Chen Hung-Ta’s Perspective: Ancient Moon Shines on Today’s Dust—Judicial Integrity Through the Tenures of Past Ministers of Justice

Recent public opinion polls show a sharp decline in confidence in the judiciary, with widespread public distrust. Media outlets have further criticized the judiciary for a series of embarrassing incidents in recent years. Looking back at past Ministers of Justice, some have left behind a legacy of rule of law, others institutional reforms; yet some missed crucial reform opportunities or even eroded public trust in the judiciary. History does not favor anyone. Those who truly leave their names are not the ministers with the most power, but those who best uphold the rule of law.

I. Historical Evaluation of the Last Three Ministers of Justice

1. Chiu Tai-san: Politically Charged, Judicial Reform Remains Incomplete

Chiu Tai-san, a career prosecutor, was initially expected to advance judicial reform through professional expertise. However, his tenure was repeatedly criticized for aligning judicial policies too closely with political demands, challenging the institutional neutrality of the Ministry of Justice. He even publicly declared himself a “politician,” sparking public debate over whether judicial administration was being driven by political thinking.

Although he promoted major initiatives like the Judicial Reform National Conference, many reforms remained at the level of ideological declarations, lacking full institutional implementation. For example, the rotation system for prosecutors between first and second instance courts, personnel policies, and prosecutorial operational models remain highly controversial and are believed to negatively impact the development of prosecutorial expertise and organizational stability. The core of judicial reform lies not in how many slogans are raised, but in establishing systems that can withstand the test of time. Without institutionalization, reforms remain unfinished projects.

2. Tsai Ching-hsiang: Longest Tenure, Yet Missed the Golden Age of Reform

Tsai Ching-hsiang served as Minister of Justice longer than any other, making him best positioned to achieve institutional reform—and thus bearing the greatest historical responsibility. His issue was not personal integrity, but an overly conservative governance style, prioritizing administrative stability over proactive reform leadership in major judicial policies.

He largely continued the first- and second-instance rotation systems and personnel frameworks established under Chiu, failing to re-evaluate their merits and drawbacks, and thus missing a critical opportunity to recalibrate the prosecutorial system.

More importantly, during his tenure, fraud crimes spread rapidly, prosecutors faced increasing workloads, and public confidence in the judiciary continued to decline. The Ministry failed to propose a comprehensive reform plan capable of reversing this trend. History judges a Minister of Justice not by administrative smoothness, but by the courage to reform. These six years, which should have been a golden era of reform, ultimately became a period of continued erosion of judicial trust.

3. Cheng Ming-chien: The Term Most in Need of Reform Leadership

Cheng Ming-chien, also from the prosecutorial system, was expected to deeply understand prosecutorial culture, frontline investigative challenges, and the public’s profound dissatisfaction with the judiciary—making him a key figure in restoring judicial trust. However, he is widely perceived as having a conservative decision-making style, lacking proactive leadership in major reforms. On issues like personnel systems, prosecutorial administration, and judicial discipline, no clear, forward-looking reform blueprint has emerged. Some personnel appointments have raised questions about transparency and objective criteria, posing new challenges to the credibility of judicial administration.

The Minister of Justice’s greatest responsibility is not merely managing the agency, but leading institutional progress—not waiting for reform, but driving it. Today, judicial credibility stands at a crossroads of continued decline. What the public truly desires is not more policy declarations, but visible, tangible institutional change.

II. Historical Role Models

Yet history has not left only regrets. The Ministry of Justice has also seen ministers who serve as role models for future generations, proving that the spirit of the rule of law is not mere rhetoric, but a value that can be practiced.

First: Chen Ding-nan—Establishing the Ministry’s Credibility Through Character

Chen Ding-nan’s historical stature remains unmatched. His greatest contribution was not the number of major cases he handled, but in rebuilding public belief that the Ministry of Justice could act without fear of power and administer according to law. During his tenure, he elevated anti-organized crime, anti-corruption, and anti-bribery efforts to core missions of the Ministry, insisting that “before the law, there is no color,” prosecuting bribery cases regardless of political party or power. He maintained personal integrity, earning widespread social acclaim. His strict management style provoked resistance within the system, but it also forged his historical image as the “upright Chen.”

His legacy can be summarized in one sentence: “He established the Ministry’s credibility through character, and safeguarded the dignity of the rule of law through integrity.”

Second: Liao Cheng-hao—Rule of Law Above Politics, Institutions Above Individuals

If Chen Ding-nan represents moral integrity, Liao Cheng-hao embodies institutional spirit. Not a media-star minister, he is regarded by many legal professionals as one of the most principled Ministers of Justice. He vigorously combated organized crime and gun trafficking, established prosecutorial administrative discipline, emphasized case quality, upheld rule of law, and enhanced prosecutorial professionalism. His guiding principle was always: “Rule of law above politics, institutions above individuals.” His greatest legacy is not headlines, but an institutional culture that endures today. Many prosecutorial administrative frameworks still in use trace their foundations to his tenure.

III. History Will Ultimately Deliver a Fair Judgment

The Minister of Justice is not an extension of political office, but the guardian of a nation governed by law. True historical evaluation lies not in applause received during tenure, but in whether, years after leaving office, people still believe he left behind sustainable institutions, not temporary political projects.

Ancient moon shines on today’s dust; models exist in past times.

Reflecting on past exemplars is not to deify history, but to remind today’s judicial administrators: power fades with tenure, but institutions must withstand time; official positions become fleeting illusions, but only the spirit of the rule of law and judicial integrity can truly remain in the people’s hearts.

A Minister of Justice’s true historical standing lies not in how many political expectations he met in office, but in whether, years after departure, people still wish to use his name as a synonym for rule of law and judicial integrity. The true role model is not the one who held power the longest, but the one who, in the face of power, still upheld the law.

*Author is Chief Prosecutor at Taiwan High Prosecutors Office.