Four Years Later: Nominating Huang Shi-ming

Four Years Later: Nominating Huang Shi-ming
amidst Applause and Hisses
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 27, 2010

President Ma Ying-jeou has nominated Huang Shi-ming Prosecutor General. Inspection Commission spokesman Chen Chi-ming termed it a "belated appointment."

In March 2006, Chen Shui-bian nominated Hsieh Wen-ting Prosecutor General. In January 2007 he nominated Chen Tsung-ming. At the time everyone wondered "Why didn't he nominate Huang Shi-ming?" Four years later, Ma Ying-jeou has replaced Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian has been convicted in the first instance for corruption. Chen Tsung-ming, the first Prosecutor General under the new system, has been impeached by the Control Yuan and forced to resign. Huang Shi-ming has finally been nominated. During the past four years, Chen Shui-bian has been convicted, and Chen Tsung-ming has been impeached. The cost to society has been high. The political system and justice system have experienced severe shocks. Huang Shi-ming's nomination now, may be even more appropriate than his nomination four years ago, because the lessons learned may keep us from repeating them in the future. We hope this "belated appointment" for which we have paid a heavy price, will yield a belated return, and have a belated impact.

Over the past four years, the nomination process for the Prosecutor General has repeatedly provoked controversy. Chen Tsung-ming, the new Prosecutor General, is an individual who provokes controversy. In the eyes of the public, Huang Shi-ming has long been the ideal nominee. He is even regarded as the only solution to an institutional impasse. Given the social climate, President Ma had no alternative but to nominate Huang Shi-ming. The public would not have accepted any other candidate. Yesterday people were asking "Why wasn't Huang Shi-ming nominated?" Today people are saying "Huang Shi-ming has belatedly been nominated." Such public expectations, viewed optimistically, are the key that can break the deadlock. Such public expectations, viewed pessimistically, are the seeds of an even greater crisis. Suppose Huang Shi-ming lets us down? How will the public react? This constitutes a potential judicial and political crisis. It is also a test of Huang Shi-ming's personal reputation.

We believe the judiciary has many people like Huang Shi-ming. But four years of political chaos have turned Huang Shi-ming into a moral paragon. This is a cross Huang Shi-ming may have to bear upon assuming office. Consider the superlatives the public has heaped upon him: judicial iron man, never bows to power, a paragon of moral rectitude, meticulous, utterly without favoritism, untouchable. In today's world, such a person amounts to a fictional hero. No wonder some say his appointment invited "hisses amongst the applause." Some say he is impervious to reason, that his appointment was overkill, that he is too strict, too straightlaced, too extreme, too inflexible, does not communicate with legislators, and is therefore unsuitable as Prosecutor General. Before Huang Shi-ming was nominated, he was regarded as The One. Now that he has been nominated, some fear he will enforce the law with Draconian harshness. Huang Shi-ming will soon be appointed Prosecutor General in the midst of such contradictory public sentiment. One can say that the road is long and the load is heavy.

Frankly, like the public, we expect a great deal from Huang Shi-ming. But will his severe character make him unsuitable for the job? We are unsure. We are sure only that the public does not want a slick Prosecutor General. It does not want a smooth Prosecutor General. Huang Shi-ming has been described as a "nerdy style judge," reticent about making friends, austere in his dining habits, not inclined to socialize. " He is self-disciplined, dislikes the limelight, enjoys solitude, and socializes as little as possible. If he were to appear at the same social gathering as Chen Tsung-ming, Shih Mao-lin, and Huang Fang-yen, his taciturn style would be the most practical and effective means of dealing with the hydra-headed judicial reform program,

The judicial process is corrupt mainly because justice system officials have been corrupted by improper personal relationships between the justice system and the political system, or the justice system and business interests. Given the proliferation of such relationships, deals have surely been made. The ruling administration is in a position to grant official posts. Businessmen are in a position to offer banquets or gifts. Administrative chiefs have discretionary powers, and for businessmen, banquets and gifts are a drop in the bucket. But when administration officials or businessmen offer justice system officials a quid pro quo, they are buying and selling justice, they are twisting and distorting justice. Yeh Sheng-mao leaked the contents of the Egmont Group report to Chen Shui-bian. Shi Mao-ling and Chen Tsung-ming visited Huang Fang-yen at his private residence. Chen Tsung-ming attended banquets thrown by businessmen under indictment. They were reproached for buying and selling justice, something the public cannot tolerate.

For one hand to wash the other, both hands must understand each other. The public is confident that President Ma would never strike a political deal with justice system officials. Wang Ching-feng and Huang Shi-ming belong to a generation of justice system officials whose personal dealings are open and above board. We must treasure this opportunity to clarify the relationship between politics and the law. We must establish a new tradition, based on the principle that "the ruling authorities will not buy justice, and justice system officials will not sell justice." Only with such a foundation, can we talk about judicial reform in other areas.

