There is a belief that the judiciary is the last line of defense for justice. By that same logic, judges are the judiciary’s last line of defense, but is that line “impregnable”?
The judicial system has had its fair share of “dinosaur judges,” a nickname bestowed upon judges considered to be biased with outdated ideas and questionable attitudes.
In a case about the alleged sexual assault of a six-year-old, a judge imposed only a light punishment on the defendant, stating in their verdict that “the act was not against the girl’s will.”
In another case, a defendant was exonerated because, according to the judge’s peculiar reasoning, “groping someone’s breasts for 10 seconds does not constitute sexual assault.”
Some judges speak loudly or harshly, while others mock trial participants and attorneys. It would be a waste of time to censure the overweening, flamboyant behavior and abuses of power of arrogant judges, who are convinced of their own inherent superiority.
Instead, focus on the judges willing to “interpret” and distort legislation and regulations as they see fit.
Such judges either rely on their own subjective interpretations or apply double standards in their rulings.
Last month, the Taipei District Court acquitted the New Party’s Wang Ping-chung (王炳忠) and fellow party members who were accused of recruiting people to develop a Chinese spy network in Taiwan on behalf of Chinese student Zhou Hongxu (周泓旭).
The acquittal was based on the reasoning that the court could not prove that the defendants posed a “clear and immediate danger” to national security.
This month, the High Court upheld the acquittal on the basis that, while Wang and others promoted events through Wang’s Web site, Fire News, and other organizations to attract supporters who share the New Party’s “peaceful unification” vision, and even though Zhou collected names of certain organizations and information on their staff through New Party member Lin Ming-cheng (林明正), Zhou did not commit any acts of recruitment or enlistment on behalf of an enemy, and therefore cannot be determined to have undermined national security.
The idea that a spy network for the Chinese Communist Party in its initial stages does not present an “immediate and apparent,” threat, let alone undermine national security, and that, as a result, the reason for acquittal for the espionage case “cannot be determined as having undermined national security,” is ludicrous and pernicious.
Based on the logic of the rulings, gang members concealing firearms could be considered as not posing an “immediate and apparent” threat or “undermining social order” if they did not open fire.
Few would argue that it would make sense for a judge to acquit gang members based on this reasoning.
If cohorts like Wang — who appeared to be collecting information on people and providing a foreign spy with names of local organizations — cannot be seen as aiding the enemy, who can?
The Taipei District Court and High Court both referred to national security in the foundation of their rulings, but so far the definition for undermining national security seems to be based on a judge’s subjective ruling rather than objective criteria.
Judges who give lenient punishment to those engaged in espionage or quasi-espionage are nothing but another type of “dinosaur judge” misusing the power invested in them.
When it comes to corruption cases, judges often have inconsistent interpretations of public officials’ legally defined powers and actual influence.
In 2006, the legislature approved an amendment to the Criminal Code that set standards to more precisely determe which public officials could be accused of taking bribes based on their legally defined powers.
Nevertheless, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was dissatisfied when former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was found not guilty in his trial of first instance on corruption charges related to a second round of financial reforms in 2010.
Ma summoned the president and vice president of the court for a meeting, two days after which the Supreme Court changed its ruling, and, departing from the interpretation that had stood unchanged for the previous 50 years, concocted the notion of “actual influence.”
This altered definition was clearly tailor-made for Chen. As a result of this unlawful and unconstitutional distortion of the law, Chen was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term.
On the other hand, in the trial of former legislator and Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) for corruption in 2013, the Taipei District Court found him not guilty by backtracking to the conventional interpretation that Lin had “no legally defined powers,” while setting aside the earlier interpretation of “actual influence.”
In another case, the same judge who handled Chen’s case, Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓), acquitted Ma of allegedly embezzling NT$11 million (US$374,787 at the current exchange rate) from his special mayoral allowance during his eight years as Taipei mayor.
Tsai’s verdict described in great detail the history and evolution of the allowance. It even referred to public funds during the Song Dynasty in China, as if the Taipei mayoral allowance originated from it. The ruling explained at great length that the allowance is a substantial subsidy for government officials.
Nevertheless, when judging Chen’s corruption and money laundering trial, Tsai adopted a different standard and handed him a life sentence instead.
These are blatant displays of double standards and cases ruled in accordance to a judge’s preferences.
There is ideology at work behind every verdict made by “dinosaur judges.” As judges possess absolute power to rule according to their subjective judgement, and even have the “protection” of life tenure, how do we prevent them from corrupting the system?
Who judges the judges?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor of National Hsinchu University of Education.
Translated by Rita Wang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS