An Independent and Quality Judiciary Still Needs Work: Statement on the Taipei District Court Ruling Ordering Former President Lee to Compensate Chairman James Soong NT$10 Million

Recently, the Taipei District Court ruled that former President Lee Teng-hui must pay NT$10 million in compensation to People First Party Chairman James Soong for defamation during an event organized by the Taiwan Research Foundation. Following the announcement, various opinions emerged across the political spectrum, and some media outlets called on our Foundation to express a view. While this indicates that our ongoing efforts in judicial reform have gained widespread attention, our Foundation operates primarily through its Standing Executive Committee as a collective decision-making mechanism and, constrained by manpower and time, cannot immediately comment on every judicial event occurring in society. However, because this case involves high-damage compensation for the infringement of personality rights between two political figures, our Foundation specifically offers the following perspectives:

First, although our Foundation has not seen the full text of the judgment, the media's retelling of former President Lee Teng-hui's speech content on April 24 is quite clear. While former President Lee certainly did not name names, he mentioned "...the candidate... went to sleep by himself... and even more remarkably, went to play mahjong...". If this did not refer to Lien and Soong, who exactly was it referring to? Who could "make some ordinary citizens go out and protest"? While our Foundation has no way of knowing the arguments and defenses of both parties, we believe that the factual determination part of this judgment is subject to public comment.

Second, what deserves attention in this judgment is how the compensation amount was determined. As is well known, in our country's court practice, the amount of compensation for mental anguish has historically not been high. Generally, when the right to life is violated, the mental anguish compensation for parents, children, or spouses is at most awarded NT$1 million or NT$2 million. Although reputation is a person's second life, awarding NT$10 million in damages for a defamation claim is exceptionally rare. Take, for example, the "ear-licking case" involving former Minister Twu Shiing-jer (涂醒哲): the damages awarded were only NT$600,000. Could the reputations of Tu and Soong truly have a "price gap" of ten to twenty times?

Therefore, if the judge's claim of rendering the judgment with a "calm mind" means being "free from interference," it is certainly worthy of affirming the current independence of the judiciary. However, "judicial independence" does not equal "judicial supremacy" or "judicial arrogance." Did the judge review the compensation amounts awarded for defamation cases in recent years prior to making this judgment? Furthermore, since the judgment already orders the publication of an apology in newspapers to restore reputation, why is such a sky-high compensation still necessary? Could it simply be because the plaintiff sought NT$20 million, and cutting it in half was deemed sufficient?

The emergence of such extraordinarily high compensation judgments shows that judges rarely engage in self-reflection regarding the arbitrariness revealed in their judgments. Setting aside whether the factual determination is correct, this judgment alone fails to provide sufficient reasons to convince everyone of such a high amount, making controversy across all sectors inevitable. This precisely demonstrates that Taiwan's judicial system still has much room for improvement.

How can we abandon the practice of selecting judges through examinations taken by university graduates who may be only 22 years old, and instead recruit talent from outstanding prosecutors and lawyers, while actively weeding out incompetent judges through a civic-oriented judicial evaluation mechanism? This should be the top priority of the Judicial Yuan. Unfortunately, our Foundation has been advocating for the birth of the "Judges Act" for a long time, and although its gestation has lasted far beyond "ten months," we still only hear thunder without seeing any rain. Our Foundation once again calls on the Judicial Yuan and political parties in the Legislative Yuan to swiftly negotiate and pass the "Judges Act," which remains the most crucial cornerstone for establishing a judiciary trusted by the people.

※ Published in: Liberty Times / Free Plaza