Kaohsiung City Council
No.192, Zhongzheng 4th Rd.,
Qianjin District,
Kaohsiung City 801,
Taiwan (R.O.C.)
18 October 2010
Dear Council Members:
I was quite impressed by the Kaohsiung City Council's formal dedication to human rights in Mainland China, and your principled determination that "the city government and private organizations not be allowed to invite to the city Chinese officials who have been accused of violating human rights" (The Taipei Times October 18, 2010, p. 1).
I'm curious, however, if the Kaohsiung City Council would apply its resolution to Taiwanese officials who violate human rights as well. In 1999 I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan. Although I won a Ministry of Education appeal ruling in January, 2001, the university's president, Kao Chiang, refused to enforce that ruling for nearly two and a half years, despite eight warning letters from the Ministry of Education (attached).
The current university president, Lai Ming-Chiao, has ignored my request for an official apology for these human rights violations. The president-elect, Hwung-Hweng Hwung, has also not responded.
According to the Taipei Times article, "Kaohsiung City is a modern metropolis that protects human rights," and "both the city and private organizations should therefore highlight the universality of human rights."
But the "universality of human rights" begins at home, at the local level. Yet NCKU officials argued in court, apparently unconcerned about what Thomas Jefferson called "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," that "foreign" teachers were not protected by Taiwan's Teacher's Law. That was a violation of my human rights. It was also an insult to all Americans who defend the rights of Taiwanese both here and in our country.
My illegal dismissal, which involved the circulation of a secret letter (the student who wrote that letter is currently employed as a teacher at NCKU), was also a violation of my human rights. The university's refusal to enforce a legal Ministry ruling was a violation of my human rights too.
Finally, even after the university held (presumably bogus) appeal hearings, and then participated at Ministry appeal hearings in Taipei, it argued, after the Ministry's ruling favored me, that foreign teachers had no right to appeal in the first place! This is not merely a violation of my human rights, it's outright duplicity that would discredit a bushiban. Yet NCKU is a high-ranked university.
Officials in Mainland China did not do this to me. Officials (and NCKU faculty) in Taiwan did this to me. Some of them may teach at, or have academic exchanges with, universities in Kaohsiung.
Nor is this a matter of one or two officials. Numerous university committees at the department, college, and university levels, repeatedly passed my illegal dismissal, even after the Ministry ruling! If only a small number had taken a stand on behalf of human rights that dismissal would never have passed in the first place.
That means a significant number of educated, or at least accredited, Taiwanese, many with American degrees, are either ignorant of, or indifferent to, human rights in Taiwan. Yet these same individuals were protected by human rights when matriculated or teaching in the US, and they presumably rely on American laws and human rights principles to protect their children there.
One wonders how the Kaohsiung City Council would respond if an American university acted with similar duplicity against a Taiwanese professor or student; if a student from Kaohsiung passed his oral exams for an advanced degree at an American university and then, after passing, was told he had to retake his orals because Taiwanese are not protected by the same laws and rights that protect American students.
The difference is most US news media would expose that case in days and the student would promptly obtain pro bono human rights assistance. The university would be quickly discredited, apologize, award the student his degree, and settle with appropriate damages.
In Taiwan, despite numerous human rights groups here, I had to fight this case alone, with some valiant members of NCKU's Teacher's Union assisting me. Apparently, NCKU teachers exchanging ideas in the university coffee shop is more newsworthy than their ignoring human rights at their university, even as they "voice concern" over human rights violations in Mainland China. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
True, human rights in Mainland China are life and death issues. But that's the point. We must make sure they don't become life and death issues here. It's easier to raise our voices than to raise our dead. Let's exercise our freedoms before we lose them. It's better to fight for human rights when you're free than to fight for freedom when you're not. Amnesty International understands that.
Yet not a single NCKU official involved in this case has been punished. Presumably that will help deter similar violations in the future. Presumably that will help establish a tradition of human rights here.
The university has still not acknowledged its human rights violations, a policy that will probably continue when the new president assumes office in February, 2011, since he has already started a pattern of not responding to my emails about the issue. This does not bode well for human rights here.
In Mainland China, with no human rights guarantees, a citizen stood up to a tank. In Taiwan, protected by human rights laws, principles, and charters, as well as the support of the international community, no one will challenge a university lawyer or president based on those statutes and principles, not to mention common sense and common decency.
If a person wins an appeal surely that appeal must be enforced. If an American professor teaches here surely he is protected by the same rights that protect your citizens, just as you're protected in America. Even if you don't believe in human rights, surely you believe in reciprocity.
I am sure all of you are good people. But, as Edmund Burke famously said, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Monday, October 18, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Letter to Academia Sinica president
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Subject: Regarding human rights issues in Taiwan
To: chwong@gate.sinica.edu.tw
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Subject: Regarding human rights issues in Taiwan
To: chwong@gate.sinica.edu.tw
Dr. C. H. Wong
President,
ACADEMIA SINICA
Taipei, Taiwan
30 September 2010
Dear Dr. Wong,
I taught at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at National Cheng Kung University for 22 years before my retirement. I was involved in an illegal dismissal case in 1999, a case that has lasted more than a decade, up to the present.
As the letter below explains, my dismissal involved egregious human rights violations, including NCKU president, Kao Chiang, refusing to enforce a legal Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years (see attachment). The current president, President Lai, has continued this policy of scorn for human rights principles, refusing to issue a formal apology or compensation.
To this day not a single official has been punished; I have received neither a formal apology nor compensation, guaranteed by international human rights charters, to which Taiwan subscribes, recently confirmed by Taiwan's president.
Despite the fact that Taiwan citizens receive human rights guarantees, protections, and defense in my country, the United States of America, not a single human rights group has voiced its support for me in this case, though the issues are evident and even documented by Taiwan's own Ministry of Education (see attachment).
Apart from human rights issues, as I indicate in the letter below, this does not reflect well on Taiwan democracy, the commitment of Taiwan's professors to democracy, or even the academic integrity of Taiwan's academic institutions in general, since, obviously, if a professor's rights can be violated with impunity professors are likely to compromise academic principles rather than risk their academic positions. That was precisely the reason tenure was established in the first place, to insure administrative and academic integrity.
I am curious if you are concerned about these issues and are willing to voice your concerns publicly or administratively. I would appreciate this.
Apart from human rights issue and academic concerns discussed above, many Taiwan professors were accredited at American universities (or universities in other democracies) and enjoyed human rights protections when matriculated there; I think Taiwan professors should observe the principle of reciprocity, part of both Western and Asian ethical norms.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(August 1988 - July 2010)
Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan
Minister Wu Ching-ji
cc: The Control Yuan
The Prime Minister
NCKU President Lai Ming-Chiao
NCKU Secretary General
Taiwan Department of Higher Education
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
The Humanistic Education Foundation
Scholars at Risk
California State University
Southern Illinois University
Case Western Reserve University
Purdue University
Taiwan Association of University Professors
The Taipei Times
The China Post
The China Times
The Taiwan News
30 September 2010
Dear Minister Wu,
This is a second copy of a letter I sent in August.
I am requesting that National Cheng Kung University president, Dr. Michael Ming-Chiao Lai, insure enforcement of human rights principles at National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan, Taiwan.
Taiwan's Chief Executive, President Ma Ying-jeou has repeatedly affirmed support for human rights principles, and Taiwan's Legislative Yuan on March 31, 2009 ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These ratifications seemed to endorse Taiwan's allegiance with the international community on the issue of human rights as well as its reciprocity with academic institutions in advanced democracies.
No academic institution that refuses to enforce human rights can credibly represent or collaborate with the international academic community. Not only is this an issue of human rights but of academic integrity as well, because if a university does not enforce human rights there is no guarantee it can insure academic standards or principles either. On what other basis can there be academic exchanges?
Academic relationships must be principled, not merely monetary, exchanges. No Taiwan university should, with impunity, be allowed to insult an American professor, deprive him of his rights, and then refuse to insure remedy once those rights are violated or, indeed, even acknowledge that his rights were violated.
But the facts are plain and fully documented. National Cheng Kung University grievously violated my human rights in its illegal dismissal in 1999; its circulation of a secret letter against me that same year; its subsequent defiance for nearly two and a half years of a Ministry ruling in my favor in January 2001; and its long-standing policy of refusing to compensate me for losses incurred during my dismissal ordeal and subsequent litigation, apologize for its violations, or even acknowledge that violations were committed in the first place. This is unacceptable, at least by international standards of countries that observe human rights principles and, presumably, by the human rights protections guaranteed in the human rights covenants that Taiwan recently signed.
According to Taiwan's government web site, "Conscious of its responsibilities, the ROC government is dedicated to safeguarding human rights and putting an end to all manner of social injustice and abuse of power. The people and government of the ROC fully share the universal value of upholding human rights and are determined to be a shining example of human rights protection."
In this case, as in others, actions speak louder than words.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(August 1988 - July 2010)
President,
ACADEMIA SINICA
Taipei, Taiwan
30 September 2010
Dear Dr. Wong,
I taught at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at National Cheng Kung University for 22 years before my retirement. I was involved in an illegal dismissal case in 1999, a case that has lasted more than a decade, up to the present.
As the letter below explains, my dismissal involved egregious human rights violations, including NCKU president, Kao Chiang, refusing to enforce a legal Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years (see attachment). The current president, President Lai, has continued this policy of scorn for human rights principles, refusing to issue a formal apology or compensation.
To this day not a single official has been punished; I have received neither a formal apology nor compensation, guaranteed by international human rights charters, to which Taiwan subscribes, recently confirmed by Taiwan's president.
Despite the fact that Taiwan citizens receive human rights guarantees, protections, and defense in my country, the United States of America, not a single human rights group has voiced its support for me in this case, though the issues are evident and even documented by Taiwan's own Ministry of Education (see attachment).
Apart from human rights issues, as I indicate in the letter below, this does not reflect well on Taiwan democracy, the commitment of Taiwan's professors to democracy, or even the academic integrity of Taiwan's academic institutions in general, since, obviously, if a professor's rights can be violated with impunity professors are likely to compromise academic principles rather than risk their academic positions. That was precisely the reason tenure was established in the first place, to insure administrative and academic integrity.
I am curious if you are concerned about these issues and are willing to voice your concerns publicly or administratively. I would appreciate this.
Apart from human rights issue and academic concerns discussed above, many Taiwan professors were accredited at American universities (or universities in other democracies) and enjoyed human rights protections when matriculated there; I think Taiwan professors should observe the principle of reciprocity, part of both Western and Asian ethical norms.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(August 1988 - July 2010)
Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan
Minister Wu Ching-ji
cc: The Control Yuan
The Prime Minister
NCKU President Lai Ming-Chiao
NCKU Secretary General
Taiwan Department of Higher Education
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
The Humanistic Education Foundation
Scholars at Risk
California State University
Southern Illinois University
Case Western Reserve University
Purdue University
Taiwan Association of University Professors
The Taipei Times
The China Post
The China Times
The Taiwan News
30 September 2010
Dear Minister Wu,
This is a second copy of a letter I sent in August.
I am requesting that National Cheng Kung University president, Dr. Michael Ming-Chiao Lai, insure enforcement of human rights principles at National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan, Taiwan.
Taiwan's Chief Executive, President Ma Ying-jeou has repeatedly affirmed support for human rights principles, and Taiwan's Legislative Yuan on March 31, 2009 ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These ratifications seemed to endorse Taiwan's allegiance with the international community on the issue of human rights as well as its reciprocity with academic institutions in advanced democracies.
No academic institution that refuses to enforce human rights can credibly represent or collaborate with the international academic community. Not only is this an issue of human rights but of academic integrity as well, because if a university does not enforce human rights there is no guarantee it can insure academic standards or principles either. On what other basis can there be academic exchanges?
Academic relationships must be principled, not merely monetary, exchanges. No Taiwan university should, with impunity, be allowed to insult an American professor, deprive him of his rights, and then refuse to insure remedy once those rights are violated or, indeed, even acknowledge that his rights were violated.
But the facts are plain and fully documented. National Cheng Kung University grievously violated my human rights in its illegal dismissal in 1999; its circulation of a secret letter against me that same year; its subsequent defiance for nearly two and a half years of a Ministry ruling in my favor in January 2001; and its long-standing policy of refusing to compensate me for losses incurred during my dismissal ordeal and subsequent litigation, apologize for its violations, or even acknowledge that violations were committed in the first place. This is unacceptable, at least by international standards of countries that observe human rights principles and, presumably, by the human rights protections guaranteed in the human rights covenants that Taiwan recently signed.
According to Taiwan's government web site, "Conscious of its responsibilities, the ROC government is dedicated to safeguarding human rights and putting an end to all manner of social injustice and abuse of power. The people and government of the ROC fully share the universal value of upholding human rights and are determined to be a shining example of human rights protection."
In this case, as in others, actions speak louder than words.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
(August 1988 - July 2010)
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Letter to a Colleague Concerned about Rights in Mainland China
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Letter to Professor Chih-Chieh Chou Concerning Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:06:03 +0800
From: rdca25@gmail.com
To: ccchou@mail.ncku.edu.tw
Professor Chih-Chieh Chou
Department of Political Science,
Graduate Institute of Political Economy,
College of Social Sciences,
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
27 July 2010
Dear Professor Chou,
I recently came across your article in the university's Research Express (Volume 12, Issue 9; February 26, 2010, online at http://research.ncku.edu.tw/re/commentary/e/20100226/1.html).
You begin by lauding Human Rights Day, 2009, citing "the Universal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights," then adding,
From now on, the citizens can resort to the articles of the Covenants to plea for compensation once they assume their rights and interests are deprived through laws violating the Covenants, which makes Taiwan the only Chinese society with comprehensive human rights framework around the globe. Such accomplishment is way ahead of China while they celebrate their 60th anniversary and brag about their wealth and strong national defense power (p. 1). (My emphasis.)
You refer "to the protection and installation of civilian economic and social rights," and, listing "practical rights issues," you conclude, contrasting China and Taiwan by stating that "Taiwan’s only competitive edge in interaction is the prevalent installation of these humanitarian values. Taiwan should seize the opportunity to demonstrate our Chinese human rights experience and its content to the international community!" (my emphasis).
I applaud your concern over human rights in China. But I'm curious why you are so concerned about enforcing human rights in China when there are egregious human rights at our own university that you can help to enforce too.
You are a professor at our university, so you should be aware that in 1999 I was illegally dismissed from the Department at Foreign Languages and Literature at our very university. A secret letter was circulated at several "oversight" committees, presumably to insure my dismissal when it became apparent the original accusations against me were invalid. I should add I wasn't even aware of those accusations until after the dismissal hearing, and then only by hearsay.
My dismissal, egregiously in violation of basic human rights protections, nonetheless passed all "oversight" committees at our university. For obvious reasons it was overturned by the Ministry of Education on appeal in a ruling dated 8 January 2001. In pedagogic style, the ruling highlighted human rights abuses, presumably to insure NCKU officials would not repeat the same mistakes.
However at our university even a legal Ministry ruling is not sufficient to guarantee human rights enforcement. Then what is the purpose of a Ministry appeal? I have no idea how our colleagues would answer that question if they felt compelled to.
Subsequently, university president, Kao Chiang, refused to enforce that Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years (attachment), even after an international human rights group, Scholars at Risk, queried him about the delay (see attachments). Only after repeated pressure from the Ministry of Education (attachment) did the university finally comply with a legal Ministry ruling. Even then the university tried to impose penalties against me, despite the Ministry ruling; as if I never won the case.
However, before the university finally complied it argued foreign faculty are not protected by the Teacher's Law. Hence, even after the dismissal action against me was canceled, in December, 1999 after an eight-month delay (I remind you, I had to renew my visa every two months), I was informed I had to be "reviewed" again, since the case was now being treated not as a firing action but as a hiring action. Can you follow the logic here?
American professors, you see, are not protected by the Teacher's Law, the same law that protects you, or the principle of equality under the law that protected you as a student in New York (SUNY).
(The university actually went to court to prove this, apparently unconcerned about saying so in public; yet NCKU has been called the fourth-ranked university in Taiwan.)
Now since it was the case (as the university argued) that the dismissal action was really a hiring action, even though the university's dismissal action could not pass the university committee I could lose my job anyway, for now it was an issue not of me being fired illegally but just of me not being hired, presumably on legal criteria. So, you see, semantics and human rights don't make good bedfellows.
I'm curious, Professor Chou. According to our (NCKU) web site, you received your degree at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo. Did that New York university ever tell Taiwanese professors they were not protected by the same laws that protect American professors? If not, we have a human rights problem in Taiwan. Isn't that so?
Now NCKU university held appeal hearings here. The university also sent representatives to appeal hearings at the Ministry of Education in Taipei. At no time did the university ever argue that Americans had no right to appeal. It would have been against the law as it's understood here anyway, although our officials have a different understanding of the law (attachment).
But laws are beside the point now. I'm arguing fundamental honesty now, not law. Because after I won the Ministry of Education appeal the university then argued that, as a foreign teacher I had no right to appeal in the first place.
I'm curious, Professor Chou, since your department is Political Science, and your specialties, according to our web page, include "Human Rights" and "Political Change," how is it possible for the university to hold appeal hearings, and even attend them in Taiwan, if, indeed, I had no right to appeal in the first place? Can you explain this legal conundrum to me, since my department is Foreign Languages and Literature and I'm relatively unenlightened about political science.
But let me sum up the issues here for clarity. The university itself held appeal hearings, which involved numerous committee meetings in a three-tiered process, including department, college, and university committees. These "oversight" committees repeatedly passed my dismissal, before and even after the Ministry overturned it.
The university also debated the case at the Ministry of Education in Taipei. Yet after the university lost it argued I had no right to appeal.
This of course would be rejected in an American court based on the legal principle known as estoppel. Let me quote Wikipedia on this term:
Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied."
But this is a legal principle. There's the deeper moral principle whose violation is even more audacious, since one does not expect officials of a university that is commonly called a prestige university in Taiwan to behave in such a duplicitous manner, more like children in a school yard who want to win a fight by whatever means than as accredited professors and honorable officials, especially since many professors here, like yourself, were accredited in the United States and were treated equitably while matriculated at universities or teaching there.
Because of the serious human rights issues involved, I will fight this case no matter how long it takes. I have even opened a web site to that purpose.
But in the meantime it worries me that every time someone googles for "human rights" and "Taiwan" they will find, not details about egregious human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan (although with my blog I hope to correct this problem) but the words of your article pleading to "Make Human Rights Work in Mainland China through Cross-Strait Dialogue."
With all due respect, Professor Chou, although I applaud your concern over human rights in Mainland China, isn't it of more immediate concern to make sure that human rights work in Taiwan, specifically at our own university, first?
Not only are you the author of that article in Research Express (previously published in United Daily), but the editorial staff of Research Express includes our current university president, Michael M. C. Lai, Senior Executive Vice President Da Hsuan Feng, and Senior Executive Vice President Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet I have repeatedly petitioned President Lai and other officials here to resolve this outstanding human rights case, to no avail.
In the 1960s there was a slogan, THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY. Although I applaud your thinking globally about human rights issues, I really think you should act locally too.
Your well-meaning article reminds me of another saying, this one by Edmund Burke, that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
I will give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt and assume those not directly involved in my illegal dismissal or in the enforcement of that dismissal are "good" men and women. But by doing nothing about this case, the evidence of which is fully documented (and only partly represented in my attachment) you are not insuring (to quote from your article) "the protection and installation of civilian economic and social rights" in Taiwan.
To paraphrase the final line of your essay, I modestly ask that you "seize the opportunity to demonstrate our Chinese human rights experience and its content to the international community!" by enforcing human rights at our university. This can be done by insuring a formal apology and compensation from National Cheng Kung University over its human rights abuses. If human rights can't be enforced here they certainly won't be enforced in Mainland China, no matter how many articles you publish.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:06:03 +0800
From: rdca25@gmail.com
To: ccchou@mail.ncku.edu.tw
Professor Chih-Chieh Chou
Department of Political Science,
Graduate Institute of Political Economy,
College of Social Sciences,
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
27 July 2010
Dear Professor Chou,
I recently came across your article in the university's Research Express (Volume 12, Issue 9; February 26, 2010, online at http://research.ncku.edu.tw/re/commentary/e/20100226/1.html).
