DEMOCRACY IN TAIWAN

DEMOCRACY IN TAIWAN
What's wrong with democracy in Taiwan? Consider the following case, now in its thirteenth year and still unresolved:

Officials at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan, used false accusations against me. The accusations were not investigated. I was not informed of them or the meeting at which they were used to effect my dismissal in March, 1999.

When the accusations were challenged by members of NCKU's Teachers Union, for obvious reasons, a university official solicited and circulated a secret letter from a student who claimed I failed her unfairly eight years before.

That letter, absurd as it was, was intended to insure my dismissal and secretly circulated at so-called university "review" and "appeal" hearings. Three times I asked a committee chair to tell me the letter's contents. He ignored me each time. I saw the letter years later when I took the student to court.

The student herself had an untypical relationship with university faculty. In no legitimate university would faculty support a student's mere accusation. Yet her absurd letter was accredited to begin with, then defended by faculty in a letter to the court.

Why would faculty defend a student who, without proof, accused a colleague of unfairly failing her eight years before? They even typed the university address as letterhead, as if the university endorsed the student's claim.

These faculty members were part of the student's graduate committees at that university, where she now teaches part-time. She has never been punished.

When my dismissal was "canceled" in December 1999, the university lawyer argued since I was a "foreigner" my case should be returned to the department, now as a "hiring," not a "dismissal," case. Thus the appeal was a sham, a delay to outlast me or my visa.

How can one win an appeal without benefit? This begs the question why "foreigners" don't have equal rights in Taiwan when Taiwanese receive equal rights abroad.

It also begs the question how National Cheng Kung University maintains academic exchanges with American universities on a discriminatory basis. Would Taiwanese accept discrimination at an American university?

Compare how incensed they became at the perceived slight of their taekwondo athlete at the Asian Games in China. In minutes the Internet buzzed with vitriolic posts threatening South Koreans.

Yet, in this armchair democracy, almost the entire NCKU campus has been silent over the rights of an American teacher.

They were silent when unproved accusations were used.
They were silent when a secret letter was solicted and circulated.
They were silent when the lawyer said foreigners were not protected by the Teachers Law.
They were silent when he canceled a dismissal but made it a hiring action.
They were silent when he argued foreigners had no right to appeal.
They were silent though the university held appeals and attended them in Taipei.
They were silent as they sat on committees that ignored a Ministry ruling.

Some closed ranks to protect corrupt officials rather than the law. They are silent despite numerous emailed appeals.

Is this not armchair democracy?

In an article published in Hong Kong's South Morning China Post and quoted in The Taipei Times (June 13, 2009; http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/06/13/2003446067), Jerome Cohen deplored what he called "the silence of the lambs," the educated franchise.

Taiwan has been called a "strong democracy." Yet NCKU faculty seem as ignorant of the law as they are indifferent to it.

When I told one dean the university violated laws in my dismissal she replied, puzzled: "But we have a lawyer." I informed her democracy was a government of laws, not lawyers. Analogies are tendentious, but gangsters have lawyers too.

Others think committees are the law instead of surrogates of the law. If the educated franchise do not know the law, what good is education for the future of Taiwan democracy?

One colleague said I won since I got my job back. As if a rape victim won since she got her body back.

Should Americans commit themselves to Taiwan's democracy while Taiwanese do not commit themselves to it?

The university argued in court Americans were not protected by the Teachers Law, which protects Taiwan teachers. Instead it used the "Employment Law" to insure my dismissal. As if an American professor was hired labor.

There's dignity in hired labor. But there's dignity in Law too.

Under the law a professor is a teacher, not hired labor. The courts and Ministry of Education agreed.

The university, as recently as 2007, claimed otherwise. Did NCKU faculty raise their voices in protest?

A colleague published a letter boasting how Taiwan's president endorsed human rights charters while Mainland China didn't. But when I emailed him about my case he never replied.

America's commitment to Taiwan is one factor in Taiwan's prosperity. Presumably Taiwan is a "strong democracy," as some in the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee say.

What "strong democracy" would permit numerous human rights violations without protest or remedy?

Despite repeated warnings by the Teachers' Union, NCKU's so-called "oversight" committees recycled the same accusations, changing some to fit the need ("mend the hold"). Finally the Ministry of Education's Appeal Committee favored me in a ruling dated 8 January 2001. That ruling boldfaced numerous rights violations.

The university held appeal hearings, never contested my right to appeal, and attended hearings in Taipei, but now argued I had no right to appeal and filed a lawsuit to contest my employment. The courts allowed the suit.

So far as I know legal principles such as "injunction" and "estoppel" are not observed in Taiwan's courts. So the case was heard, to further delay and chicanery.

In the meantime, I renewed my tourist visa abroad periodically, often every two months. I signed for numerous postal deliveries, sometimes three a day. I retrieved documents from six post offices in Tainan.

The documents, which numbered over a hundred, were from the court, the Ministry of Education, or the university; often copies of documents sent previously, routine university minutes, or reports of "hearings."

The university harassed me to leave its housing, threatening police action. An immigration official came to check my passport. Apparently someone phoned I was in Taiwan illegally. Why would I risk losing the case by overstaying my visa?

The immigration official was considerate, perhaps aware the report was malicious. He checked the visa stamp in my passport, smiled approvingly, and left.

In the meantime university officials extorted my resignation, threatening to delay the case unless I resigned. They offered a half-pay settlement, though the Ministry ruling insured full pay and reinstatement.

Why would someone acquitted of murder settle for a manslaughter charge with probation? That it makes sense to these officials shows how hopelessly muddled the concept of rights is here.

The university delayed reinstatemet and retroactive contracts. Scholars at Risk sent advisory letters, which the university president deflected with the words, "We're following laws," even as he defied a Ministry ruling.

Only after the Ministry of Education sent ten strong letters over nearly two and a half years warning about legal rights did the university reinstate me, in May 2003 (the MOE ruling was January 2001).

But the university held more "hearings" and imposed penalties. The Ministry of Education canceled these in a ruling of November 2004. The university did not comply until August 2007.

Not only wasn't the university president punished. He was approved by the Ministry of Education for another three-year term.

Not a single official involved in this case has been punished. I arranged a meeting with a member of the Control Yuan. I asked, through a translator, why officials were allowed such violations. He promised to respond to a member of NCKU's Teachers Union, whom he named. He never did.

Judicial channels were no help. The courts walked a fine line between the Ministry's ruling and the apparent right of university officials to violate rights. So the appeal was upheld but no university official was punished.

A prosecutor dismissed my libel case against faculty who circulated false accusations on the claim the accusations did not circulate outside the university. But all libel or slander statutes I know say false accusations are actionable if one other party reads or hears it.

In fact those accusations did more harm in the university than outside, since they insured my dismissal and defamation, even to the present day, as this Internet post, from a student, dated August 8, 2010 at 2:49am shows (original typography but redacted names):

"It is really nice to understand what had really happened then instead of guessing what had happend by those uncertain rumors! Most of students had heard about this incident and had discussed it sometimes, but it seems to me now that our prevous understanding is partial to prof. Chen; i read some of these letters, and it's totally different from what i "knew" about this case! Well, though my [course omitted] Prof. [name omitted] had once mentioned that there was an unfair and misconducted case happened in our dept., but he didn't tell us much about it. Anyway thanks for uploading those information on the website, i will introduce this blog to other students next time when they start to circulate those biased rumors again! :)"

Yet the court awarded no punitive damages. I was denied compensatory costs for renewing my visa abroad because the court ruled there was no need for me to have stayed in Taiwan.

If I had left Taiwan the court could have ruled with equal or greater logic I forfeited appellant rights. When an American father contested custody of his child with its Taiwanese mother, a court ruled by leaving Taiwan the father showed no interest in the child. "Heads you win, tails I lose."

In the case of the student who wrote a secret accusatory letter, the court ruled her letter did not cause my dismissal. But the letter was solicited and circulated at dismissal hearings for that purpose.

What does it take for an American citizen to win a case in Taiwan? A civil suit doesn't require guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but liability based on a preponderance of evidence.

It reminds me of a Shakespeare play where a character boasts, "I can call the dead from their graves" and another character ripostes, "I can call the dead too. But will they come?"

An American can sue a university in Taiwan. But will he win?

I don't believe if an American had written a secret letter defaming a Taiwan student, resulting in her dismissal, a Taiwan court would exculpate the American. I don't believe if I had falsely accused university officials I would have been excused on the basis my accusations did not circulate outside the university. I can't prove it but I'm reasonably sure of it.

Recently an American woman who cursed a Taiwanese was found liable though she claimed she said "Forget you," not the curse phrase. The court rejected her defense.

These same courts found every excuse to exculpate university officials involved in grievous human rights violations against an American professor. Would a Taiwan citizen like such rulings in American courts?

I don't think a court in another democracy would omit compensatory and punitive damages in such a case, especially in view of egregious, malicious, willful, and obstinate rights violations.

Courts are safety valves. They enable peace and justice by a sure, impartial, and proportionate punishment of wrongs.

