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
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
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS