英文摘要 |
Professional ability was required in appointing a judicial official in the Qing and Republican era of China. However, many judicial officials in practice did not pass the professional examination; moreover, this examination only paid attention to Western-style legal knowledge. Ju-dicial independence was provided in law, but a judicial official could not avoid the interference from his or her superior due to the assessment system in the traditional bureaucracy, which wanted to inspect the ca-pability of inferior officials. The Nationalist Government further adopt-ed a party-oriented judiciary. The central authority of the KMT (the Na-tionalist Party) gave instructions to the decisions of political lawsuits. The KMT also inculcated judicial officials with the ideology of the KMT in order to influence judgments in civil and criminal lawsuits. The low salary of judicial officials to a certain degree resulted in corruption, which had existed in imperial China for a long time. Therefore, the im-age of the judiciary was bad in Republican China; not surprisingly, the legal profession was hardly a priority in the career plans of students at the university. The institutions and culture of the judiciary in Republi-can China continued to dominate the judiciary in postwar Taiwan. As a consequence, the general public in Taiwan was mistrustful of judicial officials. The best way to reform Taiwan’s judiciary is to appoint those who have been experienced prosecutors or lawyers to be judges and then to allow them to independently adjudicate lawsuits because judges are known to have been capable of make wise decisions.
|