I cite Wikipedia's entry on Civil Law: "In civil law there is the attempt to right a wrong, honor an agreement, or settle a dispute. If there is a victim, they get compensation, and the person who is the cause of the wrong pays, this being a civilized form of, or legal alternative to, revenge."

Where is the "civilized form of, or legal alternative to, revenge" in the judicial rulings cited here? Where is "compensation" for the "victim"? If "the person who is the cause of the wrong pays," why didn't judicial rulings insure payment?

These judicial rulings do not just impact on an American professor. Since most law is based on case law or precedent, judicial rulings that find no fault in violating basic rights jeopardize rights in the future. Without deterrent rulings, with tangible fines and penalties, officials are emboldened to commit similar violations.

Based on these rulings they have nothing to lose. But the victim loses time and money to contest the case. What professor will interrupt an academic career, including research, to fight a case for years with little hope of compensation, punitive awards, or court costs?

The publicity itself can damage a career in Asia. I can't teach here because online reports of my case would discourage universities from hiring me. I can't request a reference from my department without dishonoring myself; I wouldn't trust one anyway.

The issue is complicated by the lack of remedial channels common in a democracy. The press has virtually censored this case, despite serious issues involved, such as a major university in violation of human rights and a legal Ministry ruling.

Local newspapers printed brief items on the case, with no attempt at adversarial journalism. As if there were no right and wrong sides, just two sides.

English-language newspapers have completely ignored the case, perhaps concerned readers might include an enlightened franchise abroad, such as the US Taiwan lobby.

Here is a recent email exchange suggesting de facto censorship at one of the English-language newspapers. The first email, from a reporter presumably nurtured by a more robust Hong Kong democratic press, shows strong interest in a newsworthy event.

But between his first and later emails apparent editorial interference dampened his enthusiasm. The tone of the emails changes after the first of the numbered series below, unedited but to redact names (typography, grammar, and spelling in original):

(1) Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:28 AM
subject about your case

Professor, Good Morning,

I am a reporter with the English-language [newspaper name omitted], hoping to talk to you over you complaints about your rights being violated by National Chengkung University. Our publisher happens to one one of the recipients of you email message dated May 18, hence this request for further information.

I don’t you have phone number and I don’t know yor whereabouts, so, if you don’t mind, I would like to do a written interview with you, hoping you can answer my question asap (We intend to publish the story tomorrow).

My questions are:
1. Where are you now, and how can we contact you, and do you mind giving us a contact phone no?
2. What are you going to do. Are you going to initiate legal proceedings against National Chengkung Univ. again, or are you going to complain to human rights organizations in this country and overseas?
3. Could you briefly explain how you rights have been violated?
4. As you are calling for the university president to step down, what are you going to do if he refuses to do so? Will you fight to the end?
5. What further actions are you planning?

If you have doubts about my identity as a reporter with the paper, please [newspaper name omitted] managing editor [name omitted], who is in the office from 4 p.m. till midnight on a regular day.

My name, as known in the newsroom, is [omitted].

Thank you for your time,

[Name omitted]

(2) date Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:56 PM
subject RE: Attachment, for Case at National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan, Taiwan

Dear Professor,

Thank for the documents and your time. I am still working on the article but my boss isn't in the office yet. If and when the paper has a decision as to when we are going to publish it, I'll let you know. BTW, I am Chinese, born in Hongkong, but now a ROC citizen.

[Reporter's name omitted]

(3) date Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:50 PM
subject Re: Regarding the article on the university

Professer,

I am not a decision-maker at the paper. I only act on orders. I should have told you earlier my editor has told me not to go further for the time being. That’s all I can tell you.

I am sorry for not being able to help.

Regards,

[Reporter's name omitted]

In reply I wrote the following to the newspaper:

Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:02 AM
subject Regarding your last email

29 May 2011

[Name omitted]

Dear Reporter [name omitted],

I am not surprised by your decision not to pursue publication of the case at National Cheng Kung University. The English-language press has ignored the case for nearly thirteen years. A far less serious case at a Hong Kong university in 2000 resulted in student protests, headline news, and lead-in television reports for days, ending in several university resignations. That's the difference between a robust constitutional democracy and the party or factional democracy here, with a limited free press based along party lines.

There's also a strong nationalism here. Consider how quickly the media mobilized in response to a perceived slight to a Taiwan athlete in South Korea, while the Internet buzzed with outrage in literally minutes. Even fairly sophisticated youtube videos, with full analysis of the perceived injustice, appeared the same day! Yet my case is now in its thirteenth year and the Taiwan press doesn't want to discredit a fourth-ranked Taiwan university. That's censorship, plain and simple. There's no other word for it.

