Taking the lead in responding to the ruling Party’s call for having the country ruled by law and pushing forward judicial reform，the Supreme People’s Court came up on October 20，1999，with an Outline Five-Year Program for Reform ofPeople’s Courts，exhorting all courts to “implement it thoroughly and earnestly.” In his explanations about the document，Zhu Mingshan said with some pride thatit had been formulated “as a result of ample investigation and study and collection of opinions，with the draft changed as many as ten times，” suggesting howmeticulous and careful had been those in charge of the drafting of the document.However，half a year has elapsed，and scarcely has the document elicited responses from law scholars and the general public，something rather unusual for sucha topic as judicial reform，one of the hottest over the past five or six years.On different occasions，I have asked judges of various judicial instances how they felt and thought about that document，and most of them replied，“It’s okayand quite solid. ” Meanwhile，I have repeatedly heard remarks of discontent from scholars specialized in judicial problems. As to such discontent，I would liketoquote what an honorable judge told me as said by a respected scholar：“With theProgram for Reform，Supreme Court President Xiao Yang is satisfied，but not me！”

As a matter of fact，whenever I hear judges making their remarks about how“solid” the Program seems to be，I cannot help remembering in mysubconscious their criticisms of outstanding scholars who nevertheless were once their schoolmates：“What pedantic remarks！Nothing to the point！” And this reminds me how important the existence of a professional law community is for the rule of law andhow sharply appraisal criteria differ for law-related practice and law erudition，as well as how large a thinking span and how strong a transcending ability arerequired if reform of the legal system and the judiciary is to be studied and carried out in a country right at the height of a typological transition. Bothscholars and law professionals depend on a flourishing rule of law for the advancement of their careers. It would be hard to achieve good results in the reform of the legal system and the judiciary if there is no open mind and no courage andability to go beyond what is “already in place” or “already gained. ”

Now I would like to make a few remarks of my own about the Five-YearProgram for Reform released by the Supreme People’s Court. In my opinion，when reading the title itself，stress should be put on Five-Year，and the modifying term of the Supreme People’s Court should be added，so as to make clear that weare talking about a limited program for reform.

First，it is limited in time. Over twenty years have elapsed since Chinaembarked on reform in the late 1970s. Reform is a long and arduous process，notto be accomplished at one stroke. This is true also of judicial reform. Thevery nature of this reform as a protracted undertaking is clearly shown in the Program，where in the final part of Section II，entitled “Basic Content of the Five-Year Reform of the People’s Courts，” a statement in favor of openness can be found，that is，“to actively explore the conditions for a deeper reform of people’scourts，” although in the opinion of a good many scholars what stands for “deeper” still cannot be clearly deduced from the concrete things to do enumerated elsewhere in the document. We should，therefore，appraise the Programfrom the perspective of a reasonable period of time.

Second，it is a reform program focusing on the operability of its content. It is aimed at reforming the administrative structure of the courts and the judicial working mechanisms，so as to solve various problems that have long been haunting the courts，among them judicial local protectionism，unsatisfactory professional quality and ethics of the judges due to drawbacks of the personnel management system，merely administrative approach to the trial processes，lack of material resources at the disposal of the basic-level courts，etc；multiple and variegated aspects to be reformed include the way trials should proceed，the formsof organization of the trials，the inner organic structure of the courts，theirpersonnel management mechanisms，their office settings，mechanisms for supervising the trials，etc. As a whole，all these aspects and tasks entail readjustmentsor reforms to be carried out within the framework of the current political andlegal system as well as the court network of the country. But in fact，just likeother reforms，judicial reform affects different spheres and levels where different interests of different magnitude are interwoven. Even if we confine judicial reform to the solution of questions concerning exclusively the administrativestructure and mechanisms of judicial trials，these questions should all the same be dealt with from a deeper and broader perspective. On the other hand，noinner readjustment of any system can do without effective support from the outsideenvironment. In terms of appraisal，the closer the aspects and levels involvedin the envisaged reform to the questions themselves in their intension and extension，and the broader the reform’s visual field in terms of knowledge and reference frame，the higher will be such a project’s academic value，but the poorermay be its actual operability. We should，therefore，appraise the Program fromthe perspective of a reasonable scope of space.

Third，it is a program announced by the Supreme People’s Court and therefore a project with a limited subject agent. In a society resting upon reason andruled by law，it is impossible for law to force anybody to perform what they are unable to. Likewise，we can hardly demand that the Supreme People’s Courtgobeyond its own limitations（including its limited learning and vision）and pushforward any reform beyond its own capacities. As a whole，in its Five-Year Program，the Supreme People’s Court has to confine its considerations basically within the limits of its own possibilities，and hence tends sometimes to avoid the essential and concrete while dealing only with the trivial and abstract，avoid thedifficult while dwelling on the easy，and follow the beaten track to rest content with temporary ease. Such a drawback can be spotted in what the Program provides as far as mechanisms of supervision over judicial trials，forms of organization of trials，personnel management system of the courts，their internal organicstructure，etc.，are concerned. It should be pointed out that judicial reformis under way today in a lot of countries across the world. Despite the important role of judges taking part in this process，democratic participation of multiple actors emerges as a basic indicator of organizational transformation as to who is in charge of the reform at issue. Judicial power is first of all a publicproperty belonging to the whole society and only after that it is exercised by judges and courts. We should，therefore，appraise the Program from the perspective of a vigilant approach with respect to the limitations of the subject agent of the reform at issue.

Now，as far as methodology is concerned，to evaluate a project of limitedreform as good or bad，the extent to which it can potentially broaden itself should be taken into account. Only a reform project with the potential of broadening itself can make it possible to attain the goal of “pushing forward actively and steadily” the reform process，turning today’s reform into a cornerstone fortomorrow’s and yielding satisfactory results. Otherwise，what seems to have been achieved in today’s reform may turn out to be what should be changed in tomorrow’s reform or a hurdle to the latter and end up as a “harmful reform，” wasting energy and resources for nothing.

In my opinion，in our approach to China’s judicial reform，we should ponder what is the reasonable place judicial power should occupy in the whole. Or more precisely，we should think how to set up，on the basis of the requirements of modern rule of law，a modern judicial system that tallies with China’s reality.This means how to compatibilize China’s system of people’s congresses with a modern judicial system，determine the relationship between the ruling Party and thejudiciary，between the judiciary and the people’s congresses and governments atall levels，among the different actors in the judicial processes，and between the judiciary and the media and general public. Only with all these external relationships clearly determined can there be any talk about a rational internal of the judicial power. All this calls for a broader vision.

Translated by Chen Yongyi and Zhang Zhipin