Second-Class Citizens or Second-Class Judiciary?

Three years ago, a presiding judge at the Taichung Branch of the Taiwan High Court maintained close ties with organized crime figures and a hostess club owner, even coaching defendants on how to escape punishment and publicly cursing Control Yuan members investigating the case. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Court suspended him for three years (note that he was suspended, not dismissed). To everyone's surprise, the three years flew by, and this judge staged a comeback, applying for reinstatement at the Kinmen Branch of the Taiwan High Court. Because the Judicial Yuan could find no grounds for refusal, the people of Kinmen, whether willing or not, were forced to "accept" a judge suspended for three years due to corruption and ethical violations.

What is going on here? The people of Kinmen ask in panic: Are we second-class citizens? Do we not deserve a judiciary of fairness and justice? Are we not worthy of unblemished judges? Do not be surprised; the fault certainly does not lie with the people of Kinmen. The answer is that we cannot weed out judges! This is the single greatest fatal flaw in judicial reform thus far. Do we have good judges? Of course we do! Has judicial reform made progress? We cannot say it hasn't! However, incompetent judges consistently remain the single fly in the ointment. Because they cannot be removed from their sacred judicial posts, whenever we say the judicial climate is poor, good judges feel aggrieved; whenever we say judges should be weeded out, conscientious judges are filled with righteous indignation; whenever we say judicial reform crawls like a tortoise, reform-minded judges disagree... All of this stems from the fact that our laws provide no way to distinguish who is a "good judge" and who should be fired. And when judicial reform paints all judges with a broad brush, judges naturally do not support it.

However, are ordinary citizens expected to bear the consequences of subpar judicial quality? A country lacking mechanisms to evaluate and weed out judges allows legally savvy judges to enjoy a "more lenient" legal space than ordinary people. As long as they are not criminal offenders (or as long as they are not caught), the job of a judge enjoys lifelong protection—they will not be fired for any reason whatsoever, whether for lack of competence, integrity issues, poor attitude, poor intellect, or dereliction of duty! What astounding job security!

Judicial reform has been hotly debated for two or three years, and the authorities indeed appear sincere in wanting to act. But why have they never dared to touch such profound and fundamental issues? In fact, as long as incompetent judges are not eradicated, the overall quality of the judiciary will forever be dragged down. Whenever the judiciary is discussed, dark examples can always be cited. How can society build confidence in the judiciary? Furthermore, aren't evaluation and removal mechanisms that should be established for any personnel appointment? Why should judges alone be exempt? Is it because their quality cannot withstand scrutiny, or is it out of fear of shaking up the existing vested interest system? Instead of sitting back and watching these incompetent judges continue to damage public trust in the judiciary, shouldn't the Judicial Yuan break the spell of the constitutional guarantee of lifelong tenure for judges and proactively introduce mechanisms to genuinely evaluate and weed out judges? Do not let the people in these "remote areas" grow disheartened by an unfair judicial environment. Otherwise, who can guarantee that one day, these "remote citizens," feeling that the judicial system treats them differently, might simply break away from Taiwan's judicial jurisdiction and strive anew for a judiciary worthy of their trust?

※ Published in: Taiwan Daily