You begin by lauding Human Rights Day, 2009, citing "the Universal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights," then adding,
From now on, the citizens can resort to the articles of the Covenants to plea for compensation once they assume their rights and interests are deprived through laws violating the Covenants, which makes Taiwan the only Chinese society with comprehensive human rights framework around the globe. Such accomplishment is way ahead of China while they celebrate their 60th anniversary and brag about their wealth and strong national defense power (p. 1). (My emphasis.)
You refer "to the protection and installation of civilian economic and social rights," and, listing "practical rights issues," you conclude, contrasting China and Taiwan by stating that "Taiwan’s only competitive edge in interaction is the prevalent installation of these humanitarian values. Taiwan should seize the opportunity to demonstrate our Chinese human rights experience and its content to the international community!" (my emphasis).
I applaud your concern over human rights in China. But I'm curious why you are so concerned about enforcing human rights in China when there are egregious human rights at our own university that you can help to enforce too.
You are a professor at our university, so you should be aware that in 1999 I was illegally dismissed from the Department at Foreign Languages and Literature at our very university. A secret letter was circulated at several "oversight" committees, presumably to insure my dismissal when it became apparent the original accusations against me were invalid. I should add I wasn't even aware of those accusations until after the dismissal hearing, and then only by hearsay.
My dismissal, egregiously in violation of basic human rights protections, nonetheless passed all "oversight" committees at our university. For obvious reasons it was overturned by the Ministry of Education on appeal in a ruling dated 8 January 2001. In pedagogic style, the ruling highlighted human rights abuses, presumably to insure NCKU officials would not repeat the same mistakes.
However at our university even a legal Ministry ruling is not sufficient to guarantee human rights enforcement. Then what is the purpose of a Ministry appeal? I have no idea how our colleagues would answer that question if they felt compelled to.
Subsequently, university president, Kao Chiang, refused to enforce that Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years (attachment), even after an international human rights group, Scholars at Risk, queried him about the delay (see attachments). Only after repeated pressure from the Ministry of Education (attachment) did the university finally comply with a legal Ministry ruling. Even then the university tried to impose penalties against me, despite the Ministry ruling; as if I never won the case.
However, before the university finally complied it argued foreign faculty are not protected by the Teacher's Law. Hence, even after the dismissal action against me was canceled, in December, 1999 after an eight-month delay (I remind you, I had to renew my visa every two months), I was informed I had to be "reviewed" again, since the case was now being treated not as a firing action but as a hiring action. Can you follow the logic here?
American professors, you see, are not protected by the Teacher's Law, the same law that protects you, or the principle of equality under the law that protected you as a student in New York (SUNY).
(The university actually went to court to prove this, apparently unconcerned about saying so in public; yet NCKU has been called the fourth-ranked university in Taiwan.)
Now since it was the case (as the university argued) that the dismissal action was really a hiring action, even though the university's dismissal action could not pass the university committee I could lose my job anyway, for now it was an issue not of me being fired illegally but just of me not being hired, presumably on legal criteria. So, you see, semantics and human rights don't make good bedfellows.
I'm curious, Professor Chou. According to our (NCKU) web site, you received your degree at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo. Did that New York university ever tell Taiwanese professors they were not protected by the same laws that protect American professors? If not, we have a human rights problem in Taiwan. Isn't that so?
Now NCKU university held appeal hearings here. The university also sent representatives to appeal hearings at the Ministry of Education in Taipei. At no time did the university ever argue that Americans had no right to appeal. It would have been against the law as it's understood here anyway, although our officials have a different understanding of the law (attachment).
But laws are beside the point now. I'm arguing fundamental honesty now, not law. Because after I won the Ministry of Education appeal the university then argued that, as a foreign teacher I had no right to appeal in the first place.
I'm curious, Professor Chou, since your department is Political Science, and your specialties, according to our web page, include "Human Rights" and "Political Change," how is it possible for the university to hold appeal hearings, and even attend them in Taiwan, if, indeed, I had no right to appeal in the first place? Can you explain this legal conundrum to me, since my department is Foreign Languages and Literature and I'm relatively unenlightened about political science.
But let me sum up the issues here for clarity. The university itself held appeal hearings, which involved numerous committee meetings in a three-tiered process, including department, college, and university committees. These "oversight" committees repeatedly passed my dismissal, before and even after the Ministry overturned it.
The university also debated the case at the Ministry of Education in Taipei. Yet after the university lost it argued I had no right to appeal.
This of course would be rejected in an American court based on the legal principle known as estoppel. Let me quote Wikipedia on this term:
Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied."
But this is a legal principle. There's the deeper moral principle whose violation is even more audacious, since one does not expect officials of a university that is commonly called a prestige university in Taiwan to behave in such a duplicitous manner, more like children in a school yard who want to win a fight by whatever means than as accredited professors and honorable officials, especially since many professors here, like yourself, were accredited in the United States and were treated equitably while matriculated at universities or teaching there.
Because of the serious human rights issues involved, I will fight this case no matter how long it takes. I have even opened a web site to that purpose.
But in the meantime it worries me that every time someone googles for "human rights" and "Taiwan" they will find, not details about egregious human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan (although with my blog I hope to correct this problem) but the words of your article pleading to "Make Human Rights Work in Mainland China through Cross-Strait Dialogue."
With all due respect, Professor Chou, although I applaud your concern over human rights in Mainland China, isn't it of more immediate concern to make sure that human rights work in Taiwan, specifically at our own university, first?
Not only are you the author of that article in Research Express (previously published in United Daily), but the editorial staff of Research Express includes our current university president, Michael M. C. Lai, Senior Executive Vice President Da Hsuan Feng, and Senior Executive Vice President Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet I have repeatedly petitioned President Lai and other officials here to resolve this outstanding human rights case, to no avail.
In the 1960s there was a slogan, THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY. Although I applaud your thinking globally about human rights issues, I really think you should act locally too.
Your well-meaning article reminds me of another saying, this one by Edmund Burke, that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
I will give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt and assume those not directly involved in my illegal dismissal or in the enforcement of that dismissal are "good" men and women. But by doing nothing about this case, the evidence of which is fully documented (and only partly represented in my attachment) you are not insuring (to quote from your article) "the protection and installation of civilian economic and social rights" in Taiwan.
To paraphrase the final line of your essay, I modestly ask that you "seize the opportunity to demonstrate our Chinese human rights experience and its content to the international community!" by enforcing human rights at our university. This can be done by insuring a formal apology and compensation from National Cheng Kung University over its human rights abuses. If human rights can't be enforced here they certainly won't be enforced in Mainland China, no matter how many articles you publish.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Letter to the American Congress
date Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:39 AM
subject Human rights abuses in Taiwan
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Staff Members
The Honorable Phil Gingrey, Congressional Taiwan Caucus
cc: The Taiwan Ministry of Education
Scholars at Risk
7 July 2011
Dear Honorable Members of Congress,
I wish to report to the American Congress that the rights of American citizens are in jeopardy in Taiwan. Despite its claim to being a "democracy" and even, in the words of members of the American Congress, a "strong democracy," in fact democratic process is not practiced in Taiwan when the rights of an American citizen are involved.
