Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
7/22/2003 1:44 AM
Subject: Regarding your failure to supervise a meeting between me and a
studentTo: Huei-chen Ko
CC: Control Yuan , moe ,
Kao Chiang
BCC: Ray Dah-tong ,
Paul
Professor Ko Heui-Chen,
Dean of Student Affairs
Office of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Control Yuan, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education,
Office of the President, NCKU
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
As you know, I have repeatedly requested that you set up a supervised
meeting between me and a student who wrote a spiteful letter.
Although I have been requesting either such a meeting or disciplinary
action against this student for what may be nearly two years now, I have
been denied this simple request.
It seems to me that every professor is entitled to request a supervised
meeting with a student, or there is no point to an Office of Student
Affairs.
As you know, in 1999 this student wrote a secret and spiteful letter,
accusing me of unfairly failing her eight years before she wrote her
letter. The letter was apparently solicited by officials who wished to
insure my dismissal and then secretly circulated at university hearings
upholding my dismissal.
The fact that this letter was even accepted, without questioin, by an
official at a university is, in itself, an outrage against legal, moral, and
academic standards. Apart from the violation of human rights, it places the
reputations of all professors who fail students in jeopardy, however many
years pass between the recording of a grade and a student's challenge of the
grade. It also undermines confidence in the sincerity of honest student
complaints, leading to a climate of mistrust and fear among both students
and faculty.
Finally, a teacher has a right to protect his reputation and a
university is bound, by law, to cooperate with him in doing this.
Apart from disciplinary issues, every teacher should have the right to
request a supervised meeting with a student, for whatever reason. It is not
your job to preempt the mediation process but to facilitate it.
I request yet again, that you set up a supervised meeting between me
and this student within days.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
National Cheng Kung University
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (22 July 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
7/22/2003 12:17 PM
Subject: Misconduct of an NCKU student, in
TainanTo: moe
From:
"mengli_2" |
To:
"¨f¥Ì·ç"
CC:
"¹p¤j¦P" ,
higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw, "¾Ç°È³B³B¥»³¡"
Subject:
¾Ç°È³B¦^ÂШf¥Ì·ç±Ð±Â«H¨ç_92.7.21
Date:
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:03:50 +0800
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
Dean of Students
Ko Huei-chen
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
The substance of your email has been translated for me. But your
arguments are still invalid and unacceptable.
A student wrote a secret, malicious letter, accusing a teacher of
failing her eight years before. There was no basis for her accusation
but her own claim that it was true.
Incredibly, officials at our university then accepted and
circulated this letter to insure my dismissal in 1999. That dismissal,
as you know, was canceled. But the rumors that I failed a student
unfairly continue. Just recently a woman on the street asked if it was
true I failed a student unfairly. For this reason, this case must be
resolved with a formal apology and retraction. This case will never be
closed until this formal apology and retraction is made.
You give three reasons for why you think this case is closed.
The first is that there is no new evidence. But the old evidence
would have been enough for other universities to have acted on this case
long ago.
Second, you refer to a court decision. A court decision is a
judicial, not a moral, decision. It's a decision about legal codes, not
ethical codes; about acts, not behavior. Driving a car drunk is a
criminal act; getting drunk is bad behavior. A court may find a student
did not drive a car when drunk, but that does not prevent a school from
disciplining the student for being drunk.
In addition, the court decision merely ruled on the issue of
whether this student's letter was directly responsible for my
dismissal. It did not rule on the ethics of the student's behavior nor
does it prevent the university from ruling on this issue; no more than
being acquitted in court of theft prevent the defendant's mother from
punishing her child for stealing.
A court does not judge moral behavior but criminal acts. Breaking
a window may not be a crime in a court's eyes but may be punished as
misconduct by a child's parents.
No responsible parent would use legal definitions as moral guides.
In the same way, no responsible university official should use legal
definitions as moral guides. This student engaged in misconduct by any
reasonable standard and should be punished for doing so.
Finally, your argument that she was not a student at the time is
wrong, since she repeated her claim to your vice-dean, insisting that
what she said was the truth. When she repeated her claim (last year)
she was (and is now) currently a student.
Consult with your vice-dean about this matter. By repeating her
claim she no longer falls under the umbrella of protection that you have
opened for her. I would not be so determined to have this student
punished if she had disowned her letter when spoken to by your vice-dean
recently.
If she had simply said, "I never wrote that letter and disclaim it"
or "I wrote the letter then, but I wasn't a student and I do not now
repeat my claims," that would be a different matter.
But she did not do so. Indeed, she insisted that what she said was
the "truth"; and, indeed, this was the very basis that your vice-dean
used as an excuse not to punish her: "She insists she was telling the
truth," as I recall your vice-dean saying.
You seem to want it both ways, or many ways. First I was told your
office could not handle such a complaint. Then I was told the FLLD
department must begin the complaint. Then I was told the student
insists she was telling the truth. Then I was told the court case was
pending. Then I was told the student was not a student. Then I was
told the vice-dean was gathering evidence. (Why would he gather
evidence if he thought the student was not liable in the first place?)
Then I was told it was my word against hers. (Apparently the
evidence convinced your office that it was not only my word but strong
documentation). Then I was told the student's mother did not want her
to go to a meeting. Finally I was told that God would punish the
student.
Now there's a famous French film with a very famous line:
"The terrible thing is that everyone has his reasons."
But we know that reasons are not excuses. There are many good
reasons to steal or murder; in fact, there are hundreds of them. You
can find them out by talking to those confined in the nearest jail or
prison. But these people found out the hard way that reasons were not
excuses.
But now there are other issues I wish to address in this email.
First, when a professor requests a supervised meeting with a
student, that seems to be a reasonable request to make. In universities
all over the world professors request such meetings and these are
usually set up within a day or two, or a week at most.
