On Monday last week, the Judicial Yuan released an initial report on judicial personnel who were involved in the corruption scandal surrounding Chia Her Industrial Co president Weng Mao-chung (翁茂鍾), saying that among the more than 200 civil servants involved in the case, a total of 20 judicial personnel might face punishment.
Before the report’s release, media revealed that as several dozen judges and prosecutors were implicated in the scandal, the Judicial Yuan had lowered its ethical standards to let them off.
To avoid punishing too many judges and prosecutors, the Judicial Yuan decided to not prosecute those who were not involved in Weng’s trials, and had been treated to less than five meals by him and accepted no more than three shirts or boxes of diet supplements from him.
It is only acceptable for civil servants in a judicial agency to sporadically accept gifts and only if it does not affect their specific rights and obligations, the Ministry of Justice’s Ethics Guidelines for Civil Servants (公務員廉政倫理規範) stipulate.
Additionally, the value of a gift must not exceed NT$500 when given to individuals or NT$1,000 when given to several persons within a judicial agency, the guidelines stipulate.
Even when a gift is not given directly to a civil servant in a judicial agency, if its market value exceeds the limit, they must report it to their supervisor within three days after receiving the gift and, under certain circumstances, also notify their agency’s ethics office.
Temporarily lowering the ethical standards places judges and prosecutors at the same level as general civil servants, for whom ethics standards are defined in the Service Act for Civil Servants (公務員服務法).
Following this rule change, judges who were not involved in Weng’s trials, but accepted gifts from him could perhaps be let off if the gifts had a total value of less than NT$500.
Anyone with a little bit of common sense understands that the kind of high-quality shirts the tycoon would gift, and those noble judges and prosecutors would consider accepting, are worth several times more than the limit stated in the ethics guidelines.
What exactly is the reason behind the Judicial Yuan’s decision to lower ethical standards, and who exactly made the decision? It would be very interesting to know the answers.
The ministry’s ethics guidelines were implemented in June 2008 under then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), and they do not set very high standards.
Considering the overall development of the judicial system, the government has on the one hand set the admission rate for judicial offices as low as 1 percent, making it extremely difficult for talented young people to enter the system. On the other hand, the government tolerates certain unethical senior judges who should have been eliminated from the system a long time ago.
Is this “anti-legal” ethic that turns right and wrong on its head the kind of message that the Judicial Yuan wants to convey to the world?
Lo Cheng-chung is director of Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS