CHAPTER FOUR
HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF COURT INTERPRETING IN TAIWAN
This chapter presents information the history and current status of court
interpreting in Taiwan. The first section draws upon existing information and past
studies. The second section sheds further light on court interpreting as currently
practiced in Taiwan based on qualitative data gathered from interviews with persons
directly involved with court interpreting and the court system in Taiwan. The
interviews were conducted between September 2006 and July 2007. The final section
of this chapter checks the available data to the ideal conditions for court interpreting
as discussed in Chapter Two. Recommendations for Taiwan are made in Chapter Five.
4.1 The Taiwan Court System
The highest judiciary in Taiwan is called the Judicial Yuan, under which the court
system operates. Courts are separated into the district, high, and supreme courts. Civil
and criminal cases are held in the district courts, high courts hear appeals against the
rulings of district courts, and the Supreme Court reviews judgments by lower courts
for compliance with pertinent laws and regulations.
developed prior to 1949. Compared to the Anglo-American system, the Taiwan legal
system relies more on statutory law than case law. Statutory law refers to written laws
and regulations, where as case law in the common law tradition determines how laws
are to be understood in trials by examining precedent cases and their outcomes.
There are no juries in Taiwan courts. In district courts, there may be one judge or
three judges presiding depending on the importance of a case. Three judges normally
preside in cases at the appellate level. While US courts retain stenographers to keep
verbatim records of all trials, Taiwan courts have court clerks who type summaries of
proceedings in court. Judges occasionally instruct attorneys and witnesses to stop
speaking when the court clerk needs more time to finish typing a summary of what is
said or done in the courtroom. Audio recordings are made whenever court is in
session and video recordings if necessary (Criminal Code of Procedure, Articles 44-1,
100-1, 165-1).
Up until reforms to adopt the adversarial system, Article 163 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure originally required judges to conduct separate investigations in
the event prosecutors were unable to provide adequate evidence. In addition to
ensuring judges remain impartial and place the burden of proof solely on prosecutors,
Article 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also amended to require the
presence of a defense attorney in criminal proceedings where an offense the defendant
is suspected of is punishable by more than three years of imprisonment, high court
cases, and cases where the accused is mentally retarded (R.O.C Judicial Yuan website,
retrieved May 4, 2007). These reforms were still being implemented at the time of
writing.
4.2 The Right to an Interpreter: Relevant Laws
R.O.C. laws relevant to the right to a court interpreter include the following.
Refer to Appendix B for the source texts.
Constitution of the Republic of China, Article 8: Personal freedom shall be
guaranteed to the people. Except in case of flagrante delicto as provided by law, no
person shall be arrested or detained otherwise than by a judicial or a police organ in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. No person shall be tried or
punished otherwise than by a law court in accordance with the procedure prescribed
by law. Any arrest, detention, trial, or punishment which is not in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law may be resisted. When a person is arrested or detained
on suspicion of having committed a crime, the organ making the arrest or detention
shall in writing inform the said person, and his designated relative or friend, of the
grounds for his arrest or detention, and shall, within 24 hours, turn him over to a
competent court for trial. The said person, or any other person, may petition the
competent court that a writ be served within 24 hours on the organ making the arrest
for the surrender of the said person for trial. The court shall not reject the petition
mentioned in the preceding paragraph, nor shall it order the organ concerned to make
an investigation and report first. The organ concerned shall not refuse to execute, or
delay in executing, the writ of the court for the surrender of the said person for trial.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 99: If an accused is deaf or dumb, or not
conversant with the language, an interpreter may be used; such accused may also be
examined in writing or ordered to make a statement in writing.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 96: In an examination, an accused shall be
given an opportunity to explain the offense of which he is suspected; if there is an
explanation, the accused shall be ordered to make a detailed statement of the
complete matter; if the explanation contains facts favorable to him, he shall be
ordered to explain his method of proof.
The Code of Civil Procedure, Article 207: The court shall appoint an interpreter
where a person who participates in the argument does not understand the language
used in the R.O.C. The same principle will apply when the judge does not
understand the dialect used by a participant in the argument. Although the court shall
appoint an interpreter where a person who participates in the argument is unable to
hear or is mute, the court may also question such person in writing or direct such
person to express answers in writing.
The Organic Law of Court Organization, Article 98: (Interpreting) For litigants,
witnesses, forensics experts and other relevant persons unable to speak Mandarin an
interpreter will be used. The same applies to persons who are deaf or dumb.
[Author’s translation: No official English translation found. See Appendix B for
source text.]
Language Equality Law (Draft), Article 10: (Court Language Rights): Citizens have
the undeniable right to use their own language in court. If necessary, the court will
provide interpretation or translation services. [Author’s translation: No official
English translation found. See Appendix B for source text.]
Article 8 of the R.O.C Constitution is relevant because when someone is arrested
or detained on suspicion of a crime, the person and a relative or friend will be
informed in writing. Assuming an LMP person cannot understand written Chinese, the
charges must be translated into the LMP person’s language or at least sight translated
by an interpreter. Once the accused goes to trial, Code of Criminal Procedure Articles
96 and 99 come into play. Article 96 writes that a person has the right to provide
testimony as evidence in his or her favor. An LMP person could not do this without an
interpreter, and so Article 99 stipulates an interpreter “may” be used, which implies
that using an interpreter in criminal proceedings is not mandatory, as concluded by
Cheng & Dai (2004). On the other hand, Civil Code of Procedure 207 stipulates that
in the event a person cannot understand the language of the R.O.C. an interpreter
“shall” be used, implying it is mandatory. This is different from US federal law and
California state law. Chapter Two has explained that an interpreter is guaranteed for
persons with limited English proficiency for both civil and criminal proceedings in
US federal court. In California, an interpreter is guaranteed for criminal proceedings
and only limited instances for civil proceedings. While other laws merely write “the
language” and do not specifically mention what the language of the court is, Article
98 of the Organic Law of Court Organization clearly specifies this is Mandarin. The
“Language Equality Law” is only a draft law proposed by the Mandarin Promotion
Committee of the Ministry of Education in February of 2003. It had not been passed
by the ROC legislature at the time of writing (Xiang, 2007). The draft law seems to
only explicitly guarantee the right to an interpreter for ROC citizens and does not
specifically address the needs of foreigners with limited proficiency in Mandarin.
Two types of “interpreters” are used in the Taiwan court system: the staff
interpreter and the contract court interpreter.
4.3 Staff Interpreters
A staff interpreter “is responsible for interpreting, translating in writing,
delivering case files and documents, and assisting in digital recording and other
affairs” (A Brief Overview of the Taiwan High Court, 2005, p. 12). As interpreters,
they mostly work between Mandarin and Taiwanese or Hakka. Staff interpreters are
lower level civil servants. The elementary level civil service exams are separated into
different categories (e.g. basic administration, human resources, tax administration)
and test one’s general knowledge of law, administration, Chinese, civics and English
(R.O.C. Ministry of Examination website, retrieved April 18, 2007). Staff interpreters
could also be independently hired by the courts based on their own needs and
requirements through court clerks.
Staff interpreters must pass the Grade 5 Special Examination for Judicial
Personnel (R.O.C. Ministry of Examination website, retrieved April 3, 2007). There
are two different Grade 5 exams that may be taken, separated into two categories:
Assistant Clerk and Court Attendant. The former tests general knowledge of the law,
civil law, Chinese, written Chinese for formal documents, civics, and English; the
latter tests what the former does but adds general knowledge of the Organic Law of
Court Organization. There are no exams specifically designed for interpreting and
there is no interpreting exam or certification (Ministry of Examination website press
release, retrieved April 5, 2007). The staff interpreters interviewed in this study said
no training courses are offered for their duties or interpreting, and there is no booklet
or manual detailing a staff interpreter’s roles and responsibilities. Interpreter posts are
filled based on the number of current vacancies. In every courthouse, interpreters are
either designated to civil court or criminal court.
In practice, staff interpreters are always present in a court hearing or trial. The
court clerk assigns interpreters on a case by case basis. As most of the population has
received compulsory education in Mandarin for more than 50 years since the R.O.C.
government fled from the mainland to Taiwan in 1949, staff interpreters rarely need to
interpret and are mainly responsible for making audio recordings when court is in
session, handling evidence and filing documents. Later in this chapter, this study will
argue that the title “Interpreter” for staff interpreters is inaccurate as it is misleading
and should be changed to a title more reflective of their duties. The reader should be
aware that the phrasing “staff interpreter” is maintained throughout this paper,
referring to a person who is present in the courtroom at all times but hardly ever
interprets between Mandarin and another language.
4.4 Contract Court Interpreters
Contract court interpreters are hired by the courts when a suitable staff
interpreter cannot be found to interpret for a non-Mandarin-speaking defendant,
witness or party. Virtually all cases that need an interpreter to interpret between
Mandarin and another language require finding a contract court interpreter, according
to Subjects A, B, C, and D (See Table 1). Judges, prosecutors, and court clerks may all
be involved with the task of locating suitable interpreters who are then appointed by
the court. The court may refer to the contract court interpreters list compiled by the
Taiwan High Court or find an interpreter through other means. This includes
contacting recruitment agencies that find and hire foreign workers for Taiwan
employers, finding a suitable interpreter through an academic institution, or
requesting a suitable interpreter through the foreign consulate/government
representative office of the country where the language of the non-Mandarin-speaking
person is spoken. For example, if the courts cannot find a Malay-Mandarin interpreter
they might contact the Malaysian Friendship and Trade Centre in Taipei. Also, the
court criminal official interviewed in this study reported that a contract court
interpreter can be privately hired by one or both parties, provided that both parties and
the judge agree to the use of that interpreter. Contract court interpreters who are
appointed by the court but who were not found on the list compiled by the Taiwan
High Court are not always added to the list, according to Subjects B and C (See Table
1).
According to interviews conducted in this study, contract interpreters must sign
an affidavit that they will interpret justly and honestly on the day of the hearing or
trial. This is the same affidavit form that must be signed by testifying forensics
experts. The affidavit writes that false testimony on the part of a witness, forensics
expert or interpreter will result in a prison sentence no longer than seven years. A
copy of the affidavit was provided by the Taipei District Court for this study. There
were no training courses offered and there was no booklet or manual detailing a court
interpreter’s roles and responsibilities prior to 2006. The Taiwan High Court began an
initiative in April 2006 to compile a list of contract court interpreters along with
setting qualification requirements and offering training courses on relevant laws, court
procedures, and interpreting ethics. Persons on the contract court interpreter list
attended a three-day workshop in July 2006 that covered basic R.O.C. laws and legal
procedures, as well as issues regarding foreigners residing in Taiwan. However,
according to three contract court interpreters interviewed in this study who attended
this workshop, how to interpret in court was mentioned but did not make up a
significant part of the course. Details of this workshop are discussed in the recent
developments and interview findings sections of this chapter.
Pay for contract court interpreters prior to April 2006 had been based regulations
which were last amended on 16 December 2004 (“Xingzheng susong caipanfei,” April
5, 2007). This document sets forth provisions on how much an expert witness,
forensics expert or interpreter should be paid and how transportation costs are covered.
Pay included NT$500 for the first appearance plus NT$350 in interpreting fees. Pay
for additional appearances in the same case is NT$350 per day plus transportation
costs depending on distance. Under current regulations set out under the High Court’s
contract court interpreter list initiative, daily fees are now decided by the presiding
judge(s) and are between NT$1,000 and NT$3,000. Details regarding contract court
interpreters will be discussed in the following sections of this chapter. (Note: In
Taiwan district courts, there may be one judge or three judges presiding depending on
the importance of a case. Three judges normally preside in cases at the appellate
level.)
4.5 Need for Reform
According to a study by the Bureau of Employment and Vocational Training,
Council of Labor Affairs, Executive Yuan, there were 331,741 foreign workers (not
including workers from mainland China) employed and residing in Taiwan as of
February, 2006. The majority of these foreign workers come from Thailand, The
Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam. The National Police Agency, Ministry of the
Interior keeps statistics on the number of legal foreign residents in Taiwan, among
which there were 55,804 registered Vietnamese brides at the end of 2004, in addition
to an increasing number of foreign brides and spouses from other countries (Lin,
2006). These numbers are significant, considering that Taiwan’s population is
estimated around 23 million, and create an urgent need for language teaching,
translation, and interpretation services.
There is currently no certification system for interpreters and translators in
Taiwan. In 1996, government agencies, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
the Ministry of Justice, proposed a draft proposal for a certification system along with
the foreign language departments of Taiwan universities but later came to no avail. In
March 2006, the office of legislator Hsiao Bi-Khim hosted a public hearing where
scholars, educators, and government officials debated the need for such a certification
system. A number of issues were raised in support of certification, including
immigration, the rising number of foreign workers, trade, international organized
crime, and an ever more linguistically and culturally diverse population. In the public
hearing, Zhuang Zheng-mei of the Judicial Yuan pointed out that the working
languages of Taiwan court interpreters were restricted to Mandarin and either English
or Japanese, and that the language skills of court interpreters only allowed for a basic
level of communication. Zhuang also announced the Judicial Yuan was planning to
compile a court interpreter name list. Also in the public hearing, Fang Hua-xiang of
the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Justice, expressed support for the motion
to allow prosecutors recommend certain foreign affairs police officers to serve as
court interpreters. Yang Chengshu, current director of the Graduate Institute of
Translation and Interpretation Studies at Fu Jen Catholic University, commented that
the problem in attracting skilled court interpreters was due to the low pay involved
(“Jianli woguo fanyishi zhidu gongtinghui,” March 14, 2006).
4.6 Past Studies
The most recent and perhaps only academic paper on court interpreting in
Taiwan was written by Cheng & Dai (2004) of the Department of Applied Foreign
Languages, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology. Drawing upon
existing laws regarding court interpreters, documented accounts of inadequate court
interpreting services, and reports by the Judicial Reform Foundation, Cheng and Dai
assert that court interpreting in Taiwan courts leaves much to be desired. They point
out that Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure Article 207, The Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 99, and The Organic Law of Court Organization Article 98, which all call for
the use of an interpreter where defendants or witnesses who are deaf, mute, illiterate
or cannot understand Mandarin, fail to clearly define the purpose and role of the
interpreter or how interpreting should proceed in the courtroom. The authors also
submit that the laws are there to protect the interests of the court and not the rights of
the LMP person. Judges and prosecutors have been reported to work as a team and are
only interested in finding the truth at the expense of the rights of the LMP person
(Cheng & Dai, 2004, p. 30).
The Code of Criminal Procedure Article 96 states that the accused has the right
to understand all charges, but nothing is mentioned about the right to an interpreter.
(Cheng & Dai, 2004, p. 47). Article 8 of the R.O.C. Constitution, civil and criminal
laws guarantee the right to due process, and civil, criminal and military law all make
mention of using court interpreters. However, existing laws differ in how an
interpreter is appointed. Cheng & Dai (2004) show that while The Taiwan Code of
Civil Procedure guarantees a court interpreter will be appointed, The Code of
Criminal Procedure leaves that decision to the judge (p. 49). The difference in these
two laws lies in the use of legal Chinese “may” and “must.” The authors also argue
that this is because Taiwan’s legal system is traditionally more institutionalist,
meaning that the prosecutors and judges have more powers to learn “the truth” and so
defendant rights may be overlooked. In a criminal case, the judge can legally choose
not to appoint an interpreter, even in a case where the defendant speaks Taiwanese and
has limited Mandarin proficiency and listening comprehension. However, Cheng &
Dai do not specifically address whether criminal court judges do not appoint an
interpreter for cases involving a non-Mandarin-speaking person.
The League of Welfare Organization for the Disabled, R.O.C., lobbied to have
the law amended in 1993 (United Daily News, November 24, 1993). In 1994, then
Legislator Chen Shui-bian proposed that The Code of Criminal Procedure be
amended to be in step with civil law, but the proposal did not pass (United Daily
News, August 26, 1994). On 27 June 1999, President of the Taiwan Association for
Human Rights W. S. Peter Huang also called for The Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 99 to be amended, criticizing that the function of court interpreters is only to
inform the court of what the defendant says, and that current practice does not include
the participation of the defendant. The Taiwan Association for Human Rights
indicated that defense lawyers often translated on behalf of their clients which
constitutes a conflict of interest, and that it should be compulsory for the courts to
provide an interpreter in the event the defendant cannot adequately speak or
understand Mandarin. (Cheng & Dai, 2004, p. 49) Cheng & Dai conclude their paper
calling for an amendment to The Code of Criminal Procedure Article 99 and a clear
definition of the role of the court interpreter in order to guarantee and protect the
rights of the defendant or witness as stated in the R.O.C. Constitution, pertinent laws
and international conventions.
4.7 Documented Instances of Inadequate Court Interpreting
The Judicial Reform Foundation has observed and documented court cases that
used interpreters in its 2000 and 2001 Court Observation Reports. In 2000, an
Indonesian foreign worker who could not understand the judge was observed standing
as witness and signing documents that had not been explained. The 2001 report
mentions that in some cases judges understand or speak Taiwanese or Hakka better
than the interpreters themselves with the judge correcting the interpreters. Both
reports led the JRF to ask many of the questions this thesis is also trying to answer:
What qualifications must interpreters meet? Are there tests? How are they conducted
and graded? What is the role of the interpreter? How should the interpreter interpret?
(“Diliuci fating guancha baogao,” 2000; “Diqici fating guancha baogao,” 2001).
In the first week of January 2006, a series of articles were written on documented
accounts of inadequate court interpreting (“Two legislators”, 2006, January 3; Xiao,
2006; Zeng, 2006a, 2006b; Lin, 2006; Chen, 2006). One article that appeared in the
January 3rd 2006 edition of the China Times recounts how a Vietnamese bride sued an
individual for sexual assault (Zeng, 2006a). The judge asked the woman whether the
defendant was circumcised, specifically referring to the “foreskin.” The interpreter did
not know how to interpret “foreskin” into Vietnamese and, according to the report,
made something up to which the Vietnamese bride replied “I don’t know.” The judge
thereby dismissed the case. The article also makes reference to a social worker of the
Hope Workers’ Center who has accompanied many Indonesian brides or foreign
workers in court. In one case, the plaintiff was suing an employer for not fully
remitting the plaintiff’s salary. Only after the trial began did the judge discover the
plaintiff could not adequately understand Mandarin and that the staff interpreter could
not speak Indonesian. An interpreter who had no formal training was found through
an employment agency. According to the article, the interpreter’s language skills were
so poor they caused the plaintiff to lose the case.
These recent documented cases indicate that cases involving LMP persons may
possibly result in undesirable outcomes due to unqualified court interpreters.
Therefore it is necessary to determine how such unqualified interpreters came to serve
for the courts and offer suggestions to the Taiwan legal system on how it might draft
and implement measures aimed at avoiding such incidents in the future.
4.8 Recent Developments
Lin (2006) writes that the JRF had asked the Judicial Yuan to provide statistics
on how many foreigners were involved in criminal cases that required court
interpreters for 2005, to which the Judicial Yuan replied no such records were kept (pp.
16-17). A court clerk in the Taiwan High Court who was responsible for compiling a
list of contract court interpreters said that she had no way of knowing when there
would be a court case involving a non-Mandarin-speaking party. According to her, a
court house administrative body or a court clerk finds and appoints interpreters on a
case by case basis. The same answer was given by the Taipei District Court in an
interview conducted by this researcher on March 7, 2007, with a criminal court
official and two staff interpreters. They said it could not be arranged so that observers
could be notified when and where such cases would be held.
In early 2006, a group of non-governmental organizations began holding
meetings to discuss the current status of court interpreting on Taiwan. These
organizations include the Judicial Reform Foundation, the Vietnamese Migrant
Workers and Brides Office, the Awakening Foundation, the Rerum Novarum Center,
the Taiwan International Workers Association, the Pearl S. Buck Foundation (Taipei),
and the Taiwan Association for Human Rights. Together, they sent a petition to the
Judicial Yuan in March, 2006 for the establishment of an independent court
interpreters association and made requests to improve the quality of court interpreting
in Taiwan. They requested the courts to: (1) understand what constitutes a conflict of
interest (cases with foreign workers or brides have been observed where the
interpreters were from employment agencies or intermediaries that were directly
involved in the case); (2) find more interpreters who possess a wider variety of
working languages; (3) gather data and statistics on the number of cases that require
interpreters for languages such as Taiwanese, Hakka, indigenous languages and
foreign languages; (4) compile a contract court interpreter list as soon as possible; (5)
research how a budget may be allocated from the current court interpreters budget to
develop training programs; (6) train interpreters in law, interpreter ethics, and cultural
differences; (7) better educate judges on the role and responsibility of interpreters by
having them attend interpreter training courses; and (8) establish an independent court
interpreters association (“Jianli duli de tongyi xiehui,” March 14, 2006).
As early as 21 April 2006, the Taiwan High Court posted an announcement on its
official website that it would be establishing a list of contract court interpreters in an
effort to improve the quality of court interpretation and guarantee the rights of
non-Mandarin-speaking persons (“Gaodengfayuanjiqifenyuan jianzhi teyue tongyi
mingce ji lüfeibaochouzhiji yaodian,” 2006). It instructed those willing to (1) fill out
an application form; (2) provide a certificate copy of a government-recognized
language proficiency test with a minimum level of “intermediate”; (3) in the event no
such language proficiency certificate can be provided, the R.O.C. citizen applicant
must offer proof of at least five years consecutive residency in the country where the
foreign language is spoken. Non R.O.C. citizens must have permanent residency. The
announcement was re-released on 7 June 2006 and the application deadline was 15
July 2006 (ibid).
In addition to the final contract interpreters contact list being sorted by language,
the announcement states that all qualified applicants are required to attend training
courses. These include Introduction to the Courts (2 hours), Basic Knowledge of the
Law (6 hours), Introduction to Trial and Court Procedures (12 hours), and Interpreter
Ethics and Responsibilities (2 hours) for a total of 22 hours training. Those who
complete the training are issued a two-year court interpreter’s contract. Contract
interpreters must attend a training program once every two years before having their
contracts extended.
Contract court interpreters whose names are on the new contract court interpreter
list (Subjects L, M and N, see Table 1) confirmed they attended a three-day training
workshop in July of 2006. Attendees were given a simplified version of Liufaquanshu
(a compilation of ROC laws), photocopied excerpts from relevant R.O.C. laws, and a
report on legal issues involving foreigners in Taiwan. Subjects L, M, and N confirmed
that except for Liufaquanshu, all other materials were photocopied handouts. These
materials were not available at the time of writing.
Courts that try cases requiring interpretation will notify contract interpreters by
mail one week prior to trial. Interpreters are to bring the letter when reporting for duty
at the courthouse, after which the interpreter will be led to the designated courtroom.
After the trial ends, the court reporter fills out the necessary forms for the interpreter’s
fee. These forms must be approved by the presiding judge, who decides the
interpreter’s daily fee between NT$1,000 and NT$3,000 based on the “complexity
and workload” of the case (ibid).
4.9 Criticism of the Contract Court Interpreter List Initiative
The Judicial Yuan’s announcement to find contract interpreters has drawn
criticism from the JRF and NGOs of the original petition to the Judicial Yuan. They
collectively wrote another letter dated 22 August 2006, indicating that several
questions remained unanswered and that the problem had not been thoroughly dealt
with (“Caituanfaren sifa gaige jijinhui han,” 2006). Although the letter is written in
response to the announcement for contract interpreters, the requests made therein also
appear to encompass staff interpreters. The Judicial Yuan had not replied to the JRF at
the time of writing.
The letter makes several points. The minimum requirement of “intermediate”
language skills is deemed insufficient for the purposes of court interpreting by the
organizations, and the Judicial Yuan has yet to disclose a list of government
recognized testing institutes and certificates. Also lies the question of whether relay
interpretation will be available in the case no interpreter is available who possesses
both required working languages. Relay interpretation is commonly used in
conference interpreting where one translator, or pivot, commonly interprets into one
language (e.g. from Estonian into English), and other interpreters work into different
languages (English into French, German, Arabic etc.) Many Filipino nationals work
and reside in Taiwan. If a Tagalog speaker who goes to court has limited English and
Mandarin, and if there is no interpreter available who can interpret between Tagalog
and Mandarin, then two interpreters would be required: one to interpret between
Tagalog and English, and another to interpret between the first interpreter’s English
rendition and Mandarin.
Criticism is made of the permanent residency requirement for court interpreters,
the letter stating it is unrelated to the ability to interpret. In addition, the Judicial Yuan
has been requested to provide the court interpreter training curriculum (course details
and hours) as stated in the High Court’s announcement, and invite experts and
scholars to take part in discussions prior to implementation. Classes were also
suggested that could educate interpreters via a multi-cultural approach on the status of
migrant workers and immigrants in Taiwan, cultivating tolerance and cultural
sensitivity. Remuneration and incentives should be made to attract top talent.
Completing training courses can be rewarded with higher pay. The letter recommends
increasing pay, giving hourly rates to be decided by the presiding judge instead of the
proposed daily rates of between NT$1,000 and NT$3,000. The letter writes that this
would be fairer to interpreters assigned to longer cases.
The JRF and NGOs go on in their letter to make two more points. First, they
mention cases requiring a court interpreter are often related to human trafficking
gangs, or snakeheads, who may pose a danger to the interpreter’s safety. Besides
protecting the personal safety of the interpreter, background checks should also be
conducted to ensure the interpreter is not affiliated with criminal organizations.
Second and finally, the Judicial Yuan is requested to define what constitutes a conflict
of interest in regards to court interpreters. Witnesses and those directly involved in the
case should not be appointed at the last minute to serve as interpreters. The writers
claim that there is a judge known to have chosen someone in the courtroom to serve
as interpreter for a witness after a trial had begun. The “interpreter” swore an oath and
was not paid afterwards.
Present information on court interpreting in Taiwan shows that a dialogue has
begun between NGOs and the courts. The courts responded to the original petition in
March, 2006 and the courts responded with the contract court interpreter list initiative
on April 21 of the same year. This development is encouraging and beneficial to
establishing communication between LMP person advocates and the court system.
The criticisms, however, are also indicative that much remains to be done. At the time
of writing, this study could not determine whether the further issues raised by the
NGOs were being addressed despite having placed requests for information updates
with the Judicial Yuan, the Taiwan High Court, and the Taipei District Court. In an
effort to gather and present up-to-date information, this study has therefore gathered
qualitative data from interviews conducted with persons directly involved with court
interpreting in Taiwan.
4.10 Interview Findings
This section presents findings on the current practice of court interpreting in
Taiwan from information obtained in interviews with persons directly involved with
court interpreting and the court system in Taiwan between September 2006 and July
2007. These include a Judicial Yuan official, a criminal court official in Taipei District
Court, a public prosecutor, a court clerk in the Taiwan High Court, two staff
interpreters in Taipei District Court, and seven interpreters who have served as
contract court interpreters, who have provided interpretation services for private legal
counsel, or who have accompanied LMP persons in court but did not serve as the
court appointed interpreter. The interviews were conducted in English or in Mandarin.
Real names and personal information remain confidential.
Table 1
List of Interviewees
Date Subject Title
April 2007 A Judicial Yuan Official
March 2007 B Criminal Court Official, Taipei District Court
February 2007 C Court Clerk, Taiwan High Court
June 2007 D Public Prosecutor
February 2007 E Documentation Section Official, Taipei District Court
March 2007 F Staff Interpreter 1
March 2007 G Staff Interpreter 2
April 2007 H Privately Hired Interpreter
October 2006 I Privately Hired Interpreter
November 2006 J Contract Court Interpreter
September 2006 K Contract Court Interpreter
July 2007 L Contract Court Interpreter
July 2007 M Contract Court Interpreter
July 2007 N Contract Court Interpreter
z Interviewees are hereafter referred to as: Subjects A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J,
At the time of writing, Subject F had twenty-two years experience at Taipei
District Court and Subject G only three months. Subject H has more than fifteen years
experience as a professional conference interpreter and interpretation instructor.