But you have delayed this case now for about two years. This kind
of delay should not be acceptable at a university.
In addition, a question that officials outside the university
should reasonably ask is why officials are protecting this student and
why would the student avoid coming to a supervised meeting with the
professor she accused? One would think she would pursue such a meeting
rather than the other way around.
The answer is simple: She knows her claim is unbelievable on the
face of it. Moreover, officials who conspired with her know this to be
the case.
None of this matters, really. I have long since lost confidence in
administrative remedy at our university. I will continue to pursue this
case within the university as a matter of principle. But my main avenue
of remedy will be far outside the university, to Taiwan lawmakers, the
Taiwan press, and to international human rights organizations, who
already know the details of this case. I assure you, once this case is
exposed, all parties involved in obstructing remedy at our university
may wish the case had been handled differently from the first.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
7/22/2003 12:17 PM
Subject: Misconduct of an NCKU student, in
TainanTo: moe
From:
"mengli_2" |
To:
"¨f¥Ì·ç"
CC:
"¹p¤j¦P" ,
higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, em50000@email.ncku.edu.tw, "¾Ç°È³B³B¥»³¡"
Subject:
¾Ç°È³B¦^ÂШf¥Ì·ç±Ð±Â«H¨ç_92.7.21
Date:
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:03:50 +0800
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
Dean of Students
Ko Huei-chen
21 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
The substance of your email has been translated for me. But your
arguments are still invalid and unacceptable.
A student wrote a secret, malicious letter, accusing a teacher of
failing her eight years before. There was no basis for her accusation
but her own claim that it was true.
Incredibly, officials at our university then accepted and
circulated this letter to insure my dismissal in 1999. That dismissal,
as you know, was canceled. But the rumors that I failed a student
unfairly continue. Just recently a woman on the street asked if it was
true I failed a student unfairly. For this reason, this case must be
resolved with a formal apology and retraction. This case will never be
closed until this formal apology and retraction is made.
You give three reasons for why you think this case is closed.
The first is that there is no new evidence. But the old evidence
would have been enough for other universities to have acted on this case
long ago.
Second, you refer to a court decision. A court decision is a
judicial, not a moral, decision. It's a decision about legal codes, not
ethical codes; about acts, not behavior. Driving a car drunk is a
criminal act; getting drunk is bad behavior. A court may find a student
did not drive a car when drunk, but that does not prevent a school from
disciplining the student for being drunk.
In addition, the court decision merely ruled on the issue of
whether this student's letter was directly responsible for my
dismissal. It did not rule on the ethics of the student's behavior nor
does it prevent the university from ruling on this issue; no more than
being acquitted in court of theft prevent the defendant's mother from
punishing her child for stealing.
A court does not judge moral behavior but criminal acts. Breaking
a window may not be a crime in a court's eyes but may be punished as
misconduct by a child's parents.
No responsible parent would use legal definitions as moral guides.
In the same way, no responsible university official should use legal
definitions as moral guides. This student engaged in misconduct by any
reasonable standard and should be punished for doing so.
Finally, your argument that she was not a student at the time is
wrong, since she repeated her claim to your vice-dean, insisting that
what she said was the truth. When she repeated her claim (last year)
she was (and is now) currently a student.
Consult with your vice-dean about this matter. By repeating her
claim she no longer falls under the umbrella of protection that you have
opened for her. I would not be so determined to have this student
punished if she had disowned her letter when spoken to by your vice-dean
recently.
If she had simply said, "I never wrote that letter and disclaim it"
or "I wrote the letter then, but I wasn't a student and I do not now
repeat my claims," that would be a different matter.
But she did not do so. Indeed, she insisted that what she said was
the "truth"; and, indeed, this was the very basis that your vice-dean
used as an excuse not to punish her: "She insists she was telling the
truth," as I recall your vice-dean saying.
You seem to want it both ways, or many ways. First I was told your
office could not handle such a complaint. Then I was told the FLLD
department must begin the complaint. Then I was told the student
insists she was telling the truth. Then I was told the court case was
pending. Then I was told the student was not a student. Then I was
told the vice-dean was gathering evidence. (Why would he gather
evidence if he thought the student was not liable in the first place?)
Then I was told it was my word against hers. (Apparently the
evidence convinced your office that it was not only my word but strong
documentation). Then I was told the student's mother did not want her
to go to a meeting. Finally I was told that God would punish the
student.
Now there's a famous French film with a very famous line:
"The terrible thing is that everyone has his reasons."
But we know that reasons are not excuses. There are many good
reasons to steal or murder; in fact, there are hundreds of them. You
can find them out by talking to those confined in the nearest jail or
prison. But these people found out the hard way that reasons were not
excuses.
But now there are other issues I wish to address in this email.
First, when a professor requests a supervised meeting with a
student, that seems to be a reasonable request to make. In universities
all over the world professors request such meetings and these are
usually set up within a day or two, or a week at most.
But you have delayed this case now for about two years. This kind
of delay should not be acceptable at a university.
In addition, a question that officials outside the university
should reasonably ask is why officials are protecting this student and
why would the student avoid coming to a supervised meeting with the
professor she accused? One would think she would pursue such a meeting
rather than the other way around.
The answer is simple: She knows her claim is unbelievable on the
face of it. Moreover, officials who conspired with her know this to be
the case.
None of this matters, really. I have long since lost confidence in
administrative remedy at our university. I will continue to pursue this
case within the university as a matter of principle. But my main avenue
of remedy will be far outside the university, to Taiwan lawmakers, the
Taiwan press, and to international human rights organizations, who
already know the details of this case. I assure you, once this case is
exposed, all parties involved in obstructing remedy at our university
may wish the case had been handled differently from the first.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (15 July 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
15 Jul 2003 14:14:10 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Kao Chiang , moe
Ko Heui-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
cc: President's Office, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher
Education
15 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko
I am not satisfied with the constant delays in your handling of the
case of the student, Chen An-chuen, who wrote a secret
malicious letter accusing a professor.
I have reminded you repeatedly that this is a simple case. Nowhere
in any country in the world that I'm familiar with is
there a law preventing a dean from calling a student into her office for
any reason whatsoever, whether it's to confirm a
phone number or in response to a complaint from faculty or students.
Furthermore, I remind you, as I've reminded another official at our
university, the responsibility of an elected or
appointed official can be delegated but not transferred. As far as I'm
concerned, the responsibility for handling this Lily
Chen case rests with you and accountability for not handling this case
rests with you too. Your vice-dean may be
accountable to you, but you are accountable to faculty at our university
and, ultimately, to the Department of Higher
Education and the Ministry of Education.
As a professor of this university I have the right to ask the Dean
of Students to call a student into her office. Moreover,
the student is required to appear. The student has no right to ask for
what reason. The student will find out the reason soon
enough in the proper way.
No deep study of documents is necessary for doing this. All you
need to do this is an air-conditioned room with a door.
And, if necessary, we could do without the air conditioner.
As for whether this student was a student when she wrote her
letter, that would be of no concern anyway. But for the
record, Ms. Chen told your vice-dean, Professor Tsai, at a meeting
several months ago, that everything in her letter was
"true." So the issue of when Ms. Chen wrote her original complaint is
without relevance anyway.
Finally, as for "studying" the court documents, that has no
relevance to this case either.
First, a professor has a right to ask the Dean of Students to
arrange a meeting with a student, for whatever reason.
Second, the Dean of Students has the responsibility to arrange such
a meeting.
Third, all current students are required to respond to such a
request when made.
Fourth, a university meeting has no judicial status. If it did, a
judge would have to preside at it. But we don't have judges
who preside at such meetings, we have deans or chairpeople.
Please arrange a meeting with this student, you, me, and other
persons you think necessary within days.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
15 Jul 2003 14:14:10 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
Kao Chiang , moe
Ko Heui-chen
Dean of Student Affairs
cc: President's Office, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher
Education
15 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko
I am not satisfied with the constant delays in your handling of the
case of the student, Chen An-chuen, who wrote a secret
malicious letter accusing a professor.
I have reminded you repeatedly that this is a simple case. Nowhere
in any country in the world that I'm familiar with is
there a law preventing a dean from calling a student into her office for
any reason whatsoever, whether it's to confirm a
phone number or in response to a complaint from faculty or students.
Furthermore, I remind you, as I've reminded another official at our
university, the responsibility of an elected or
appointed official can be delegated but not transferred. As far as I'm
concerned, the responsibility for handling this Lily
Chen case rests with you and accountability for not handling this case
rests with you too. Your vice-dean may be
accountable to you, but you are accountable to faculty at our university
and, ultimately, to the Department of Higher
Education and the Ministry of Education.
As a professor of this university I have the right to ask the Dean
of Students to call a student into her office. Moreover,
the student is required to appear. The student has no right to ask for
what reason. The student will find out the reason soon
enough in the proper way.
No deep study of documents is necessary for doing this. All you
need to do this is an air-conditioned room with a door.
And, if necessary, we could do without the air conditioner.
As for whether this student was a student when she wrote her
letter, that would be of no concern anyway. But for the
record, Ms. Chen told your vice-dean, Professor Tsai, at a meeting
several months ago, that everything in her letter was
"true." So the issue of when Ms. Chen wrote her original complaint is
without relevance anyway.
Finally, as for "studying" the court documents, that has no
relevance to this case either.
First, a professor has a right to ask the Dean of Students to
arrange a meeting with a student, for whatever reason.
Second, the Dean of Students has the responsibility to arrange such
a meeting.
Third, all current students are required to respond to such a
request when made.
Fourth, a university meeting has no judicial status. If it did, a
judge would have to preside at it. But we don't have judges
who preside at such meetings, we have deans or chairpeople.
Please arrange a meeting with this student, you, me, and other
persons you think necessary within days.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
The Robert Chung Affair at a Hong Kong University
The Robert Chung Affair at a Hong Kong University
It's instructive to compare the wide exposure this case received in Hong Kong, making headline and lead news in the media, whereas the case of NCKU's defiance of a legal Ministry ruling and related human rights abuses at that university has received almost no national exposure.
7/15/2003 4:05 PM
Subject: HONG KONG: The Robert Chung Incident. This is a summary of the
scandal at the University of Hong Kong that made headline news in July,
2000, discussing a "culture of subservience," where relationships replace
"accountability" (law) at the university.
http://www.ahrchk.net/hrsolid/mainfile.php/2000vol10no12/770/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission - Human Rights SOLIDARITY
HONG KONG: The Robert Chung Incident
n July 7, Hong Kong awoke to a front-page story
in the local South China Morning Post in which
Dr. Robert Chung Ting-yiu, director of the Public
Website Opinion Programme of the Journalism and Media
Studies Centre at Hong Kong University (HKU),
said that he had received political pressure from
Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa through a 'special
channel' to discontinue his public opinion polls
on Tung's popularity and the Hong Kong
government's credibility. A week later Chung
revealed that the 'special channel' was the head
of the university, Vice Chancellor Cheng
Yiu-chung, and his deputy, Pro Vice Chancellor
Wong Siu-lun. Although the allegations were
quickly denied by Tung and the two HKU
administrators, a controversy immediately erupted
in Hong Kong over questions of government
interference in the work of academics. As a
result of these concerns about the state of
academic freedom in Hong Kong, the university set
up a three-member panel to investigate Chung's
claims. The panel was led by Justice Noel Power,
a non-permanent member of the Court of Final
Appeal (CFA) and a former acting chief justice,
and included Ronny Wong Fook-hum, a senior
counsel and former Bar Association chairman, and
Pamela Chan Wong-shui, chief executive of the
Consumer Council.
Through the 11 days of open hearings in August,
the panel heard that Andrew Lo Cheung-on, a
senior special assistant to the chief executive,
met with Vice Chancellor Cheng on Jan. 6, 1999,
in which the topic of Robert Chung's public
opinion polls was discussed. Lo asked whether the
polls were done in Chung's personal capacity or
were carried out in the name of the university,
whether the polls were monitored by the
university and who chose the topics for the
polls. The vice chancellor responded that the
academic environment at HKU prohibited any
interference in the work of its professors.
During the meeting, Lo also inquired whether
Chung's polls could be considered to be neutral
as Chung was a political commentator in the
community as well as a pollster. Lo raised this
issue, he said, because Chung was often quoted in
newspapers on political topics and because he had
sent a letter to Tung before the handover in 1997
with suggestions on political reform.
The panel also learned that this meeting was
followed by two others initiated by Prof. Wong on
Jan. 29 and Nov. 1 between himself and Robert
Chung. It was at these meetings that Chung claims
political pressure was exerted on him to stop his
polls on Tung and the government. However, Wong,
who was Chung's Ph.D. thesis supervisor and
mentor, maintains he met Chung to share with him
the concerns of others in the community about his
work, including the vice chancellor and the
office of the chief executive. According to
Chung, Wong also raised a concern about the
university's name being attached to his polls,
especially at the Nov. 1 meeting since Martin Lee
Chu-ming, leader of the Democratic Party, had
used an HKU opinion poll reflecting Tung's
unpopularity in the Legislative Council (Legco)
to complain about passage of a motion of thanks
to Tung for his annual policy address. Chung
quoted Wong as saying that, 'if the University of
Hong Kong were to continuously be deemed as
politically not neutral, it would affect the
university's future development.' As a result of
the first meeting, Chung testified at the hearing
that he became more careful about the choice of
his opinion poll topics and that he stopped
publishing a review of his polls as he could no
longer claim that they were free from political
pressure.
At the second meeting in November, Chung said
that Wong also expressed again the vice
chancellor's displeasure with his polls and
wanted an explanation of them and whether they
would continue. Wong added, says Chung, that what
the vice chancellor thought, as well as Wong, was
that it would be best if the polls on Tung's
popularity were discontinued. If not, Chung says
he was told by Wong that the vice chancellor
'would dry up our research programme'-a remark
that Wong denied making.
In addition, the panel was told during its
hearings that Tung Chee-hwa had directly told
Vice Chancellor Cheng that he was concerned with
Robert Chung's polls on his popularity and the
government's credibility. In their testimonies,
Pro Vice Chancellor Cheng Kai-ming and Prof.
Felice Lieh-mak, head of the Department of
Psychiatry and a former member of the Executive
Council (Exco), Hong's Kong's cabinet, said that
in a meeting with Cheng on May 11, 1999, that the
vice chancellor had said that Tung had raised
concerns about the opinion polls with him.
According to Prof. Cheng Kai-ming and Prof.
Lieh-mak, the vice chancellor though did not ask
them to take any action nor did he indicate any
specific response requested by the chief
executive, although, they said, the vice
chancellor was worried about the chief
executive's views.
Prof. Cheng Kai-ming added that he was aware of
allegations in late 1998 or early 1999 that
political pressure was being applied on the
university.
'I developed the impression,' he said, '[that]
the university was under very unfavourable
considerations by either the government or even
people who are near to the Beijing government. .
. . [A]t one point, we felt very conspicuously
that most of the committees that were newly
established for very, very high-powered
decision-making in the government very
conspicuously did not include any member from the
Hong Kong University.'
At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel
released their 74-page report to the public on
Sept. 1. They stated that they found Robert Chung
to be 'an honest witness who was telling the
truth in relation to the matters he is
complaining about.' However, the panel found
Andrew Lo Cheung-on, the chief executive's senior
special assistant, to be a 'poor and untruthful
witness' and that neither Lo nor the vice
chancellor 'disclosed the full and truthful
extent of what was said in [the] meeting [of Jan.
6].' Moreover, the panel continued, 'We are sure
that it was in consequence of a discussion
between the vice chancellor and Prof. S. L. Wong
that Prof. S. L. Wong met and spoke to Dr. Chung
in January 1999,' adding that 'the January and
November conversations were both covert attempts
to push Dr. Chung into discontinuing his polling
work.' They reached this conclusion, the panel
explained, because 'there is a secretive air
about both meetings.' They argued, 'It is this
failure to have open discussion through
recognised channels that weighs heavily with the
panel when considering whether these were illicit
endeavours to silence Dr. Chung because of
political considerations. We have no doubt that
political consideration was the principal reason
that motivated the Jan. 29, 1999, meeting. We are
further satisfied that, while there are other
reasons that led to the Nov. 1, 1999, meeting,
political consideration remained an operative
one.'
As a result of the panel's findings, Vice
Chancellor Cheng Yiu-chung and Pro Vice
Chancellor Wong Siu-lun resigned on Sept. 6 just
before the university council met to vote on
whether or not to accept the panel's report.
Because of their resignations, the university
council decided neither to accept nor reject the
report of the panel, which the university council
itself had selected and empowered with the task
of uncovering the truth about the issues raised
by Dr. Chung. The chairperson of the council,
Yang Ti-liang, said afterwards that the
possibility of legal action, which had been
threatened by the vice chancellor, had played a
role in the council's decision.
In spite of the findings of the panel and the
ensuing resignations at the university, questions
still remain about the role, if any, of the chief
executive, who chose not to testify at the
panel's hearings, saying that he has 'the
responsibility to protect the dignity of the post
and ensure [that] the government can operate
efficiently and normally.'