In 1999 I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. Despite winning an appeal at Taiwan's Ministry of Education in January 2001, the university defied that ruling until May 2003 and even claimed, after losing the appeal, that Americans had no right to appeal, since we are only "foreigners" in Taiwan.
These are the same Taiwanese who expect Americans and our representatives in the US Congress to stand up for Taiwan's "democracy" and even risk war doing so. But the Taiwan government will not enforce those same principles on behalf of an American citizen. Presumably the "face" of a Taiwan official is worth more than the rights of an American citizen.
This is not merely an administrative issue. Despite numerous petitions to them, NCKU's faculty have been completely silent during this ordeal. These are the same professors who matriculate at American universities and enjoy rights and privileges guaranteed to all under the American Constitution. These are the same professors who present at international conferences boasting of Taiwan's democratic principles, principles not enforced on behalf of American citizens. Is this blatant and shameless racism?
Since my illegal dismissal in 1999, Taiwan's government has done nothing to protect my rights apart from canceling my dismissal. It allowed the university to delay reinstatement for nearly two and a half years. It has not punished a single official. Taiwan's courts punished no one. The courts did not even award compensation or damages, despite the four-year interruption to my academic career and loss to my reputation.
Taiwan's Control Yuan and other government agencies have ignored my many petitions. Taiwan's Ministry of Education seems to be taking the side of the university that, since I was reinstated, the case is closed. I suppose, in Taiwan, if a rapist gives an American woman her clothes back the case is closed.
The lack of deterrent rulings has emboldened NCKU officials to "explain" on the NCKU web page as recently as March and May of 2011, that an illegal dismissal never occurred; in fact, that I was "involved" in misconduct that justified dismissal. These posts were signed by NCKU's Secretary-General and president, apparently without fear of penalty by the Ministry of Education.
The so-called "free press" in Taiwan has published only a couple of small items about the case, taking no sides. The English-language press has ignored the case completely. When one conscientious reporter reared in Hong Kong recently showed interest in the case he was interdicted by the editor who informed me he was awaiting "further developments." It reminds me of a Bob Dylan refrain. How much injustice must occur in Taiwan before the English-language press here reports it?
One wonders how many similar cases have been censored by Taiwan's "free press," which is more concerned with berating Mainland China over human rights abuses than exposing human rights abuses in Taiwan. That's good public relations (presumably Taiwan's English-language press is read by members of the US Congress), but poor democracy. No wonder the US Congress has called Taiwan a "strong democracy."
Recently Yahoo News posted the following (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110625/ap_on_re_as/as_taiwan_china):
"Lawmaker Wu Yu-sheng of the ruling Nationalist Party proposed late Friday that the legislature open its floor to the visiting Chinese because 'out of all places in Taiwan, the legislature is where democracy is most thoroughly implemented.'"
This is well and good, but not if the Taiwan legislature is the only place where democracy is "thoroughly implemented." Laws that are legislated but not practiced are worse than no laws at all because that undermines confidence in the very principle of law.
In another quote it's reported that,
"They were surprised that our lawmakers could question and even shout at senior government officials," the report said.
But questioning and shouting at senior government officials is useless unless officials respond. I have been questioning and petitioning Taiwan's government officials for thirteen years, to no avail. As recently as this week a Chinese colleague and I made phone calls to the Ministry of Education and given the usual runaround. Like Hotspur's sarcastic boast in a Shakespeare play, I can call dead spirits from the vasty deep--but will they come?
In Taiwan anyone can report to the "free press." But will it be published? In Taiwan, anyone can freely petition government officials--but will they act? Such equivocal indulgence of democratic rights is an insidious way to destroy those rights without risk to one's status as a "democracy."
Despite Taiwan's "strong democracy," since I cannot obtain justice in Taiwan, I am appealing to members of the American Congress, specifically members of the Taiwan Caucus, to pressure Taiwan's government to enforce democratic principles on behalf of an American citizen, in the same way that the American justice system enforces justice on behalf of Taiwan's citizens who reside in the US.
At the same time, since the Formosa Foundation "dedicates itself to the advancement of human rights" (http://www.formosafoundation.org/), I hope that foundation can explain to the American Congress how human rights are being advanced in Taiwan by the Taiwan government's handling of my case, the facts of which are attached and posted on my blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/. I am also circulating this email to "human rights" groups in Taiwan that thus far have ignored my petitions for assistance.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly, Associate Professor
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
subject Human rights abuses in Taiwan
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Staff Members
The Honorable Phil Gingrey, Congressional Taiwan Caucus
cc: The Taiwan Ministry of Education
Scholars at Risk
7 July 2011
Dear Honorable Members of Congress,
I wish to report to the American Congress that the rights of American citizens are in jeopardy in Taiwan. Despite its claim to being a "democracy" and even, in the words of members of the American Congress, a "strong democracy," in fact democratic process is not practiced in Taiwan when the rights of an American citizen are involved.
In 1999 I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. Despite winning an appeal at Taiwan's Ministry of Education in January 2001, the university defied that ruling until May 2003 and even claimed, after losing the appeal, that Americans had no right to appeal, since we are only "foreigners" in Taiwan.
These are the same Taiwanese who expect Americans and our representatives in the US Congress to stand up for Taiwan's "democracy" and even risk war doing so. But the Taiwan government will not enforce those same principles on behalf of an American citizen. Presumably the "face" of a Taiwan official is worth more than the rights of an American citizen.
This is not merely an administrative issue. Despite numerous petitions to them, NCKU's faculty have been completely silent during this ordeal. These are the same professors who matriculate at American universities and enjoy rights and privileges guaranteed to all under the American Constitution. These are the same professors who present at international conferences boasting of Taiwan's democratic principles, principles not enforced on behalf of American citizens. Is this blatant and shameless racism?
Since my illegal dismissal in 1999, Taiwan's government has done nothing to protect my rights apart from canceling my dismissal. It allowed the university to delay reinstatement for nearly two and a half years. It has not punished a single official. Taiwan's courts punished no one. The courts did not even award compensation or damages, despite the four-year interruption to my academic career and loss to my reputation.
Taiwan's Control Yuan and other government agencies have ignored my many petitions. Taiwan's Ministry of Education seems to be taking the side of the university that, since I was reinstated, the case is closed. I suppose, in Taiwan, if a rapist gives an American woman her clothes back the case is closed.
The lack of deterrent rulings has emboldened NCKU officials to "explain" on the NCKU web page as recently as March and May of 2011, that an illegal dismissal never occurred; in fact, that I was "involved" in misconduct that justified dismissal. These posts were signed by NCKU's Secretary-General and president, apparently without fear of penalty by the Ministry of Education.
The so-called "free press" in Taiwan has published only a couple of small items about the case, taking no sides. The English-language press has ignored the case completely. When one conscientious reporter reared in Hong Kong recently showed interest in the case he was interdicted by the editor who informed me he was awaiting "further developments." It reminds me of a Bob Dylan refrain. How much injustice must occur in Taiwan before the English-language press here reports it?