Subject I is a well-established conference interpreter who has extensive experience
interpreting for depositions and arbitration cases. Subject J is a Polish national
currently pursuing a PhD. Subject K is an Australian citizen of Vietnamese origin who
has served as a contract court interpreter or accompanied LMP persons in court where
he observed cases involving the use of Mandarin-Vietnamese interpreters. He has
served as an interpreter or observed interpreted court proceedings in Taipei, Luodong,
Hualien, Tainan, Chia-I, Yunlin, Changhwa, Taichung, and Taoyuan for both criminal
and civil cases. Subject L is a Vietnamese citizen who holds permanent residency, has
served as a contract court interpreter on more than five occasions in Taoyuan District
Court and the Taoyuan District Prosecutors Office, and has more than five years
experience translating Vietnamese and Chinese documents for a private company.
Subject M, an R.O.C. citizen, is a professionally trained conference interpreter, has
served as a court interpreter in the US state of Arizona for two years, and has been
serving as a court interpreter in Taiwan for three years. Subject M also takes
conference interpreting cases and is an instructor of translation and interpretation in
higher academic institutions in the Taipei area. Subject N, an Indonesian citizen of
Chinese descent who holds R.O.C. permanent residency and has more than ten years
translation and interpretation experience, has been serving as a court interpreter for
more than two years. Subject N has interpreted in police interviews, at the Taipei
District Prosecutors Office, at the Taipei County District Court in Banqiao, and in
Keelung District Court. Of the interpreters interviewed in this study, only Subjects L,
M, and N are on the Taiwan High Court’s contract court interpreter list.
Using the qualitative data produced from these interviews, different factors
which have the potential to negatively affect the outcome of cases involving persons
with limited Mandarin proficiency are isolated and discussed below (see Chapter Two
for court interpretation quality.)
1. Language combinations most urgently required of court interpreters in Taiwan
include but are not limited to Vietnamese, Filipino (Tagalog), Thai, and
Indonesian. However, exactly how many interpreters of which language
combinations are needed to meet current demand remains unclear. According to
Taiwan court personnel and persons interviewed in this study, the courts do not
keep statistics on how many court cases require the use of a court interpreter.
Subjects A, B, D, F, G, K, L, M, and N report that the languages highest in
demand for court interpreters are those spoken by a majority of foreign workers
residing in Taiwan, including but not limited to Vietnamese, Filipino (Tagalog), Thai,
and Indonesian. However, the courts were unable to meet this researcher’s request to
produce statistics on how many cases a year require the use of court interpreters.
Subjects B, C, D, E, F, and G report that Taiwan courts did not compile such statistics
at the time of writing.
A critical first step in addressing the urgent need for court interpreters is
accurately assessing demand. How many cases require court interpreters every year?
Which language combinations are needed and how often? Where in Taiwan are court
interpreters needed? What kind of cases are they? Although the Judicial Yuan and
criminal court officials say there is a need for interpreters skilled in the languages of
foreign workers residing in Taiwan, nothing is for certain without reliable statistics.
The Taiwan High Court’s move to compile a name list of contract court interpreters
was planned without first possessing relevant figures according to Subjects A, B, C ,
and D. They report that Taiwan courts are experiencing a shortage of
language-qualified individuals. How large a shortage this is remains unknown. No
policy will ever be effective, though, in meeting the demand for court interpreters
without first assessing that demand.
Besides solving the current shortage, Taiwan courts should be concerned about
how to maintain a sufficient pool of court interpreters for the long term. Planning
ahead is necessary to ensure that interpreters can be readily found for future cases
involving persons with limited Mandarin proficiency. Again, relevant data is needed
to project future demand.
2. Taiwan courts lack a set of standard qualifications and criteria for ensuring
competent court interpreters.
None of the interpreters interviewed were tested or required to provide
documented proof that they could interpret adequately for the courts (certification,
proof of having received interpreter training in their language combinations, etc.) The
civil service examination which both staff interpreters had to pass did not include an
interpreting examination. There is no examination or certification process for contract
court interpreters. This could explain why the Judicial Yuan and criminal court
officials interviewed in this study both emphasized that Taiwan courts are in need of
better staff interpreters and contract court interpreters, referring to ongoing reports of
inadequate court interpreting. Subject F seemed reluctant to provide examples, while
Subject G (only three months on the job at time of writing) said she already had
observed a case that used a Mandarin-Vietnamese interpreter who possessed limited
proficiency in Mandarin. Subjects D, H, I, J, K and M have all observed instances of
inadequate court interpreting which may be linked to the Taiwan courts’ lack of
standard qualifications and criteria for hiring contract court interpreters.
Subject K observed one case where the court interpreter was a Vietnamese bride
with limited Chinese literacy (she was unable to read court documents shown to her.)
This was a sexual assault case, where the plaintiff was asked to describe the
defendant’s penis. The interpreter did not understand the word “foreskin” in Chinese
and translated it into Vietnamese as “diaper.” Although Subject K objected profusely
at this and other blatant errors, he was instructed by the judge that he had no right to
object. Due to the court’s use of an incompetent Vietnamese-Mandarin interpreter, the
Vietnamese plaintiff lost the case and resorted to the appeals process. This same case
was reported in the January 3rd 2006 edition of the China Times. Subject K says the
cases he has observed in Taiwan all point to the same problem: Taiwan courts are
unable to assess the interpreting skills of Mandarin-Vietnamese interpreters because
there is no interpretation exam.
In another example, Subject H was privately hired by a party to interpret only for
an expert witness called on by his party in a criminal court case where three judges, a
prosecutor, and a court appointed interpreter were present. Subject H said this was
because the party which hired him needed an interpreter who knew all the technical
terms to be used by the expert witness. The court appointed interpreter was from the
Foreign Affairs Police. Subject H said he observed that the court appointed
interpreter’s performance for other witnesses was “really, really ridiculous,” “very
inaccurate,” and “had a lot of glaring mistakes.” Subject H had no authority to object.
When the court appointed interpreter was interpreting from English into Chinese,
Subject H looked at the courtroom monitors that display the clerk’s summary to find
that the court clerk had surprisingly typed the correct meaning. This was because a
judge had been whispering the correct Chinese interpretation to the court clerk. That
particular judge understood spoken English very well, knew the court appointed
interpreter was not conveying the correct meaning, and so could ensure the court
record was accurate. In comparison with the case described by Subject K, the
testimony in the case described by Subject H was accurate only because the judge
happened to correct interpretation errors. Subject H also noticed that when the judge
was telling the witness to tell the truth or be subject to punishment on grounds of
perjury, the interpreter translated it as “If you tell the truth you will be punished by the
law.”
The above examples of inadequate court interpreting and documented instances
thereof mentioned in Chapter Two are partly caused by a lack of standard
qualifications regarding the appointment of court interpreters. This has serious
implications for the rights of persons with limited Mandarin proficiency in the Taiwan
legal system. Subject K points to his observations of cases where Vietnamese persons
with limited Mandarin proficiency have been at a disadvantage due to incompetent
interpreters. Subject H’s experience, on the contrary, shows how the rights of an
English-speaking party were unexpectedly ensured only because the judge happened
to understand spoken English very well—much better than the court appointed
interpreter could.
It should not be the judge’s responsibility to understand the LMP person’s
language to tell whether the interpretation is accurate and complete. According to
Taiwan law, an LMP person has the right to understand what is being said in court so
that he or she has an opportunity to defend themselves and present evidence in their
favor as guaranteed by R.O.C. law—something they cannot do when unable to
effectively communicate with the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney.
If Taiwan courts intend to improve the quality of court interpreting, it is essential
that judicial bodies and courts commission studies on how to establish an effective
testing and certification program. Should there ever be a shortage of certified court
interpreters, the courts must also establish another set of criteria in order to create a
pool of minimally language-qualified persons who would be able to serve as contract
court interpreters on short notice.
3. No court interpreting training was required for any of the interpreters
interviewed.
Prior to serving as interpreters in the Taiwan courtroom, none of the interpreters
interviewed in this study were required to undergo training specific to interpreting and
what the process involves as discussed in Chapter Two. Contract court interpreters did
attend a three-day workshop in July 2006 taught by a judge and a law professor. But
according to Subjects L, M and N, it mainly focused on giving a general introduction
to R.O.C. law and legal procedures. Materials consisted of a simplified version of
Liufaquanshu (a compilation of R.O.C. laws), excerpts from relevant R.O.C. laws,
and a report on legal issues that involve foreigners in Taiwan. These materials were
not available at the time of writing. Contract court interpreters were not required to
possess interpreter training, attend a briefing to learn about how the interpreting
process should take place in the courtroom, possess previous training, have previous
interpreter experience, or hold certification. Not even the staff interpreters in Taipei
District Court had ever received training in interpretation. Despite the fact that the
three-day contract court interpreting workshop did take place, both the Taipei District
Court and the Taiwan High Court could not confirm with this researcher that it ever
took place and claimed to have no such courses or materials available for reference
when this study was conducted. Subjects A, B, C, D, E, F and G were also apparently
unaware that a workshop ever took place. It was only in July 2007 when this
researcher interviewed Subjects L, M and N that it could be confirmed the workshop
was actually held in July 2006.
Perhaps information regarding court interpreter training programs was not
disseminated through the court system. This might be why those interviewed in this
study and the court personnel this author placed requests with did not know who to
ask regarding this information. The courts should ensure that all relevant court
personnel be kept up-to-date with regards to court interpreting training. This way, the
information can be accessed by those conducting future studies.
Subjects L and N felt the workshop was designed to be of some help to persons
with little knowledge of the Taiwan legal system. But Subjects L, M and N
commented that the workshop was of little or no help because it did not teach how to
interpret for court proceedings. Subject L said that instead of learning specifically
how to interpret there is a “tacit understanding” among participants of interpreted
court proceedings and also said that a contract court interpreter can only but learn on
the job. Subject M, who has received professional conference interpreting training and
who has two years experience as a court interpreter in Arizona, thought the three-day
workshop was useless because everyone spent three days “imagining” what it would
be like to interpret in court instead of actually interpreting or holding mock trials –
something Subject M felt would have been much more meaningful and educational
for workshop attendees. Subject N thinks that the workshop was very general and that
the requirements for who can become a contract court interpreter “weren’t very strict”
because the courts need more interpreters just as badly as they need better interpreters.
Subject N also mentioned that another workshop would be held in the near future,
possibly this year, but had not received any notification.
Subject J felt that court interpreting was very difficult for him because he lacked
formal interpreting training and was unfamiliar with the Taiwan legal system. Subject
J thinks that court interpreting is a very difficult task for two reasons. “First of all it's a
great responsibility and I don't think that I have enough experience to be doing that. I
would’ve refused if it wasn't for the person from MOFA [Department of European
Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs] who said if it wasn't for me the suspect would
have no means of communicating in court at all. As it was the first time for me to be
confronted with this much legal vocabulary, even though I tried to prepare well before
actually going to court, I still heard some vocabulary I hadn't heard before, and my
way of coping with the problem was to just ask the judge/ defendant/ prosecutor to
rephrase their statement or ask what the word I didn't understand meant.” A similar
accounts is given by Subject N, who comments that as long as the case is related to a
subject she is familiar with she performs well. When a case involves a field she is
unfamiliar with, she must ask the speaker to repeat or explain themselves so that
Subject N can accurately convey the speaker’s meaning in the target language.
It has already been established in Chapter Two and in these findings that Taiwan
courts are in dire need of ready access to a pool of qualified interpreters. It can be
inferred that because the interpreting aspect of court interpreter training was
nonexistent at the time of this study, Taiwan judicial and court officials may be
unfamiliar with the unique demands of court interpreting. They are also probably
unaware that prior training is essential to better guarantee interpreting quality and
thereby protect the rights of the LMP person. Taiwan lawmakers, legal and academic
institutions, court officials, and NGOs assisting limited Mandarin proficiency persons
with legal matters must make a collective effort to understand the complexities of
court interpreting, conduct further studies, and establish effective training programs to
produce competent interpreters.
4. Contradictory laws and regulations for who can serve as a court interpreter were
found to be true for Subject J.
The R.O.C. Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked the Polish Representative Office
for help in finding a Polish-Mandarin interpreter to interpret for a suspected drug
smuggler. MOFA was referred to Subject J, who held a student visa and had neither
R.O.C. citizenship nor permanent residency. He was told by the Department of
European Affairs, MOFA, that he could legally serve as a court interpreter in Taoyuan
District Court and in Taiwan High Court for an appeal of the same case. After the case
had ended and payment was received, Subject J called the Council of Labor Affairs
(CLA) to ask about applying for a work permit in regards to a job he was offered at
the R.O.C. National Science Council. A CLA official told him that payment received
for any employment prior to obtaining a work permit was illegal. The Department of
European Affairs had been informed by Subject J that he did not have a work permit
before agreeing to accept the assignment. The Department of European Affairs had
said it was not a problem.
This case is significant because it shows that the Taiwan courts, regardless of
how infrequently, do in fact resort to contract court interpreters that do not meet
current government and court requirements. Subject J’s account shows that the
Taiwan courts did not know where to find a Polish-Mandarin interpreter and had to
ask other government offices. This may be indicative that cases involving such
interpreters are rare. Commenting without confirmation from all parties involved, this
study speculates that Taoyuan District Court, Taiwan High Court, MOFA, and the
Council of Labor Affairs may have been unaware of regulations for who could legally
serve as a court interpreter or because of reasons unknown. After rendering services,
one government agency implied that Subject J had worked illegally even though it
was another government agency that had said he could take the assignment legally.
This caused Subject J to worry about his visa status and whether future employment
opportunities in Taiwan had been jeopardized. Even the new regulations set out by the
Taiwan High Court’s contract court interpreter initiative require non-R.O.C. citizens
wishing to serve as contract court interpreters to hold permanent residency, which
Subject J does not have.
Based on this precedent then, the requirements should be changed. Why?
Assume that Subject J’s case was an exception and that all future cases should adhere
to the current requirements. Pretend that an Indonesian-speaking person has limited
Mandarin proficiency and was arrested and tried for an offense. A professionally
trained Indonesian-Mandarin interpreter who holds only Indonesian citizenship or
even an Indonesian student studying law in a Taiwan university is available to serve
as a contract court interpreter. However, under the current requirements, the court
cannot use either of these persons and must resort to an Indonesian-Mandarin
bilingual who holds R.O.C. citizenship or permanent residency but has no interpreter
training or knowledge of the legal system. By resorting to unqualified interpreters,
it is more likely than not that significant portions of testimony will be distorted by the interpreter
omitting information present in the original testimony, adding information not present, or by
stylistically altering the tone and intent of the speaker…(González, Vasquez, & Mikkelson, 1991,
pp. 5-6)
Because the court personnel interviewed in this study report that Taiwan needs
qualified court interpreters now, Taiwan lawmakers and court officials should
consider amending the requirement that contract court interpreters hold R.O.C.
citizenship or permanent residency. Legal problems such as those encountered by
Subject J could be avoided. More importantly, if a professional Indonesian-Mandarin
interpreter or highly-educated Indonesian exchange student with knowledge of
Taiwan and Indonesian legal system can be found to serve as a court interpreter, why
should the Taiwan courts settle for someone less qualified? More studies may be
required to assess whether there is a legitimate reason for requiring non-R.O.C.
citizens to hold permanent residency in order to serve as court interpreters. Another
question may be raised here as well: Even if someone holds permanent residency,
does he or she still need a work permit to become a contract court interpreter? Further
studies are needed to determine the answers to these questions.
5. The title “Interpreter” for staff interpreters in present-day Taiwan is inaccurate if
not a misnomer because they rarely interpret anymore.
Subjects B, D, F, and G confirm reports that staff interpreters rarely interpret if
ever at all (See Chapter Two.) They have never been tested on or required to receive
any form of interpreter training. Subject F, whose working languages are Mandarin
and Taiwanese, has been an “interpreter” in Taipei District Court for twenty-two years
but cannot remember the last time she really “interpreted” for a case involving a
Taiwanese-speaking person. Subject G is new on the job, having only been employed
three months at the time of the interview and has never interpreted for a case. Their
main duties include making audio recordings, handling evidence in the courtroom,
and filing documents. “Most of them [staff interpreters] can’t interpret,” Subject B
said. “Almost all cases that require interpreting are outsourced.” In his opinion, staff
interpreters have very few duties compared to other courthouse staff and constitute a
waste of human resources. Subject D said that staff interpreters are like “an extra