However, the controversy itself has raised
questions about the dignity and integrity of the
office of the chief executive. Tung could have
restored respect for the office by volunteering
to testify before the panel, especially since
Tung claimed that he was innocent and had nothing
to hide. His mere denials without testifying
before an independent body has not erased the
questions in people's minds.
Because of Tung's refusal to testify and the lack
of credibility attributed to Lo by the panel,
questions remain unanswered about Tung's role in
the Robert Chung incident as well as continuing
uncertainty about Lo's involvement in the
controversy. These unresolved issues have acted
as an impetus for Legco to hold its own inquiry.
Consequently, after the Sept. 10 Legco elections,
Martin Lee Chu-ming of the Democratic Party
sponsored a proposal to create a select committee
to investigate the Robert Chung saga further, a
committee that, unlike the university panel,
could compel Tung to testify. On Oct. 20,
however, the proposal was defeated 32-20 in Legco
by the pro-China and pro-business political
parties that dominate the legislature after the
government lobbied against the proposal,
indicating again that it is less than forthcoming
about revealing all of the facts about the
affair, that it fears further public scrutiny.
Naturally, this episode has evoked concerns about
academic freedom as well as guarantees of freedom
of speech in Hong Kong three years after its
sovereignty was transferred to China. Do
academics, for instance, have the space to
conduct opinion polls about the government and
its leader? Is a mechanism for gauging the views
of the people of Hong Kong, of feeling the pulse
of the community, being restrained? Is an avenue
for expressing one's views being suppressed? What
is most worrisome is that features of the
political culture of the mainland are perhaps
being imported consciously or unconsciously by
Hong Kong's officials into the community, a
political culture built on a suffocating control
of dissent that gives the mistaken appearance of
political stability and consensus.
As Prof. Ying Chan, Chung's current boss, stated
at the hearing and other commentators have noted,
there is apparently now a 'culture of
subservience' in Hong Kong in which too many
people seek to appease or not lose favour with
those in authority or to neuter any possible
political implications of their work. Because of
the presence of this new culture, many people in
important responsible positions in the community
seem to second-guess what others in authority
want them to do or say. This attitude has
implications for policies and responses to
events, such as the actions of HKU's leaders
involved in the Robert Chung incident, for it
seems clear from the panel's investigation that
the top levels of the university administration,
especially the vice chancellor, were overly
sensitive to the political implications of the
university's work and thus sought to take steps
in order to be seen as a politically neutral
institution in the community and in the eyes of
those in power in Hong Kong and probably in
Beijing as well. Tung Chee-hwa himself has been
accused of succumbing to this subservient
culture, and it can be said, in fact, to be the
basis of his philosophy for implementing the 'one
country, two systems' formula that undergirds the
basis for the transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty
to China. Indeed, it perhaps explains why Tung
has been able to carry out the concept of 'one
country, two systems' so 'successfully'-'success'
being defined here as a frictionless relationship
between Hong Kong and Beijing-and why many people
believe that China will give its blessing for
Tung to serve a second term as chief executive in
2002.
Another ramification of the 'culture of
subservience' is censorship, both self-censorship
as people alter their work to align the products
of their labour with the perceived desires of
those in authority and control over the work of
others as is evident in the Robert Chung affair.
Lost in this process of conformity are a
diversity of views about the solutions to the
community's problems as well as people's freedom.
Life becomes harmonious, but monotonous and dull.
Society loses the energy that is needed to
invigorate itself and to generate new ideas, new
ways of thinking and doing things, new responses
to the needs of society.
Overall, the attitudes and events in Hong Kong
that seem to indicate the adoption of a 'culture
of subservience' point to a basic conflict
between two basic characteristics of
relationships between superiors and subordinates,
i.e., between loyalty and accountability. The
first characteristic-loyalty-is usually based on
personal relations developed between two people
over a period of time. However, the second
characteristic-accountability-is grounded in the
structure, practices, rules and regulations of an
institution. In China, much of what takes places
in society-the implementation of government
policies and laws, business deals, etc.-is based
on personal relationships or guanxi, i.e., on
loyalty and trust. The concept of accountability,
on the other hand, is not well-established on the
mainland, although the continual and ongoing
campaigns against corruption in China seem to
reflect a greater level of awareness and respect
for the notion of accountability. However, guanxi
is such a powerful force within the political
fabric of the mainland that it can presently
overcome the practise of accountability.
In the Robert Chung affair, the support shown by
Tung Chee-hwa for his senior special assistant,
Andrew Lo Cheung-on, even after the HKU panel
deemed him to be a 'poor and untruthful witness,'
indicates that Tung prefers loyalty over
accountability, for Tung immediately defended Lo
after the panel's report was released, saying
that Lo, who worked for Tung's shipping company
before following Tung into the government in
1997, was a 'reliable and honest person' and
stating that Lo would not lose his job. This
stance, however, raises questions about the
sincerity of Tung's insistence on making senior
government officials more accountable, a major
theme of his annual policy address in Legco in
October.
The Robert Chung incident also reveals another
aspect of the emerging political culture in Hong
Kong that is seemingly being influenced by the
customs on the mainland: the use of third-party
intermediaries to influence one's words and
actions through informal and quiet contacts. This
practice, like loyalty, is also based on personal
relationships, although the relationships need
not be as well-established as in those involving
loyalty. This custom, of course, was quite
evident in the case of Robert Chung as Prof. Wong
became the messenger of Vice Chancellor Cheng and
perhaps Andrew Lo Cheung-on was Tung's emissary.
Thus, there is a fear in Hong Kong that the
political culture of China is beginning to infect
the political culture of Hong Kong. Prior to the
transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997, some
commentators hoped that the more democratic
system in Hong Kong would have a positive
influence on the development of democracy on the
mainland. However, in the intervening three years
since Hong Kong became a part of China, it is
becoming clear that, if anything, the reverse
process is at work. To counter this trend, people
must make public the attempts to politically
exert influence and apply pressure that are done
privately. More Robert Chungs must be willing to
step forward in order to preserve Hong Kong's
present open political culture before it quietly
is eroded into silence.
It's instructive to compare the wide exposure this case received in Hong Kong, making headline and lead news in the media, whereas the case of NCKU's defiance of a legal Ministry ruling and related human rights abuses at that university has received almost no national exposure.
7/15/2003 4:05 PM
Subject: HONG KONG: The Robert Chung Incident. This is a summary of the
scandal at the University of Hong Kong that made headline news in July,
2000, discussing a "culture of subservience," where relationships replace
"accountability" (law) at the university.
http://www.ahrchk.net/hrsolid/mainfile.php/2000vol10no12/770/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission - Human Rights SOLIDARITY
HONG KONG: The Robert Chung Incident
n July 7, Hong Kong awoke to a front-page story
in the local South China Morning Post in which
Dr. Robert Chung Ting-yiu, director of the Public
Website Opinion Programme of the Journalism and Media
Studies Centre at Hong Kong University (HKU),
said that he had received political pressure from
Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa through a 'special
channel' to discontinue his public opinion polls
on Tung's popularity and the Hong Kong
government's credibility. A week later Chung
revealed that the 'special channel' was the head
of the university, Vice Chancellor Cheng
Yiu-chung, and his deputy, Pro Vice Chancellor
Wong Siu-lun. Although the allegations were
quickly denied by Tung and the two HKU
administrators, a controversy immediately erupted
in Hong Kong over questions of government
interference in the work of academics. As a
result of these concerns about the state of
academic freedom in Hong Kong, the university set
up a three-member panel to investigate Chung's
claims. The panel was led by Justice Noel Power,
a non-permanent member of the Court of Final
Appeal (CFA) and a former acting chief justice,
and included Ronny Wong Fook-hum, a senior
counsel and former Bar Association chairman, and
Pamela Chan Wong-shui, chief executive of the
Consumer Council.
Through the 11 days of open hearings in August,
the panel heard that Andrew Lo Cheung-on, a
senior special assistant to the chief executive,
met with Vice Chancellor Cheng on Jan. 6, 1999,
in which the topic of Robert Chung's public
opinion polls was discussed. Lo asked whether the
polls were done in Chung's personal capacity or
were carried out in the name of the university,
whether the polls were monitored by the
university and who chose the topics for the
polls. The vice chancellor responded that the
academic environment at HKU prohibited any
interference in the work of its professors.
During the meeting, Lo also inquired whether
Chung's polls could be considered to be neutral
as Chung was a political commentator in the
community as well as a pollster. Lo raised this
issue, he said, because Chung was often quoted in
newspapers on political topics and because he had
sent a letter to Tung before the handover in 1997
with suggestions on political reform.
The panel also learned that this meeting was
followed by two others initiated by Prof. Wong on
Jan. 29 and Nov. 1 between himself and Robert
Chung. It was at these meetings that Chung claims
political pressure was exerted on him to stop his
polls on Tung and the government. However, Wong,
who was Chung's Ph.D. thesis supervisor and
mentor, maintains he met Chung to share with him
the concerns of others in the community about his
work, including the vice chancellor and the
office of the chief executive. According to
Chung, Wong also raised a concern about the
university's name being attached to his polls,
especially at the Nov. 1 meeting since Martin Lee
Chu-ming, leader of the Democratic Party, had
used an HKU opinion poll reflecting Tung's
unpopularity in the Legislative Council (Legco)
to complain about passage of a motion of thanks
to Tung for his annual policy address. Chung
quoted Wong as saying that, 'if the University of
Hong Kong were to continuously be deemed as
politically not neutral, it would affect the
university's future development.' As a result of
the first meeting, Chung testified at the hearing
that he became more careful about the choice of
his opinion poll topics and that he stopped
publishing a review of his polls as he could no
longer claim that they were free from political
pressure.
At the second meeting in November, Chung said
that Wong also expressed again the vice
chancellor's displeasure with his polls and
wanted an explanation of them and whether they
would continue. Wong added, says Chung, that what
the vice chancellor thought, as well as Wong, was
that it would be best if the polls on Tung's
popularity were discontinued. If not, Chung says
he was told by Wong that the vice chancellor
'would dry up our research programme'-a remark
that Wong denied making.
In addition, the panel was told during its
hearings that Tung Chee-hwa had directly told
Vice Chancellor Cheng that he was concerned with
Robert Chung's polls on his popularity and the
government's credibility. In their testimonies,
Pro Vice Chancellor Cheng Kai-ming and Prof.
Felice Lieh-mak, head of the Department of
Psychiatry and a former member of the Executive
Council (Exco), Hong's Kong's cabinet, said that
in a meeting with Cheng on May 11, 1999, that the
vice chancellor had said that Tung had raised
concerns about the opinion polls with him.
According to Prof. Cheng Kai-ming and Prof.
Lieh-mak, the vice chancellor though did not ask
them to take any action nor did he indicate any
specific response requested by the chief
executive, although, they said, the vice
chancellor was worried about the chief
executive's views.
Prof. Cheng Kai-ming added that he was aware of
allegations in late 1998 or early 1999 that
political pressure was being applied on the
university.
'I developed the impression,' he said, '[that]
the university was under very unfavourable
considerations by either the government or even
people who are near to the Beijing government. .
. . [A]t one point, we felt very conspicuously
that most of the committees that were newly
established for very, very high-powered
decision-making in the government very
conspicuously did not include any member from the
Hong Kong University.'