Huang Shi-ming says he does not seek fame. Today, because he does not seek fame, he has found fame. Huang Shi-ming's reputation was given to him by the public, not by the ruling authorities. Quite the contrary. The ruling authorities are often reluctant to praise justice system officials. Praise from them often hurts the reputations of justic system officials. The Ma administration should consider this a warning. Huang Shi-ming should consider this an encouragement. If they do so, this appointment just might not disappoint the public. It just might establish a new model for reform, and new traditions for the justice system as a whole, and Huang Shi-ming as an individual.

四年後在掌聲與雜音中提名黃世銘
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.01.27 01:38 pm

馬總統提名黃世銘出任檢察總長，檢改會發言人陳鋕銘稱，這是「遲來的任命」。

二○○六年三月陳水扁提名謝文定出任檢察總長，二○○七年一月提名陳聰明，當時皆聞「為何不提黃世銘」的聲音；四年後的今天，總統由陳水扁換成了馬英九，而陳水扁已因涉貪汙案初審被判刑，首任新制檢察總長陳聰明則因遭監院彈劾請辭，黃世銘也終於獲得提名。這四年之間，陳水扁被判刑，陳聰明被彈劾；雖然是付出了重大的社會代價，但在整個政治與司法體系經歷如此慘痛的衝擊之後，黃世銘於此際出任，卻可能較若在四年前即出任更為適宜。因為，前車可鑑，就可避免再蹈覆轍。我們期待，這個「遲來的任命」，遲有遲的代價，遲有遲的收穫，遲有遲的意義！

四年來，由於新制檢察總長的提名屢掀波瀾，而首任新制總長陳聰明又滋物議；使得黃世銘一直成為社會大眾心目中的一個想像，甚至認為他可能是體制困局的唯一救贖。在這樣的社會氛圍中，馬總統其實已無不提名黃世銘的空間，社會也沒有接受其他人選的可能。然而，從「為何不提黃世銘」，到如今的「終於提了黃世銘」；這種社會的期待與想像，從樂觀面看也許是打開困局的鑰匙，但從悲觀面看也可能是更大的危機。這個危機是：萬一黃世銘也出問題的話，國人將如何面對？這是司法及政治上的潛在危機，更是黃世銘個人聲譽評價的重大考驗。

我們相信在司法界有不少像黃世銘這種類型的人物，但黃世銘卻是因四年政治亂局而被過度凸顯的典型，亦屬事實。這是黃世銘上任的資產，但也可能是他的負荷。且看輿論對他的評價：司法鐵漢、從未彎過腰、剛正不阿、一絲不苟、六親不認，及鐵面無私等等；這樣的人物處於今日紅塵，簡直有如小說傳奇中的角色。難怪有人說他的任命是「掌聲中有雜音」，說他的不近人情、矯枉過正、太硬、太直、太偏執、不會轉彎、不跟立委溝通，皆是不適合擔任檢察總長的因素。黃世銘未被提名，國人視他為不二人選；如今被提名，又有人怕他成為法匠酷吏。在這種宛如「葉公好龍」矛盾交雜的社會情愫中，黃世銘即將出任檢察總長，堪謂任重道遠。

說實話，我們雖與國人一樣對黃世銘的出任抱持期待，但對他明銳的性格究竟是否適任也無把握。唯一可以確定的是，國家寧可有人際互動單純的檢察總長，而不宜有八面玲瓏的檢察總長。黃世銘被形容成一個慎交遊、吃便當、不應酬的「宅男型司法官」；他的自律要求，亦是不愛出名、不愛出風頭、要耐得住寂寞，不必要的應酬愈少愈好。若與陳聰明、施茂林出現在黃芳彥私宅相較，黃世銘惜遊慎交的作風，也許正是頭緒紛繁的司法改革方案中，最實際且最具宏效的基本功。

因為，司法不清明，主要的原因即在司法人員被法政或法商的不當「人際關係」汙染所致。在這類關係中，難謂沒有發生「交易」的可能。行政當局的籌碼是給你官位，商人則是請你吃飯或送禮。官位授予在行政首長有裁量權，吃飯送禮對商人更是九牛一毛；但是，當行政當局或商人要求司法人員相對進行「交易」時，他們要求的卻是出賣司法正義、扭曲社會公理。當葉盛茂向陳水扁報告艾格蒙情資，施茂林與陳聰明赴黃芳彥私宅，及陳聰明與有案在身的商人飲宴；他們所受非議，即是這種「出賣司法正義」的想像，已令社會忍無可忍。

要銅板不響，須兩個銅板皆知分寸。國人似乎對馬總統不至於與司法人員做政治交易有信心，而王清峰與黃世銘這一輩司法行政官員的人際關係亦較單純。倘若能珍惜這樣的機遇，從澄清政法關係著手，自此建立「政治當局不收買司法、司法人員不出賣司法」的新傳統，有了這個基礎，始有可能再談司法改革的其他領域。

黃世銘自稱不求出名，如今他卻因不求出名而出了名。黃世銘的名聲是社會給他的，而不是行政當局給他的；相反的，行政當局往往不會給司法人員名聲，只會傷害他們的人格名譽。馬政府若能以此為戒，黃世銘倘能以此自持；那麼，這次人事任命或許不致會再令社會失望，而能為司法體制及黃世銘個人，建立一個具有改革意義的新典範與新傳統。