If something like this had happened at a Mainland Chinese university, the English-language press would probably have made it front page news. Similarly, if an American citizen had been caught in human rights violations against a Taiwan student I'm certain it would quickly have made the front pages of the English-language press; the press would then boast of how quickly it exposed human rights issues in this democracy!

This kind of discrimination occurs in other areas too. Several years ago students were caught illegally sharing copyrighted files on the Internet. Within a day, as I recall, Taiwan lawyers volunteered pro bono legal aid.

Where's the logic? Students who violate the law are promptly offered pro bono legal aid while not a single human rights or legal aid group has offered me aid, though I'm the victim of grievous human rights violations that, moreover, involve issues greater than myself; namely corruption at a major Taiwan university and even the defiance of a Ministry ruling on the part of the university president!

Yet my case is ignored by the press, by human rights groups, by my colleagues, by students, by legislators, by everyone here. If that is not discrimination, I don't know what is.

But we Americans treat Taiwanese with respect and dignity; we use the same laws for Taiwanese visitors as for ourselves.

I'm sure if a Taiwanese was discriminated against in the US he or she would receive prompt pro bono legal aid and exposure of the case in the media. Apart from Taiwan's own interest in advancing democratic principles here, why doesn't Taiwan reciprocate the legal status it receives in America?

As a newspaper reporter, consider the issues: A fourth-ranked university in Taiwan has discriminated against a foreign professor, saying he's not protected by Taiwan laws. That university has numerous academic exchanges with American universities. Yet it engaged in countless human rights violations against an American professor, including circulating a secret letter, refusing to honor its own appeal hearing; refusing to enforce an appeal ruling from the Ministry of Education; refusing to issue an apology; refusing to award compensation; refusing to punish officials involved in human rights violations; and even as late as this month claiming, on its web page, that it committed no human rights abuses and, worse, suggesting I was "involved" in misconduct, despite court and Ministry rulings that found the university at fault.

I do believe that if Taiwan had become a more robust democracy Americans would be more committed to defending her. And my illegal dismissal is by no means unique, from what I understand.

One has only to consider if National Cheng Kung University can defy the Ministry of Education so boldly in a high-profile case like mine, how many more covert cases like mine exist? Cases that are hushed up almost immediately, either involving teachers or students?

So these issues have a wider impact, and involve the credibility of academic institutions in Taiwan as well. For if there are no human rights protections, one cannot be sure laws or guidelines are being followed in research, research grants, grading, promotion, and accreditation. In fact, almost all the committee members of the student who wrote a secret accusatory letter used in my dismissal defended her when I took her to court, even though she had no proof whatsoever and complained about a grade eight years before.

Did those professors truly believe the student, or were they more probably involved in collusion? The facts speak for themselves. Where in the world would one find professors willing to defend a student who complains about a grade eight years late and without any proof whatsoever, apart from her claim? And if these professors were involved in collusion (conspiracy) in my case, one questions whether they were impartial members of her graduate committees, including a Master's and a Doctorate at the university.

I wish you the best.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.
For further information on this case, go check my dedicated blog on the case at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/

Surprisingly, I received a response from the newspaper's editor, after being ignored for thirteen years:

date Mon, May 30, 2011 at 4:00 PM
subject Re: Regarding the Question of Censorship at [Name omitted] in Taiwan

Dear Sir:
To know more about your protest against the NCKU, our reporter has checked with you, the NCKU administration and the Ministry of Education (MOE).

It is our understanding that the lawsuit between you and the NCKU has been going on for thirteen years.

After discussing with our reporter, we decided to postpone our report until further developments have come out, which will make our report more newsworthy.

We can assure you that there is never any kind of censorship existed in our newspaper and we have never surrendered our journalism to any kind of power.

Best Regards
[Name omitted]

I replied in the following email:

date Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:42 PM
subject Re: Regarding the Question of Censorship at [newspaper omitted] in Taiwan

[Newspaper omitted]
Taipei, Taiwan
c/o [Name omitted]

30 May 2011

Dear [Name omitted],

I have no idea what your logic is. A case of human rights violations at a high-ranked university in Taiwan has been going on for thirteen years, no one has been punished during that time, the university claims no violations were committed on March and May entries on its website, and you need "further developments" that "will make [your] report more newsworthy!

What's your definition of newsworthy? If a house burns down will your paper wait for fifteen more houses to burn down before the story is deemed "newsworthy"?

If a woman is raped by a government official will your newspaper wait until fifteen more women are raped by government officials before you find the story "newsworthy"?