At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel
released their 74-page report to the public on
Sept. 1. They stated that they found Robert Chung
to be 'an honest witness who was telling the
truth in relation to the matters he is
complaining about.' However, the panel found
Andrew Lo Cheung-on, the chief executive's senior
special assistant, to be a 'poor and untruthful
witness' and that neither Lo nor the vice
chancellor 'disclosed the full and truthful
extent of what was said in [the] meeting [of Jan.
6].' Moreover, the panel continued, 'We are sure
that it was in consequence of a discussion
between the vice chancellor and Prof. S. L. Wong
that Prof. S. L. Wong met and spoke to Dr. Chung
in January 1999,' adding that 'the January and
November conversations were both covert attempts
to push Dr. Chung into discontinuing his polling
work.' They reached this conclusion, the panel
explained, because 'there is a secretive air
about both meetings.' They argued, 'It is this
failure to have open discussion through
recognised channels that weighs heavily with the
panel when considering whether these were illicit
endeavours to silence Dr. Chung because of
political considerations. We have no doubt that
political consideration was the principal reason
that motivated the Jan. 29, 1999, meeting. We are
further satisfied that, while there are other
reasons that led to the Nov. 1, 1999, meeting,
political consideration remained an operative
one.'
As a result of the panel's findings, Vice
Chancellor Cheng Yiu-chung and Pro Vice
Chancellor Wong Siu-lun resigned on Sept. 6 just
before the university council met to vote on
whether or not to accept the panel's report.
Because of their resignations, the university
council decided neither to accept nor reject the
report of the panel, which the university council
itself had selected and empowered with the task
of uncovering the truth about the issues raised
by Dr. Chung. The chairperson of the council,
Yang Ti-liang, said afterwards that the
possibility of legal action, which had been
threatened by the vice chancellor, had played a
role in the council's decision.
In spite of the findings of the panel and the
ensuing resignations at the university, questions
still remain about the role, if any, of the chief
executive, who chose not to testify at the
panel's hearings, saying that he has 'the
responsibility to protect the dignity of the post
and ensure [that] the government can operate
efficiently and normally.'
However, the controversy itself has raised
questions about the dignity and integrity of the
office of the chief executive. Tung could have
restored respect for the office by volunteering
to testify before the panel, especially since
Tung claimed that he was innocent and had nothing
to hide. His mere denials without testifying
before an independent body has not erased the
questions in people's minds.
Because of Tung's refusal to testify and the lack
of credibility attributed to Lo by the panel,
questions remain unanswered about Tung's role in
the Robert Chung incident as well as continuing
uncertainty about Lo's involvement in the
controversy. These unresolved issues have acted
as an impetus for Legco to hold its own inquiry.
Consequently, after the Sept. 10 Legco elections,
Martin Lee Chu-ming of the Democratic Party
sponsored a proposal to create a select committee
to investigate the Robert Chung saga further, a
committee that, unlike the university panel,
could compel Tung to testify. On Oct. 20,
however, the proposal was defeated 32-20 in Legco
by the pro-China and pro-business political
parties that dominate the legislature after the
government lobbied against the proposal,
indicating again that it is less than forthcoming
about revealing all of the facts about the
affair, that it fears further public scrutiny.
Naturally, this episode has evoked concerns about
academic freedom as well as guarantees of freedom
of speech in Hong Kong three years after its
sovereignty was transferred to China. Do
academics, for instance, have the space to
conduct opinion polls about the government and
its leader? Is a mechanism for gauging the views
of the people of Hong Kong, of feeling the pulse
of the community, being restrained? Is an avenue
for expressing one's views being suppressed? What
is most worrisome is that features of the
political culture of the mainland are perhaps
being imported consciously or unconsciously by
Hong Kong's officials into the community, a
political culture built on a suffocating control
of dissent that gives the mistaken appearance of
political stability and consensus.
As Prof. Ying Chan, Chung's current boss, stated
at the hearing and other commentators have noted,
there is apparently now a 'culture of
subservience' in Hong Kong in which too many
people seek to appease or not lose favour with
those in authority or to neuter any possible
political implications of their work. Because of
the presence of this new culture, many people in
important responsible positions in the community
seem to second-guess what others in authority
want them to do or say. This attitude has
implications for policies and responses to
events, such as the actions of HKU's leaders
involved in the Robert Chung incident, for it
seems clear from the panel's investigation that
the top levels of the university administration,
especially the vice chancellor, were overly
sensitive to the political implications of the
university's work and thus sought to take steps
in order to be seen as a politically neutral
institution in the community and in the eyes of
those in power in Hong Kong and probably in
Beijing as well. Tung Chee-hwa himself has been
accused of succumbing to this subservient
culture, and it can be said, in fact, to be the
basis of his philosophy for implementing the 'one
country, two systems' formula that undergirds the
basis for the transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty
to China. Indeed, it perhaps explains why Tung
has been able to carry out the concept of 'one
country, two systems' so 'successfully'-'success'
being defined here as a frictionless relationship
between Hong Kong and Beijing-and why many people
believe that China will give its blessing for
Tung to serve a second term as chief executive in
2002.
Another ramification of the 'culture of
subservience' is censorship, both self-censorship
as people alter their work to align the products
of their labour with the perceived desires of
those in authority and control over the work of
others as is evident in the Robert Chung affair.
Lost in this process of conformity are a
diversity of views about the solutions to the
community's problems as well as people's freedom.
Life becomes harmonious, but monotonous and dull.
Society loses the energy that is needed to
invigorate itself and to generate new ideas, new
ways of thinking and doing things, new responses
to the needs of society.
