Drinking Culture and Judicial Reform—Mobilizing the Public for Judicial Reform (Voice of the People Series)

Lately, as someone who cares about judicial reform, my feelings have been quite conflicted. On one hand, I am thrilled that judicial reform has never received this much attention before; on the other hand, I am frustrated that news about judicial reform only manages to capture the spotlight when it involves tough guys like Wu Tse-yuan or Lo Fu-chu, or gossip about people getting drunk and making fools of themselves.

Although Director Yu's drunken misconduct incident was brought to a close in record time—with the President of the Judicial Yuan sacrificing his favorite lieutenant to appease the Ministry of Justice's fierce criticism and prevent any further complications for the upcoming National Conference on Judicial Reform—any observer can hardly help but mutter to themselves: what a heavy price to pay! This outcome can be interpreted from two dimensions: the corruption of officialdom culture, and the Ministry of Justice's "political maneuvering" response to the incident.

First, regarding this banquet: the National Conference on Judicial Reform had not even been convened yet, but the celebration banquet was already underway. While this certainly deserves severe criticism, to be realistic, which official meeting isn't like this? Using dinner and drinking as a pretext to socialize, network, and build personal connections is the mainstream culture of officialdom today; there is nothing unusual about it. Yet, in the eyes of ordinary citizens, one cannot help but wonder: was this lavishly supplied wine banquet at the Hyatt, which was enough to get people drunk, also one of the customary cultures among these judicial officials? If so, judicial reform is not just about changing systems; the mindset of judicial officials and the culture within the judicial circle will likely be the primary focus of future reforms!

However, the reaction of the Ministry of Justice is even more intriguing. As a female Minister of Justice, her first reaction was not to speak up for her subordinate from a women's perspective, but rather to emphasize that Director Yu should not have questioned the rank of the Deputy Director-General as being too low, which she claimed showed the Judicial Yuan's disrespect toward the Ministry of Justice. Consequently, the Ministry responded by "considering withdrawing from the National Conference on Judicial Reform." Our question is: is the National Conference on Judicial Reform solely the business of the Judicial Yuan? Why would the Ministry of Justice, which is crucially linked to judicial reform, use "whether or not to participate in the National Conference on Judicial Reform" as a bargaining chip against the Judicial Yuan? Or was it because the Ministry of Justice was pushed into this from the very beginning and never wanted to participate in any judicial reform conference at all?

Even if the Ministry of Justice felt that the Judicial Yuan should not question the seniority of the Ministry's representatives, the reasoning should be that since the Minister of Justice personally authorized their participation, the standard for whether rank matters should depend on whether future conference resolutions can actually be brought back and implemented by the Ministry of Justice—rather than using non-participation in the national judicial reform conference as a way to "punish" the Judicial Yuan for improper behavior! After all, the Ministry of Justice should be one of the protagonists of judicial reform, not an indifferent bystander, right?

Fairly speaking, in this banquet controversy, Director Yu was in the wrong first. Moreover, what deserves criticism is not just Director Yu alone, but this corrupt official culture of socializing through alcohol and forcing drinks upon others—a practice that even judicial agencies, which emphasize austerity and restraint, cannot escape. Perhaps this is an opportunity to banish the culture of drinking and socializing from the Judicial Yuan. However, what should have been merely an illustration of bad habits in officialdom instead developed into a politicized outcome, even threatening the success of the National Conference on Judicial Reform. This allows us to understand that truly implementing judicial reform cannot be resolved by a single National Conference on Judicial Reform. Whether the courts, the ministry, and other related units share a consensus on promoting judicial reform and are genuinely willing to reform are the true keys to determining whether future judicial reform can be successfully accomplished!