One wonders how many similar cases have been censored by Taiwan's "free press," which is more concerned with berating Mainland China over human rights abuses than exposing human rights abuses in Taiwan. That's good public relations (presumably Taiwan's English-language press is read by members of the US Congress), but poor democracy. No wonder the US Congress has called Taiwan a "strong democracy."
Recently Yahoo News posted the following (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110625/ap_on_re_as/as_taiwan_china):
"Lawmaker Wu Yu-sheng of the ruling Nationalist Party proposed late Friday that the legislature open its floor to the visiting Chinese because 'out of all places in Taiwan, the legislature is where democracy is most thoroughly implemented.'"
This is well and good, but not if the Taiwan legislature is the only place where democracy is "thoroughly implemented." Laws that are legislated but not practiced are worse than no laws at all because that undermines confidence in the very principle of law.
In another quote it's reported that,
"They were surprised that our lawmakers could question and even shout at senior government officials," the report said.
But questioning and shouting at senior government officials is useless unless officials respond. I have been questioning and petitioning Taiwan's government officials for thirteen years, to no avail. As recently as this week a Chinese colleague and I made phone calls to the Ministry of Education and given the usual runaround. Like Hotspur's sarcastic boast in a Shakespeare play, I can call dead spirits from the vasty deep--but will they come?
In Taiwan anyone can report to the "free press." But will it be published? In Taiwan, anyone can freely petition government officials--but will they act? Such equivocal indulgence of democratic rights is an insidious way to destroy those rights without risk to one's status as a "democracy."
Despite Taiwan's "strong democracy," since I cannot obtain justice in Taiwan, I am appealing to members of the American Congress, specifically members of the Taiwan Caucus, to pressure Taiwan's government to enforce democratic principles on behalf of an American citizen, in the same way that the American justice system enforces justice on behalf of Taiwan's citizens who reside in the US.
At the same time, since the Formosa Foundation "dedicates itself to the advancement of human rights" (http://www.formosafoundation.org/), I hope that foundation can explain to the American Congress how human rights are being advanced in Taiwan by the Taiwan government's handling of my case, the facts of which are attached and posted on my blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/. I am also circulating this email to "human rights" groups in Taiwan that thus far have ignored my petitions for assistance.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly, Associate Professor
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Monday, July 5, 2010
Letter to Ministry of Education (5 July 2011)
The Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan
cc: Scholars at Risk
Formosa Foundation
Taiwan "human rights" groups
Center for Taiwan International Relations
US Taiwan Caucus
North America Taiwanese Professors' Association (NATPA)
American Universities, etc.
5 July 2011
Please allow me to inform those concerned about human rights, and, specifically, human rights in Taiwan, that, over thirteen years, I have tried everything possible to resolve human rights issues at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan, to no avail.
I have respectfully contacted every agency in Taiwan. I have contacted Taiwan presidents and vice-presidents. I have contacted the (now defunct?) Human Rights Commission. I have contacted the Control Yuan and petitioned that "prestigious" agency personally in Taipei, to no avail. I have sent repeated postal and electronic mails to Taiwan presidents, premiers, human rights groups, legal aid groups, and Taiwan's Department of Higher Education, to no avail.
I have also sent numerous letters to the three major English-language newspapers in Taiwan, including the China Post, Taipei Times, and Taiwan News to no avail. Meanwhile they condemn human rights abuses in Mainland China.
To my knowledge, not a single letter of mine about this case has been published. The single reply I received, about a month ago, said the editor was awaiting "further developments" in a case that has lasted thirteen years. I'm not sure what "further developments" means, unless it's Sean Connery marching for Taiwan independence.
The Ministry of Education, presumably an oversight agency of Taiwan's public universities, has so far been unable to resolve this issue. Yet the Ministry itself has fully documented abuses in its ruling of 2001, which canceled my dismissal (attached). Moreover, NCKU defied that ruling for nearly two and a half years.
In the meantime the Ministry sent ten warning letters, in which it spelled out human rights abuses (attached). But the MOE has not punished a single university official. In fact the university president who defied the MOE ruling was afterwards approved for a second three-year term.
The courts awarded no punitive damages. But my academic career was interrupted for at least four years and libelous accusations about me were circulated at university hearings. As recently as last year (2010), students assured me those accusations were current at the university (attached).
But no Taiwan court found a single university official liable. The courts didn't even award compensation for expenses incurred by my dismissal.
Are these deterrent rulings? Is this the way to insure a "strong democracy," based on law and legal rights principles? If a child is kidnapped will a Taiwan court merely enforce the return of the child without making exemplary punitive, deterrent, and compensatory rulings?
To add insult to injury, the university president and his Secretary-General recently posted on the official NCKU web page an "explanation" of the illegal dismissal as if no laws were violated, even suggesting I was "involved" in misconduct that justified dismissal. Yet the Secretary-General himself contested the dismissal as illegal before he became Secretary-General! Are right and wrong opportunistic concepts in Taiwan instead of fundamental principles of justice?
NCKU faculty have not raised their voices in protest. Many matriculated at universities in democracies abroad where they enjoyed human rights protections.
If my case is typical, Taiwan is not a "strong democracy" but a "virtual democracy." Rights are virtually guaranteed but not actually enforced.
In a chimerical democracy, citizens are free to file formal complaints, while government agencies are free to ignore them. With this chimerical or virtual freedom, citizens are not motivated to fight for a more tangible freedom.
Ironically, under the coercive government of Mainland China, citizens stand up to tanks. Under the permissive government of Taiwan, citizens won't stand up to a university administration.
With no freedom of the press in Mainland China, citizens use all means to expose human rights abuses. But the "free press" in Taiwan will not expose this case, looking for "further developments." How many similar abuses are there that haven't been exposed?
Based on the history of human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University, and the Ministry of Education's refusal to enforce remedy of those abuses, I must petition American universities to respond appropriately and terminate academic exchanges with Taiwan universities.
Apart from the right of an American citizen to be protected under Taiwan law, if human rights are not enforced how can academic standards be assured? No professor will protest abuses at a university and risk dismissal with no tangible means of remedy or compensation, as happened in my case.
In the meantime, I am asking the Ministry of Education one more time to insure immediate and formal remedy of this long-standing case at National Cheng Kung University. Pending this, I have other legal and petitionary options available, and I intend to use them.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
For those who wish to explore this case further, please consult my blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/
Taipei, Taiwan
cc: Scholars at Risk
Formosa Foundation
Taiwan "human rights" groups
Center for Taiwan International Relations
US Taiwan Caucus
North America Taiwanese Professors' Association (NATPA)
American Universities, etc.
5 July 2011
Please allow me to inform those concerned about human rights, and, specifically, human rights in Taiwan, that, over thirteen years, I have tried everything possible to resolve human rights issues at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan, to no avail.
