Kuomintang League Secretary-General Xu Yuzhen criticized Taiwan's regression of judicial independence, saying the judiciary is harsh on the opposition parties and lenient on the powerful.

According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance's latest "Global Democracy 2026" report, Taiwan's judicial independence dropped from "high performance" to "medium performance", falling out of the top bracket along with the United States. Xu Yuzhen, secretary-general of the Kuomintang League, said today (16th) that the judiciary cannot have color, let alone the surname Lai. Today's judiciary is strict with opposition parties and dissidents, but gentle with the powerful. If investigations are not disclosed and only selective disclosure is left, equality before the law will become an empty phrase.

Xu Yuzhen said that international competitions have warned Taiwan’s judiciary. The report also shows that Taiwan’s citizen participation ranks seventh in the world, and the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight is one of the few improvements. Only judicial independence has regressed, highlighting that judicial credibility and independence are facing severe challenges. The World Justice Project (WJP) 2025 report also pointed out that indicators such as global judicial restrictions on executive power and the protection of civil and criminal justice from improper government influence have generally deteriorated.

Please read on...

Xu Yuzhen pointed out that after President Lai Qingde came to power, society's doubts about inconsistent judicial standards have not diminished but increased. For cases involving different political stances or power relations, whether there are differences in case handling standards should be examined through open and transparent procedures to examine the evidence, adjudication reasons and legal application. For large-scale transfers of prosecutors and investigators, it should also be explained whether it is a normal rotation or a political arrangement to reorganize the case handling system and purge dissidents.

Xu Yuzhen criticized that what is even more ridiculous is that "non-disclosure of investigations" has been repeatedly questioned in major political cases and has become a slogan. Confessions, transcripts, evidence and investigation contents that are not allowed to be made public according to the law appear in media reports and political commentary programs from time to time. Even the Control Yuan has corrected the serious violation of investigation non-disclosure by the Police Department and the Investigation Bureau.

Xu Yuzhen denounced the case of Wu Nai-jen, the former chairman of Taiwan Sugar, that even more questioned the standards of justice and public power. Wu Nai-jen still had about 170 million yuan in unpaid debts due to the Taiwan Sugar land case, but within a month of taking possession of the land, Taiwan Sugar Company withdrew its claim for seizure, and Wu Nai-Jen was immediately released. Ordinary people owe money to the state and are detained. They have to put up real money and provide guarantees to get out. Why can Lai Qingde's good friend be given free treatment? The Lai government has an obligation to expose the procedures and reasons for testing in the sun.

Xu Yuzhen believes that the judiciary must implement the principle that everyone is equal before the law. There cannot be different treatment due to different political stances, nor can there be special protections because of closeness to Lai Qingde's core. If prosecutorial promotions and job arrangements are affected by political loyalty, it will distort judicial incentives and shift cases from relying on evidence and law to speculating on power expectations, thereby weakening the separation of powers, people's rights, and social trust.

Xu Yuzhen emphasized that the judiciary should not be colorless, let alone Lai. Today's judiciary is strict with opposition parties and dissidents, but gentle with the powerful. If investigations are not disclosed and only selective disclosure is left, equality before the law will become an empty phrase. If the Lai government cannot prove that there is an uncrossable red line between the judiciary and political power, it will not only lose judicial credibility, but also the people's last trust in democracy and the rule of law.