chapter in this saga, but it at least shows us that courageous souls do still exist in that world, beacons of light in the darkness. We can only hope that she continues to shine, one day to rekindle the judiciary, to guide it back into the light.
Well done, Huang Jui-hua. We applaud you.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS