Taiwan’s judiciary has long suffered from a malaise and a lack of public trust. The government’s national conference on judicial reform that started on Monday is the first real effort at reform since the failure of the national conference in 1999.
Hopefully, viable proposals to improve the judicial system and its operational efficiency will be made this time, so that the judiciary can win back public trust.
Many of the reforms up for debate are issues that were not resolved 18 years ago. Taiwan has become a much more open and democratic society since then, and calls for meaningful reforms are much louder. A number of these issues are relatively easy to resolve, but systemic reform is another matter.
During former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration the will was there, but the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) controlled the legislature, and any bills geared toward reform that were sent to the legislature disappeared.
Chen made only modest progress during his two terms in office. His successor, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), despite having a law degree and having been minister of justice, was not committed to judicial reform, and his proposals were met with a tepid reception, despite his advantage in controlling the executive and legislative branches. For eight years under Ma, judicial reforms were ignored.
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration is far better placed to initiate reforms. Judicial Yuan President Hsu Zhong-li (許宗力) and Minister of Justice Chiu Tai-san (邱太三) are Tsai’s appointees. As convener of the national conference, Tsai is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the reforms.
For now, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is in the legislative majority and so there is unlikely to be resistance to draft proposals. This is a rare opportunity for judicial reform and it must be seized.
The latest opinion polls show that about 40 percent of Taiwanese have confidence in the Tsai government delivering judicial reforms. That means a majority remain doubtful. Public confidence has dropped 7.9 percentage points compared with a poll taken in August last year, suggesting most Taiwanese are pessimistic about reforms.
The lack of public confidence could be because of the apparently hurried preparations for the conference and questions about committee members, as well as the opaque way in which committee meetings have been conducted. There is a suspicion that the conference is purely formal and that many decisions have already been made.
The 1999 reform attempt was handled differently. It was overseen by the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice, sought comprehensive debate on, and restructuring of, the system from within, using a three-phase triangulated review process.
The latest attempt is overseen by the Presidential Office, with opinions solicited from outside.
Although opinions have been sought and despite the majority of committee members being from outside the judiciary, and regardless of efforts to include society’s input, judicial reform as a whole will rely on the judicial reform committee discussions to keep debates focused.
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
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