Controversial Judge Receives Highest Votes in Evaluation Committee Election

The Legislative Yuan is reviewing the draft amendments to the Judges Act, which propose adjusting the structure of the Evaluation Committee, increasing the number of external members, and broadening their sources. Judges and prosecutors have collectively questioned the necessity of restricting qualifications to socially impartial individuals and establishing full-time members. However, in internal judicial voting over a year ago, a controversial judge actually won the highest number of votes to be elected as an evaluation committee member, exposing the judiciary's collective lack of self-respect and amnesia regarding the dark history of the legal community!

Are non-legal professionals unsuited to be evaluation committee members? Lin Ping-wen (林炳文), the late superintendent of National Cheng Kung University Hospital, was appointed as a member of the first Judges Evaluation Committee, serving as a true "model of days past." Superintendent Lin was a renowned surgeon who returned to his hometown to help found NCKU Hospital, enjoying a lofty social reputation and an impartial image. At the unveiling ceremony of the Judges Evaluation Committee in 2012, he stated in his speech that, serving as a member from the perspective of a surgeon, he hoped to make the utmost effort to stand on the public's side and supervise judges to meet public expectations. Prosecutor Ch'en Jui-jen (陳瑞仁), a member of the same committee, highly praised him during the National Congress on Judicial Reform the year before last, noting that Superintendent Lin's judgment of judges' performance from a "medical" perspective was highly inspiring!

Since the National Congress on Judicial Reform resolved to increase the number of external members and strive for diversity and heterogeneity in their sources, the reform focuses on qualifications and election procedures include: encouraging judges and prosecutors with self-reflective and critical awareness to run for office rather than relying on seniority; opening up opportunities for lawyer representatives to run rather than binding them to bar association posts; and broadening the sources of socially impartial individuals to introduce perspectives from all sectors of society. A committee composed in this manner resolving that "a judge is unsuited" is equivalent to "a jury finding a defendant guilty," which is the only way to eliminate unsuited judges who have constantly been protected by "bureaucrats shielding bureaucrats"!

※ This article was published in Liberty Times on 2019-04-29