The Number One Minister

As the ruling party marks its second anniversary in office without much self-congratulatory fanfare, the President's photobook has indeed surpassed expectations regarding administrative achievements, capturing widespread attention. Even so, the Ministry of Justice has performed in a very "outstanding" manner, not only publicly stating its intention to transfer wiretapping powers to the courts, but also proclaiming that the past two years of the Ministry's performance have been an unprecedented success. It claimed proud achievements in fighting organized crime, prosecuting corruption, and through the Administrative Enforcement Agency, specifically emphasizing that this is not self-praise, but something affirmed by the people nationwide.

It is naturally unsurprising that the Ministry of Justice's efforts to crack down on organized crime, combat corruption, and investigate vote-buying have received support and affirmation from the public. However, we must remind the Ministry not to forget that, besides being a state administrative organ, it also plays a part in the judiciary. It is precisely because of this judicial nature that it can represent the state in prosecuting crimes and exercising public authority. The fundamental difference between the judiciary and the administration lies in the fact that administration is based on top-down subordination, requiring boldness, decisiveness, and efficiency, whereas the judiciary is independent and neutral, requiring human rights, prudence, and self-reflection. Undeniably, these two characteristics are sometimes contradictory, and the challenge for the Ministry of Justice is to find a practical balance between these dual roles. Therefore, when the Minister of Justice praises how effective law enforcement has been, it seems equally necessary to answer: from the judicial perspective of human rights, what has the performance of the Ministry of Justice been?

Over the past two years, from the return of detention powers to the courts to the anticipated return of wiretapping powers, it reflects Taiwan society's elevation of human rights standards. Arbitrary violations of human rights are no longer supported by society. Not only did a series of eager search and seizure operations ultimately cause prosecutors to lose the power to decide on detention, but the recently published wiretapping statistics and an approval rate as high as 99.5% also shocked people with the proliferation of wiretapping powers. Yet, regarding this kind of judicial power that pursues performance metrics, we have not heard much self-reflection from the Ministry of Justice. On the contrary, we once again witnessed the same backlash from prosecutors that occurred when detention powers were returned to the courts, immediately responding to this policy initiative by claiming it would hinder case investigations. Furthermore, the external rhetoric of Ministry of Justice officials explained the transfer of wiretapping powers from prosecutors to judges as a way to avoid prosecutors taking the blame again. Were there cases of indiscriminate review in past law enforcement? What were the standards for review? Were they truly targeted at so-called organized crime, or were there still white-terror-style wiretaps launched by the Investigation Bureau under the guise of gathering political intelligence? We seem to have heard very little explanation.

For the Ministry of Justice, the standard for measuring success still seems to be unilaterally determined by performance figures. There has consistently been a lack of focus on the characteristic of the prosecutor's judicial role to consider both favorable and unfavorable evidence and to represent the state in realizing justice. We simply wish to express that to be the number one minister in today's era—in a Taiwan where cracking down on crime has gained absolute legitimacy—becoming a hero in the eyes of the people is actually very easy. However, becoming a modern legal professional possessing judicial traits, self-reflection, a respect for human rights, and humility is the true challenge for the Minister of Justice.

※ Published in: Taiwan Daily