I have respectfully contacted every agency in Taiwan. I have contacted Taiwan presidents and vice-presidents. I have contacted the (now defunct?) Human Rights Commission. I have contacted the Control Yuan and petitioned that "prestigious" agency personally in Taipei, to no avail. I have sent repeated postal and electronic mails to Taiwan presidents, premiers, human rights groups, legal aid groups, and Taiwan's Department of Higher Education, to no avail.
I have also sent numerous letters to the three major English-language newspapers in Taiwan, including the China Post, Taipei Times, and Taiwan News to no avail. Meanwhile they condemn human rights abuses in Mainland China.
To my knowledge, not a single letter of mine about this case has been published. The single reply I received, about a month ago, said the editor was awaiting "further developments" in a case that has lasted thirteen years. I'm not sure what "further developments" means, unless it's Sean Connery marching for Taiwan independence.
The Ministry of Education, presumably an oversight agency of Taiwan's public universities, has so far been unable to resolve this issue. Yet the Ministry itself has fully documented abuses in its ruling of 2001, which canceled my dismissal (attached). Moreover, NCKU defied that ruling for nearly two and a half years.
In the meantime the Ministry sent ten warning letters, in which it spelled out human rights abuses (attached). But the MOE has not punished a single university official. In fact the university president who defied the MOE ruling was afterwards approved for a second three-year term.
The courts awarded no punitive damages. But my academic career was interrupted for at least four years and libelous accusations about me were circulated at university hearings. As recently as last year (2010), students assured me those accusations were current at the university (attached).
But no Taiwan court found a single university official liable. The courts didn't even award compensation for expenses incurred by my dismissal.
Are these deterrent rulings? Is this the way to insure a "strong democracy," based on law and legal rights principles? If a child is kidnapped will a Taiwan court merely enforce the return of the child without making exemplary punitive, deterrent, and compensatory rulings?
To add insult to injury, the university president and his Secretary-General recently posted on the official NCKU web page an "explanation" of the illegal dismissal as if no laws were violated, even suggesting I was "involved" in misconduct that justified dismissal. Yet the Secretary-General himself contested the dismissal as illegal before he became Secretary-General! Are right and wrong opportunistic concepts in Taiwan instead of fundamental principles of justice?
NCKU faculty have not raised their voices in protest. Many matriculated at universities in democracies abroad where they enjoyed human rights protections.
If my case is typical, Taiwan is not a "strong democracy" but a "virtual democracy." Rights are virtually guaranteed but not actually enforced.
In a chimerical democracy, citizens are free to file formal complaints, while government agencies are free to ignore them. With this chimerical or virtual freedom, citizens are not motivated to fight for a more tangible freedom.
Ironically, under the coercive government of Mainland China, citizens stand up to tanks. Under the permissive government of Taiwan, citizens won't stand up to a university administration.
With no freedom of the press in Mainland China, citizens use all means to expose human rights abuses. But the "free press" in Taiwan will not expose this case, looking for "further developments." How many similar abuses are there that haven't been exposed?
Based on the history of human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University, and the Ministry of Education's refusal to enforce remedy of those abuses, I must petition American universities to respond appropriately and terminate academic exchanges with Taiwan universities.
Apart from the right of an American citizen to be protected under Taiwan law, if human rights are not enforced how can academic standards be assured? No professor will protest abuses at a university and risk dismissal with no tangible means of remedy or compensation, as happened in my case.
In the meantime, I am asking the Ministry of Education one more time to insure immediate and formal remedy of this long-standing case at National Cheng Kung University. Pending this, I have other legal and petitionary options available, and I intend to use them.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
For those who wish to explore this case further, please consult my blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/
Monday, June 21, 2010
Aesop and University Politics
The gods were discussing whether a being could change its nature.
Jupiter said, "Yes," but Venus said "No."
To try the question, Jupiter turned a cat into a maiden wed her to a young man. The couple sat down at the wedding feast.
"See," Jupiter said, "how well she behaves. Who could tell she was once a cat. Surely her nature has changed."
"Wait a minute," replied Venus, and let loose a mouse in the room. No sooner did the bride see this than she jumped up from her seat and tried to catch the mouse.
"You see," said Venus. "Nature will out."
I included this classic fable as an allegory of some Taiwan students who befriend a foreign teacher until "relationships" require they betray them, which they seem to do with apparent ease. I mentored several students here but that did not prevent them from signing defamatory letters against me opportunistically to advance their interests. One of them quickly and sincerely apologized and wrote a public letter admitting he was pressured to write his defamatory letter against me and admitting I treated him well (see attachment). That student I forgave unconditionally, as it behooves us to do and, as a courtesy, despite his wrongdoing, his or her name will never be revealed by me. But it's remarkable how a student could write one letter could also write the other (accusatory) letter. That indicates the kind of political pressure placed on students here in order to collaborate with officials who have their own agenda. Another student, for whom I wrote a letter to insure his admission to a university abroad, to this day refuses to admit he did anything wrong, prevaricating what he did to the point of absurdity. I wrote him an email comparing him to Aesop's cat, referring to the above fable. Instead of apologizing he advised me to be more polite to him, even though he wrote the defamatory letter, he was my student, and I wrote him a letter to insure his admission to a foreign graduate school. Instead of acknowledging his gratitude he recently emailed me back that other professors offered to write a reference letter too. Go figure the moral standards of a person (now a teacher!) like that.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Letter to Judicial Reform Foundation (8 June 2010)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Regarding human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 02:17:20 +0800
From: rdca25@gmail.com
To: contact@jrf.org.tw
CC: scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu
Lin Feng-jeng
Executive Director
Judicial Reform Foundation
8 June 2010
cc: Scholars at Risk
Dear Dr. Lin,
Regarding "Human Rights must be considered" in The Taipei Times (7 June 2010), let's consider human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan.
In January 2001, Taiwan's Ministry of Education canceled my illegal dismissal (1999-2000). Instead of reinstating me, NCKU argued foreigners had no right to appeal. Yet the university held appeal hearings and attended Ministry hearings.
Apart from discriminatory treatment of foreigners, I'm curious if Taiwan law recognizes the legal principle of estoppel, which prevents a claim contrary to what has been established by a previous assertion or action. Since the university established my right to appeal during appeal hearings, how can it say, without penalty, I had no right to appeal?
In addition the university defied a Ministry of Education (MOE) ruling for nearly two and a half years (Jan 2001-May 2003). How can a public university defy a government ruling, assuming the MOE represents the government?
The university finally reinstated me, but without formal redress. Yet formal redress, including compensation and apology, is part of democratic law and human rights charters.
The current university president, Dr. Michael M. C. Lai, has ignored several requests to discuss this issue. Apart from not honoring an appeal the university itself participated in, the fact that NCKU would try to enforce discriminatory practices against foreign faculty should concern the Judicial Reform Foundation as well as Taiwan citizens who enjoy human rights protections in the US on behalf of themselves or their families. How can American universities maintain academic exchanges with a Taiwan university that claimed, in court, that American professors are not protected by the same laws that protect Taiwan faculty?
