Lack of transparency and poor credibility are two mutually enhancing factors in a vicious circle bewitching the judiciary. The less people know about the judicial processes, the more suspicious they become, and the more reluctant the judiciary will be to satisfy the incredulous public's right to know.

Either from the perspective of justice, civil rights and public interests, or from that of the authorities' preoccupation with stability, such a circle amounts to an unaffordable burden on society. There is no way out except introducing greater transparency.

We have heard plenty about the making of public court rulings. And we have seen moves at different levels in that direction. The most inspiring response to such calls came from the central Henan province. From Dec 30, 2008, the local people's high court began publishing all its verdicts online, except those stipulated otherwise by law. If a subsequent promise is honored, judgments by all courts in the province should be available on the Internet by the end of this year.

That is an adorable step toward transparency, which would logically yield multiple benefits. By voluntarily subjecting its works to public scrutiny, the local judiciary places on its shoulders the burden to improve performance. On the other hand, it reduces the chance of being unfairly perceived as unjust.

A pitiful truth about such advancements, however, is that they are to this day isolated experimental practices by conscientious local authorities. Even the latest call from Shenzhen to build the special economic zone into one in the jurisprudential sense remains within geographical and administrative confines. A professor of law with Shenzhen University has urged the local judiciary to catch up by making local court rulings available online.

A jurisprudential special zone may take a lot of justifying. But it would be a tremendous pity if Shenzhen lags behind. This is a mere matter of political will. And the reward is tested and true. Since the move is based firmly on existing laws, it should not only be adopted in Shenzhen. Now is the time to popularize it nationwide.

The country's Constitution, as well as its laws on civil and criminal procedures, includes clauses on transparency. All court proceedings, except some exempted by law, should be open to the public. Making court judgments accessible online is a great way to meet that requirement. Since equipment and access to the Internet are no longer problems even at grassroot levels, there are no technical obstacles in sight.

This is the only effective way to honor the promises of public supervision over the judiciary. Public oversight is the most reliable precaution against judicial abuse and corruption. And public distrust of the judiciary is rooted in suspicions of behind-the-scenes dealings.

A lot has been done, is being done, and will be done to convince people of the judiciary's commitment to justice. But no rhetoric could possibly be more convincing than letting the people see the judiciary has nothing to hide.