Overall, the attitudes and events in Hong Kong
that seem to indicate the adoption of a 'culture
of subservience' point to a basic conflict
between two basic characteristics of
relationships between superiors and subordinates,
i.e., between loyalty and accountability. The
first characteristic-loyalty-is usually based on
personal relations developed between two people
over a period of time. However, the second
characteristic-accountability-is grounded in the
structure, practices, rules and regulations of an
institution. In China, much of what takes places
in society-the implementation of government
policies and laws, business deals, etc.-is based
on personal relationships or guanxi, i.e., on
loyalty and trust. The concept of accountability,
on the other hand, is not well-established on the
mainland, although the continual and ongoing
campaigns against corruption in China seem to
reflect a greater level of awareness and respect
for the notion of accountability. However, guanxi
is such a powerful force within the political
fabric of the mainland that it can presently
overcome the practise of accountability.
In the Robert Chung affair, the support shown by
Tung Chee-hwa for his senior special assistant,
Andrew Lo Cheung-on, even after the HKU panel
deemed him to be a 'poor and untruthful witness,'
indicates that Tung prefers loyalty over
accountability, for Tung immediately defended Lo
after the panel's report was released, saying
that Lo, who worked for Tung's shipping company
before following Tung into the government in
1997, was a 'reliable and honest person' and
stating that Lo would not lose his job. This
stance, however, raises questions about the
sincerity of Tung's insistence on making senior
government officials more accountable, a major
theme of his annual policy address in Legco in
October.
The Robert Chung incident also reveals another
aspect of the emerging political culture in Hong
Kong that is seemingly being influenced by the
customs on the mainland: the use of third-party
intermediaries to influence one's words and
actions through informal and quiet contacts. This
practice, like loyalty, is also based on personal
relationships, although the relationships need
not be as well-established as in those involving
loyalty. This custom, of course, was quite
evident in the case of Robert Chung as Prof. Wong
became the messenger of Vice Chancellor Cheng and
perhaps Andrew Lo Cheung-on was Tung's emissary.
Thus, there is a fear in Hong Kong that the
political culture of China is beginning to infect
the political culture of Hong Kong. Prior to the
transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997, some
commentators hoped that the more democratic
system in Hong Kong would have a positive
influence on the development of democracy on the
mainland. However, in the intervening three years
since Hong Kong became a part of China, it is
becoming clear that, if anything, the reverse
process is at work. To counter this trend, people
must make public the attempts to politically
exert influence and apply pressure that are done
privately. More Robert Chungs must be willing to
step forward in order to preserve Hong Kong's
present open political culture before it quietly
is eroded into silence.
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs (10 July 2003)
Letter to Dean of Student Affairs
Date:
Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:22:37 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
moe , Kao Chiang
Professor Ko Heui-chen
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
Professor Kao Chiang, President, NCKU
10 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
I am puzzled why it's taking your office so long to resolve the case
of the student, Chen An-chuen, who submitted a
secret letter of accusation contesting a grade she received eight years
earlier. The case has already gone on for years now.
If the Office of Student Affairs is unable to request the attendance of
a student at an office meeting with the person she
accused, then there are serious questions to be raised about that
administration.
I am enclosing the email I sent yesterday. Your response to that
email was not satisfactory. In fact, you elected not to
respond. Instead, your vice-dean sent me a message, which hinted of
more delays.
I am not interested in more delays. I am interested in resolving
this case now so we can all get on with our lives.
I repeat: There are no complex legal issues involved here. A
professor has the right to face a student accuser. This is
known as due process. The Office of Student Affairs has the right to
call in any student any time to resolve problems at the
university. If you don't have that right, or are reluctant to exercise
that right, then it seems to me there is no purpose to an
Office of Student Affairs at our university.
Regarding this student, don't you think it odd that she eagerly
responded to a request to write a secret letter, and did so
within 24 hours. Yet now that she must discuss this issue publicly,
before the Dean and the professor she accused and who
can contest her accusation, she is trying everything possible to avoid
doing so?
Enclosed is the letter I sent yesterday. Please understand, I
expect you to set up a meeting, in your office, between me
and this student, including as many other people as you think necessary
to be present. This is your right as Dean. It is also
your responsibility as Dean.
I expect to hear from your office very soon regarding the
appointment date and time. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Date:
Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:22:37 -0700
To:
Huei-chen Ko
CC:
moe , Kao Chiang
Professor Ko Heui-chen
Office of the Dean of Student Affairs
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
Professor Kao Chiang, President, NCKU
10 July 2003
Dear Dean Ko,
I am puzzled why it's taking your office so long to resolve the case
of the student, Chen An-chuen, who submitted a
secret letter of accusation contesting a grade she received eight years
earlier. The case has already gone on for years now.
If the Office of Student Affairs is unable to request the attendance of
a student at an office meeting with the person she
accused, then there are serious questions to be raised about that
administration.
I am enclosing the email I sent yesterday. Your response to that
email was not satisfactory. In fact, you elected not to
respond. Instead, your vice-dean sent me a message, which hinted of
more delays.
I am not interested in more delays. I am interested in resolving
this case now so we can all get on with our lives.
I repeat: There are no complex legal issues involved here. A
professor has the right to face a student accuser. This is
known as due process. The Office of Student Affairs has the right to
call in any student any time to resolve problems at the
university. If you don't have that right, or are reluctant to exercise
that right, then it seems to me there is no purpose to an
Office of Student Affairs at our university.
Regarding this student, don't you think it odd that she eagerly
responded to a request to write a secret letter, and did so
within 24 hours. Yet now that she must discuss this issue publicly,
before the Dean and the professor she accused and who
can contest her accusation, she is trying everything possible to avoid
doing so?
Enclosed is the letter I sent yesterday. Please understand, I
expect you to set up a meeting, in your office, between me
and this student, including as many other people as you think necessary
to be present. This is your right as Dean. It is also
your responsibility as Dean.
I expect to hear from your office very soon regarding the
appointment date and time. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)