Though the university's actions were egregious, willful, and defiant, neither the courts nor the MOE imposed penalties on officials. Apart from back salary and salary from a college where I taught in the meantime, I received no damages. Yet the case interrupted my academic career for four years and has occupied portions of my time (and that of others) for ten years.
Where is the deterrent effect of the law to prevent similar abuses in the future? Indeed, foreign faculty are likely to tolerate academic mischief or risk dismissal.
Taiwan English-language newspapers, which espouse democracy, have ignored my letters, as have Taiwan human rights groups.
It's true that capital cases involve life or death issues. Admittedly an academic career is of lesser importance. But democracy grows or fails on the strength of numerous rulings that uphold or erode legal principles. A fortiori, if a government can't insure human rights at a university, how can it do so in capital cases?
My case repeatedly passed NCKU's oversight committees. Yet not only wasn't the university punished for its violations, but its president, Kao Chiang, despite defying a Ministry ruling for more than two years, was approved by the Ministry for another three-year term as president.
Yes, "let us all remember human rights." But the Judicial Reform Foundation should not look to foreign oceans for fish to fry when there are enough fish in local waters, as the attached documents prove.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Letters from Taiwan's Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University's President
Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling
These are English translations of eight letters from the Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University concerning my illegal dismissal and the university's refusal to abide by a legal Ministry ruling, even though the university participated in appeal hearings and only challenged my right to appeal after the ruling favored me. It even filed a lawsuit to challenge the Ministry's ruling, then used the court case to try to further delay issuing the contracts!
(The translations are by a member of the NCKU Faculty Union. Chinese copies are attached in JPEG and PDF formats. Below are paraphrases. In any version, the unprincipled conduct of National Cheng Kung University is evident.)
1. April 6, 2001: "The university should make lawful remedy within a month."
2. May 11, 2001 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio, which is the proper remedy."
3. June 14, 2001 "If there is no practical revival of the contract, the decision of the MOE Appeals Committee is equivalent to vain words. Procedural justice should be upheld first. The university should not use the results of its previous improper procedures as an excuse to delay reinstating the professor."
4. August 7, 2001 "If the university willfully delays so as to damage the teacher’s rights, the university must bear complete responsibility."
5. May 3, 2002 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio starting from August 1, 1999, and compensate his salary. There is no need to wait for the court verdict."
6. October 15, 2002 "The university should immediately process the application of contract extension permit."
7. December 2, 2002 "The university’s request to wait for the court verdict is denied. Revive the contract with Mr. De Canio and compensate his salary as soon as possible."
8. January 17, 2003 "Do as described in the letter of December 2, 2002."
Subject: Regarding human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 02:17:20 +0800
From: rdca25@gmail.com
To: contact@jrf.org.tw
CC: scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu
Lin Feng-jeng
Executive Director
Judicial Reform Foundation
8 June 2010
cc: Scholars at Risk
Dear Dr. Lin,
Regarding "Human Rights must be considered" in The Taipei Times (7 June 2010), let's consider human rights violations at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan.
In January 2001, Taiwan's Ministry of Education canceled my illegal dismissal (1999-2000). Instead of reinstating me, NCKU argued foreigners had no right to appeal. Yet the university held appeal hearings and attended Ministry hearings.
Apart from discriminatory treatment of foreigners, I'm curious if Taiwan law recognizes the legal principle of estoppel, which prevents a claim contrary to what has been established by a previous assertion or action. Since the university established my right to appeal during appeal hearings, how can it say, without penalty, I had no right to appeal?
In addition the university defied a Ministry of Education (MOE) ruling for nearly two and a half years (Jan 2001-May 2003). How can a public university defy a government ruling, assuming the MOE represents the government?
The university finally reinstated me, but without formal redress. Yet formal redress, including compensation and apology, is part of democratic law and human rights charters.
The current university president, Dr. Michael M. C. Lai, has ignored several requests to discuss this issue. Apart from not honoring an appeal the university itself participated in, the fact that NCKU would try to enforce discriminatory practices against foreign faculty should concern the Judicial Reform Foundation as well as Taiwan citizens who enjoy human rights protections in the US on behalf of themselves or their families. How can American universities maintain academic exchanges with a Taiwan university that claimed, in court, that American professors are not protected by the same laws that protect Taiwan faculty?
Though the university's actions were egregious, willful, and defiant, neither the courts nor the MOE imposed penalties on officials. Apart from back salary and salary from a college where I taught in the meantime, I received no damages. Yet the case interrupted my academic career for four years and has occupied portions of my time (and that of others) for ten years.
Where is the deterrent effect of the law to prevent similar abuses in the future? Indeed, foreign faculty are likely to tolerate academic mischief or risk dismissal.
Taiwan English-language newspapers, which espouse democracy, have ignored my letters, as have Taiwan human rights groups.
It's true that capital cases involve life or death issues. Admittedly an academic career is of lesser importance. But democracy grows or fails on the strength of numerous rulings that uphold or erode legal principles. A fortiori, if a government can't insure human rights at a university, how can it do so in capital cases?
My case repeatedly passed NCKU's oversight committees. Yet not only wasn't the university punished for its violations, but its president, Kao Chiang, despite defying a Ministry ruling for more than two years, was approved by the Ministry for another three-year term as president.
Yes, "let us all remember human rights." But the Judicial Reform Foundation should not look to foreign oceans for fish to fry when there are enough fish in local waters, as the attached documents prove.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Letters from Taiwan's Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University's President
Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling
These are English translations of eight letters from the Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University concerning my illegal dismissal and the university's refusal to abide by a legal Ministry ruling, even though the university participated in appeal hearings and only challenged my right to appeal after the ruling favored me. It even filed a lawsuit to challenge the Ministry's ruling, then used the court case to try to further delay issuing the contracts!
(The translations are by a member of the NCKU Faculty Union. Chinese copies are attached in JPEG and PDF formats. Below are paraphrases. In any version, the unprincipled conduct of National Cheng Kung University is evident.)
1. April 6, 2001: "The university should make lawful remedy within a month."
2. May 11, 2001 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio, which is the proper remedy."
3. June 14, 2001 "If there is no practical revival of the contract, the decision of the MOE Appeals Committee is equivalent to vain words. Procedural justice should be upheld first. The university should not use the results of its previous improper procedures as an excuse to delay reinstating the professor."
4. August 7, 2001 "If the university willfully delays so as to damage the teacher’s rights, the university must bear complete responsibility."
5. May 3, 2002 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio starting from August 1, 1999, and compensate his salary. There is no need to wait for the court verdict."
6. October 15, 2002 "The university should immediately process the application of contract extension permit."
7. December 2, 2002 "The university’s request to wait for the court verdict is denied. Revive the contract with Mr. De Canio and compensate his salary as soon as possible."
8. January 17, 2003 "Do as described in the letter of December 2, 2002."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)