Statement by Civil Judicial Reform Groups Regarding the Preparation Committee for the National Judicial Reform Conference

The Judicial Yuan announced the composition of the preparation committee: three attorneys, three judges, three professors, two prosecutors, and one representative each from the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice, claiming this achieves an equal split between private and official representatives. Civil judicial reform groups contend that:

1. Regarding the National Judicial Reform Conference, ever since five civil society groups jointly promoted the initiative on May 8 and President Li Teng-hui promised to convene it, the Judicial Yuan met with civil groups only once on May 27 and has since engaged in no further discussions or negotiations. Although the Judicial Reform Foundation even wrote to urge the Judicial Yuan to expedite preparations to ensure the smooth convening of the conference, the Judicial Yuan long remained silent and unresponsive. However, after dragging its feet for nearly five months, it suddenly announced a conclusion and unilaterally declared the personnel of the preparation committee. The hastiness of this move clearly reveals an intent to perfunctorily evade public pressure. The true reason why the preparation committee for the National Judicial Reform Conference—which had stagnated for months without progress—has finally reopened for business is precisely the result of civil groups deciding to launch the "October 19 National Rally for Judicial Reform."
2. The Judicial Yuan publicly promised on May 27 that it would not dominate the convening of the National Judicial Reform Conference. Yet, it is now clearly in breach of that initial promise, having unilaterally determined the members of the preparation committee without any consensus through negotiation with civil groups, which undoubtedly demonstrates its fundamental intention to dominate the National Judicial Reform Conference.
3. We want to emphasize that if the Judicial Yuan insists on dominating the convening of the National Judicial Reform Conference, it will be fundamentally no different from the current official "Judicial Reform Committee," and there would be no need whatsoever to convene a national judicial reform conference, as it would merely be another method for official evasion and prevarication. The conclusions recently announced regarding the issue of the Judicial Yuan's positioning—after three years of deliberation—is that everything returns to square one! This is the classic result of official promotion of "reform," and we simply cannot expect those who are the subjects of reform to lead the reform themselves!
4. In responding to the civil judicial reform groups' demand for a "private sector majority," the Judicial Yuan has consistently missed the focus. It continuously misapprehends judicial reform as a matter for "legal insiders," and even views it as a tug-of-war game among the judiciary, prosecution, and defense, leading it to propose a structure with "four attorneys." We have repeatedly emphasized that judicial reform must be based on public opinion and measured by the standards of those who genuinely suffer within the judicial system. As for the Judicial Yuan's claim that civil groups are "associations unrelated to the judiciary," we are alarmed by such ossified bureaucracy in a democratic era! What we demand are representatives of civil groups and representatives of the needs of diverse ethnic groups, not a question of how many attorneys or judges there are. Please do not conflate the public's outcry for judicial reform into a bargaining process for legal professionals!
5. Regarding the Judicial Yuan's scheduling of the first preparation committee meeting for October 15, civil judicial reform groups feel compelled to remind the Judicial Yuan that convening a preparation committee on such short notice makes it impossible to account for the representativeness of attendees. Furthermore, if representatives from various sectors—such as prosecutors, judges, and academics—are simply "handpicked" by the Judicial Yuan without public elections, public opinion polls, or other procedural safeguards, then not only is the representative ratio not half-official and half-private, but the official side will likely occupy a total monopoly!

Regarding the Judicial Yuan's hasty announcement of the formation of the preparation committee, the civil judicial groups express deep regret. The authorities still fail to recognize that the trend of public opinion is the primary cause of today's mistakes. Nevertheless, this outcome once again confirms that only the pressure of public opinion can compel the authorities to change! And sustained, continuous pressure will be the only guarantee of official reform!