Comments on the Judicial Reform Platforms of the Two Presidential Candidates in the TV Debate

The historically significant first presidential election TV debate has successfully concluded amidst widespread attention. Both candidates demonstrated democratic demeanor, eloquence, and a steady stage presence throughout the process, which is commendable. The inclusion of judicial reform in the first round of questioning not only highlights that a sound judiciary is a fundamental prerequisite for democratic politics and effective human rights protection, but also shows that the judiciary is still distrusted by the public at this stage, making judicial reform a necessary issue in the presidential election.

Regarding the issue of judicial reform, during the first stage of questions in the TV debate, Judicial Reform Foundation CEO Lin Ching-p'ing first asked Mr. Lien Chan: "You previously supported the resolutions of the National Conference on Judicial Reform, yet KMT and PFP legislators recently boycotted the passage of the draft Judicial Yuan Organization Act in the Legislative Yuan. This not only contradicts Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 530, but also seems to go against your past stance of supporting the conference resolutions. Has your position and direction on judicial reform changed? If so, what are your current proposals? If not, why are KMT and PFP legislators boycotting the passage of the draft Judicial Yuan Organization Act?"

It is gratifying that both candidates, in responding to the above questions, declared their firm determination and stance to promote judicial reform and support the resolutions of the National Conference on Judicial Reform. Notably, regarding the question of whether the structure of the Judicial Yuan and the overall adjudication system should adopt a pluralistic multi-track, unitary multi-track, or unitary single-track model, Mr. Lien displayed an open attitude, stating that he agreed with all of them, and that what matters is the determination to have the draft Judicial Yuan Organization Act passed in this legislative session. Mr. Lien's response above fully demonstrates his determination for judicial reform and is certainly commendable. As Mr. Lien is running for the presidency representing the KMT and PFP, his policy platforms should naturally be regarded as the stance of both parties. Therefore, based on political credibility, KMT and PFP legislators should clearly follow the stance of their party chairman, abandon their opposition to making the Judicial Yuan an adjudicatory body, and abandon the stance that maintaining the current pluralistic adjudication system violates Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 530. They should strive to have the draft Judicial Yuan Organization Act passed before the March 20 presidential election to fulfill their presidential candidate's platform. Furthermore, Mr. Lien should propose concrete methods on how to ensure the draft Judicial Yuan Organization Act is passed during the current legislative session.

The question posed to President Ch'en was: "On the first anniversary of President Ch'en's inauguration, the Judicial Reform Foundation evaluated the implementation of his judicial reform policies based on the judicial reform white paper he proposed during the 2000 election, and the result was a failing grade. Although this may not represent the overall score of President Ch'en's judicial reform achievements over the past four years, recent polls show that 60% of the public still distrusts the judiciary. Problems such as case backlogs, delays, the elimination of unsuited judicial personnel, and prosecutor neutrality remain unresolved. Having served for four years, how will President Ch'en convince the public to give him another four years so he can do a better job?"

President Ch'en's response began by talking about his appearance for questioning at the Hualien District Prosecutors Office. He first acknowledged that substantial efforts are still required for judicial reform, followed by mentioning that the passage of the draft Judicial Yuan Organization Act is a top priority for judicial reform work, and secondly, the enactment of the Judges Act to establish a mechanism for weeding out unsuited judges. President Ch'en's response above demonstrates a profound and clear understanding of the essence of judicial reform issues and is to be commended. However, regarding questions crucial to persuading the public to grant him another four years to tackle judicial reform—such as how to work with the opposition parties to promote the passage of these bills, within what timeframe they will be completed, and what specific follow-up measures and bills will be adopted in the next four-year term after these bills are passed—President Ch'en lacked explanation. Instead, he spent over a minute talking about the draft Political Donations Act, which is unrelated to judicial reform issues, leaving a slight flaw. Moving forward, President Ch'en should still propose more concrete platforms and explanations regarding the aforementioned issues to fully convince the public to give him another four years to strive for judicial reform.

※ Published in: Liberty Times