Dr. Jonathan Lin
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
No.4, Alley 17, Lane 147, Sec. 3, Sinyi Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan
Professor Dennis Hickey
Department of Political Science
Missouri State University
901 South National Avenue
Springfield, MO 65897
Tsai Ing-wen
Taiwan Presidential Candidate
Scholars at Risk
New York, N.Y.
12 December 2011
Dear Dr. Jonathan Lin,
In June 1999, based on defamatory accusations, I was dismissed from the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature (FLLD) at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. The appeal process was a ruse to delay the case indefinitely, against appellate rights.
After I won an appeal in a Ministry of Education (MOE) ruling dated 8 January 2001 (attached), the university defied it for nearly two and a half years. The MOE's warning letters (attached) forced the university to reinstate me in May 2003, but it held punitive hearings against me, as if MOE's ruling had no legal effect. The MOE declared the hearings illegal.
Though NCKU president Kao Chiang defied an MOE ruling, he was approved by the MOE for another three-year term. Emboldened, subsequent NCKU presidents have refused to remedy, or apologize for, human rights violations.
Instead, in March and May of this year, on NCKU's official web page, current president Hwung-Hweng Hwung repeated false accusations against me as facts and whitewashed my illegal dismissal as a "discontinued employment" (
http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/ ).
Tainan's prosecutor dismissed my libel complaint against FLLD review members on the basis their defamatory accusations did not circulate outside the university. But all statutes I know state a falsehood is defamatory if one other person reads or hears it. Moreover the accusations insured my dismissal. To add salt to the wound, NCKU used my libel suit to claim, in another dismissal action, I spread rumors about the university.
The student was not punished, on the claim her letter did not cause my dismissal, though it was solicited and circulated for that purpose. Moreover her accusations prejudiced students against me more than ten years later (attached). Now she teaches at NCKU, despite her defamatory letter. The Dean of Student Affairs, who ignored repeated petitions to punish the student, later assumed an advisory role at the MOE.
The court declined to award punitive and compensatory damages, as are routine in other democracies, but simply told NCKU to reinstate me. It's like telling a kidnapper to return the child or a bank robber to return the money, without penalty. To this day no one involved in my illegal dismissal has been punished.
Though a few Chinese-language newspapers published the case, it was as a human interest item, not a human rights report. As if human rights were of no concern here. As if there was no right and wrong side, just two sides—a case of arbitration, not justice. As if Taiwan was a tribal society, not a democratic government.
This seems to have been the view of the courts, which mediated a pragmatic compromise rather than rule on principles of law. They upheld a Ministry ruling but also protected the presumed dignity of Taiwanese against the rights of a foreigner.
Hence the lack of compensatory, punitive, and remedial judgments.
In Taiwan democracy is enjoyed as a franchise, not enforced as a framework of rights. A permissive court is not the same as a just court.
The right to file a lawsuit against government officials is meaningless if judicial rulings deny rights rather than enforce them. In that case, a plaintiff's rights are a smokescreen for injustice.
Accountability and compensation are rights enshrined in international human rights charters endorsed by Taiwan. No Taiwan court should be allowed to nullify those rights.
I know of no democratic court in the world that would make similar rulings in these cases. A university repeatedly defied statutory rulings, yet the court found no liability and awarded no punitive or compensatory damages. Review Committee members were found not liable for circulating defamatory accusations that resulted in my dismissal. A student wrote a defamatory accusation that was solicited and circulated precisely to insure my dismissal yet is not found liable. Yes, an American can file a lawsuit in Taiwan's democracy, but can he win?
Recently I was informed by a Taiwanese colleague that he sued an NCKU student for defamatory remarks on the NCKU bulletin board and was awarded NT$150,000 in damages. Yet I could not win damages from a student whose defamatory letter was solicited and circulated to insure my dismissal. Not only wasn't the student punished but she's now teaching at the university!
Presumably no "foreigner" can win a case of this kind against Taiwanese, especially where the reputation of a so-called high-ranked Taiwan university is at stake. If US courts made similar rulings against Taiwanese perhaps there would be a Taiwan awakening.
Taiwanese are incensed at the mere rumor their taekwondo athlete was discriminated against in South Korea, but they remain silent about my case. Yet their children and colleagues enjoy human rights protections in the United States.
NCKU faculty who enjoyed human rights protections while matriculated in the United States are now completely silent about my case, though I have repeatedly emailed them to speak out on my behalf. "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends" (Martin Luther King, Jr.).
Though I have repeatedly petitioned the English-language press to expose this case, I've been ignored. They prefer to expose abuses in Mainland China rather than abuses in Taiwan. Writing editorials about the lack of human rights in Mainland China will not advance human rights in Taiwan. (For a documented exchange with an English-language newspaper in Taiwan, see my dedicated case blog at
http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Censorship%20in%20Taiwan%27s%20English-Language%20Press).
Of more general concern is, if Taiwan's press has ignored my officially documented case, what other human rights issues have they ignored in Taiwan? This bodes ill for Taiwan's own citizens. "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" (Martin Luther King, Jr.).
Taiwan's human rights and legal aid groups have proved useless. If a case of a major university guilty of documented human rights abuses doesn't incite their commitment one wonders what will.
When NCKU students were indicted for illegally sharing files, Taiwan's lawyers promptly volunteered pro bono assistance. But not a single lawyer has volunteered to accept my case on a pro bono basis.
Presumably illegally downloading files is a good ("pro bono") cause while an American professor who is discriminated against by a major Taiwan university is not a good cause. Someone should tell Taiwan's legal profession to get its priorities straight if Taiwan is to be taken seriously by the international community.
In the Middle East, on the streets of Moscow, and in Mainland China citizens stand up for rights at great risk. But in Taiwan educated faculty refuse to challenge an unjust administration at no risk except their relationships with colleagues who, based on their misconduct, are not worth having relationships with.
The censored media in Mainland China find means to expose human rights issues, while the so-called "free press" in Taiwan will not expose my case. Yet those in China risk imprisonment and torture, while those in Taiwan risk nothing. (Cf.
http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Silence%20of%20the%20Lambs).
Is it a wonder some Americans have become indifferent to Taiwan's democracy when Taiwanese seem indifferent to it?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(886) 06 237 8626
PS: For a more complete understanding of events at National Cheng Kung University, consult my dedicated case blog at
http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/
