Minister of Justice Chen's "quota" system

I just got done with my monthly columm for the Taiwan Bar Journal. Each month I write on some aspect of legal ethics. I thought a small section from this months columm might be of interest.

It talks about why I think Chen Ding-nans quota system for prosecutors is absurd. Although I do not say it in the article, my analysis is that Chen Ding nan is one of the worst Ministers of Justice we have had in the past ten years.

Here is the section:

Interesting post, just wondering why you presume that.

The reason I presume that is that Minister Chen’s proposals, by and large, reflect the fact that he knows basically nothing about criminal justice. His proposals are unworkable and reflect the fact that he has no working knowledge of Taiwan’s criminal justice system. He got the job because he was Chen Shui bian’s friend and he had a well deserved reputation for personal honesty. But he has no brain, other than the reptile like brain that all politicans have. That “reptile brain” tells him three things (all of which he does)

  1. tell the public what it wants to hear
  2. have no great loyalty to the truth or to reality
  3. when the sh*t hits the fan blame others

His proposals are designed simply to appeal to the public; what I have come to call “sound-bite pseudo-solutions”. And the reason for that is that he and his laoban (boss, i.e. Chen Shui bian) are politicans and the only goal for politicans is to survive the next election.

To do that you kowtow to the public.

take care,


I say! Chen Ding-nan is such a rotten cad.
Boo to the justice minister!
Hurrah for Brian Kennedy!

Human rights be dammed, we don’t have them here anyway.

Minister Chen’s approach is basically the same as the Mainland one. There, they give quotas for execution. If you are a pickpocket with bad luck and you get caught in a province which can’t fulfill their execution quota, they’ll shoot you in order to do so.

Dear Mr. Kennedy,

I believe you are “preaching to the choir” as they say in the states. How is this different from the way things are normally done in Taiwan? Everyone knows(hopefully) a quota is a farce, but it is such an old trick used by Chinese beuracrats for hundreds of years that people can see results, even if it is a farce. The gov’t officials can say that they did something and its the public’s lack of morals holding society down.

How is this dissimiliar to a police officer not filing a traffic accident report to not endanger his precint’s bonus and not show the real danger of driving in Taiwan.


PS. I haven’t heard you on ICRT in awhile, what happened?

So that’s why they always refuse to file your traffic accidents? Happened to me once.

It’s not just traffic tickets. several years ago I caught a burglar in my apartment. After I severely beat him about the head and shoulders, the police showed up. I had to negotiate with his family in order to head off any legal action: I don’t sue him for breaking into my apartment and he doesn’t sue me for beating his ass.* The police were happy because in the end no paperwork was filed. :unamused:

*I also threw him through a glass window. :smiling_imp:

You are my hero… :mrgreen: :sunglasses: :laughing:

My ICRT Perspectives piece got the “budget ax” at the first of the year. So my “radio fame” has come to an end. That added to my blacklisting from all three papers means I must turn my caustic comments to the magazines (Taipei Review, Topics, Taiwan Journal, Taiwan Bar Journal) and to internet forums.

take care,

Mr Kennedy,

Why did you get blacklisted and is it real?


Dissenting opinions are not always received favorably here.

Without going into details, the situation at the Central News Agency, albeit different that the justice minister’s giving himself enough rope to hang himself, shows how far away from reality “leaders” can be.

  1. CNA reporter in Paris mistranslates passage from French to read “secretary-general” was given a kickback. (James Soong was secretary-general at the time.)
  2. News chief at CNA passes it along. (This is the same individual who released an embargoed story of the “defeat” of a candidate before polling was closed.)
  3. Someone alerts KMT and PFP that the French actually said “secretariat general” or the secretary of the ruling party (the KMT, not Soong).

Now the fun starts:
PFP says that CNA filed the story out of political considerations to defame Soong. Next they say that the GIO was in on the deal. PFP legislators ask for the head of the CNA chairman and the GIO chief.

Even suggesting that the heads of these organizations have the foggiest notion what goes on the wire from CNA is laughable. CNA is an ossified, iron-rice bowl company with an army of “placeholders” – people who have been with the company for 20 years and have worked their way into positions of “professional newspaper reader/tea-drinker.”
An organized cabal of mischievous government functionaries plotting to smear James Soong’s “good” name using a prehistoric media outlet that they know absolutely nothing about? Oh yeah. That’s probably what happened.

The justice minister thinks he’s a peacock. Legislators think they are Sam Spades. Government functionaries think they are losing time better spent on the golf course.

And the wonderful thing is that ultimately, none are accountable – they will be in different but similar positions after the next round of musical political chairs.

I’m not too smart and need someone to explain the difference between what a “secretary general” and “secretary of the ruling party” are. Were these the same individual or 2(+?) different individuals?

I think the real questions are who’s responsible and where’s the money. I saw in today’s TaipeiTimes that the KMT is already in full denial mode. Is anybody from taiwan talking to that french guy?

I also enjoy the fact that they aren’t releasing info in regards to the Kaoshiung Incident even though it happened over 20 years ago. Seems Jamese Soong had an associated press journalist deported over it.


I removed my comments in this post as they said something “bad” about the locals and violated the doctrine of “segue political correctness”.