Expectations of the Judiciary

Following a lecture, I met a prominent business owner entangled in several lawsuits. Speaking with conviction, this middle-aged entrepreneur told me: 'You are right. The problem with judges nowadays is no longer corruption; they are truly incorruptible. But let me tell you a fact: they are truly incompetent and stubborn' (please read in Taiwanese Hokkien). His assessment stems from having four to five hundred million NT dollars of capital tied up in court for years.

Upon hearing such a remark, I hardly knew whether to feel glad or sad. On one hand, I was somewhat gratified that society is beginning to understand that Taiwan's judicial problems have moved past the lowest baseline of 'corruption'—we no longer need to painstakingly explain that courts are no longer places where bribery is required to get results, and that distrust in judicial rulings often stems from poor judgment quality rather than judicial integrity. On the other hand, however, I felt anxious about the even thornier issue of judicial quality that lies ahead.

The business owner went on to describe a situation where a judge could not understand corporate financial statements yet refused to trust the professional opinions of certified public accountants. Approaching this from the perspective of someone familiar with judicial training and work, when have we ever tried to teach judges how to read financial statements? What reason do these elite university graduates, trained exclusively in law, have to know how to read financial statements? Yet, when faced with such frequent and complex commercial disputes, how can they make judgments without knowing how to read financial statements? This is truly an intractable judicial dilemma. I then explained the judicial reform groups' vision of using non-professional 'lay judges' to participate in trials as a way to compensate for the judges' lack of professional expertise, and I vigorously defended the judges' professional shortcomings, explaining that if we fail to provide judges with such education and training environments, we certainly cannot expect them to perform above average. However, the business owner was clearly unconvinced, as he still could not understand: 'Then how can someone like that become a judge?' 'How can an inefficient court like this operate without anyone managing it?'

In fact, what was wrong with what he said? If there are problems with the education, training, or screening of judges, why should the price be paid by those who originally came to court seeking fairness and justice? Even private institutions with no bearing on the public interest have rigorous personnel promotion and evaluation systems, alongside proactively developed, efficient management methods to ensure that private property pursues maximum profit. Why is it that the quality of the judiciary, which involves monumental public interest, lacks any supervision and ouster mechanisms, or even an effective management system? When people suffer further loss of property due to inefficiency, why are citizens left with no choice but to wait helplessly? When we ask society to be sympathetic to judges who are overwhelmed by massive backlogs and endless paperwork, who sympathizes with those whose health deteriorates or whose fortunes are lost due to protracted litigation?

Therefore, when people say that Taiwan's judicial problem is no longer corruption, aside from breathing a sigh of relief, can our judiciary, in the next stage, transition from the minimum baseline requirement of integrity to the normal standard of being 'accurate and efficient'?

※ Published in: Taiwan Daily