Apparently English-language newspapers in Taiwan find any story about human rights violations in Mainland China "newsworthy," even if it happened yesterday.

If [newspaper omitted] and the other English-language dailies were true investigative organs the case at National Cheng Kung University would have been exposed the first week, as soon as the newspaper heard of a single human rights violation; certainly as soon as [newspaper omitted] heard the university president, Kao Chiang, had defied a Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001.

If that isn't newsworthy then your definition of "newsworthy" is beyond comprehension; and I know of no other newspaper in a democracy, even in third-world countries, that would support your implicit definition, apart from other English-language dailies in Taiwan.

Please don't tell me there's no censorship in the Taiwan press, especially in the English-language press, because the only alternative theory is that Taiwan editors are clueless.

Compare the Taiwan press with the Hong Kong press, which quickly exposed a lesser scandal at a Hong Kong university in 2000. Check the "Robert Chung" entry in Wikipedia. I was in Hong Kong at the time and it was headline and lead-in news in the print and broadcast media.

Can't you understand that newspapers such as yours represent the future of Taiwan democracy, and whatever hope there is for that democracy? But you don't see human rights violations at a major Taiwan university as "newsworthy." You don't think court rulings that don't find a single official culpable newsworthy. You don't find it newsworthy that court rulings don't award punitive damages, or even compensation, to a victim of numerous human rights violations. You don't find it newsworthy that courts don't exercise their deterrent function.

If a kidnapper is merely told by a court to return a kidnapped child after four years, without any other penalty, would you consider that newsworthy? Or if a thief is told merely to return the stolen money, is that a deterrent ruling? Is that ruling newsworthy?

If an American court ruled that a Taiwan professor whose academic career is interrupted for four years should be given his job back, with no penalties against the university or compensation to the Taiwan professor, tell me the truth Mr. [name omitted], would you publish that story on the front page of [newspaper name omitted]?

Oddly, you write that thirteen years is not enough time and you're waiting "for further developments." What "further developments" are you waiting for? I'm sure you've seen movies. You must know when a movie is over.

The case at NCKU is over. It was handled improperly. It's your job to say it was handled improperly, at all levels, including government oversight and judicial rulings.

Even apart from censorship, I believe the Taiwan press is far too cautious. Even when the case was reported in the Chinese press it was in the form of two opposed sides instead of a right side and a wrong side.

There are times when even the Western press uses the words "alleged" or "allegedly." But it seems to me the Taiwan press goes out of its way to pretend each case is "he says, she says."

This probably comes from a culture of face; where no one is supposed to lose face, unless a hardened criminal. Those cases are easy to report since there's really no alternative. A murderer is a murderer; but a corrupt official is also a teacher and maybe the former teacher of people in high or influential places.

So to save everyone's face, reports are fudged. My case would appear as, "The professor claims he was illegally fired but the university claimed it followed laws."

There must come a point in Taiwan when newspapers call a spade a spade, like this: "Though the university denies it did anything wrong, the fact is it defied a Ministry ruling dated 8 January 2001, which details numerous human rights violations. Even if it wished to contest the right of a foreigner to appeal, it should have done so before the ruling, not after it. This would not have excused a discriminatory policy against foreign faculty, nor the fact that it was illegal in any case; but at least it would have defended the university against the additional offense of duplicity. For all these reasons, and for the sake of the future of the university, which cannot endure without both moral and legal principles, as editor of this newspaper, I am asking the university president to step down."

Do you think [newspaper name] could ever write an editorial like that? Most Western newspapers would have exposed the university's abuses even if the Ministry ruled in the university's favor. That's what the "free press" is supposed to do, give an alternative voice, expose secrets or hidden crimes by people in high places and level out the playing field in contests of the big guys against the little guys.

US president, Thomas Jefferson, who had his share of conflicts with the press, said he considered the abuses of a free press the lesser of evils, compared to the abuses of a covert government. In fact he called the free press the fourth branch of government, which in fact it is. The best officials, judges, and executives will try to pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents, but the press sooner or later exposes them.

Speaking of exposure,

Do you find a university that violates human rights newsworthy?
Do you find a university president who defies a Ministry of Education ruling for nearly two and a half years newsworthy?
Do you find a university that circulates false accusations newsworthy?
Do you find a university that solicits and circulates a secret letter newsworthy?
Do you find university oversight committees that ignore human rights abuses that a grade school child would know were wrong, newsworthy?

Do you find court rulings that excuse those officials newsworthy?
Do you find it newsworthy that despite defying a Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years the university president was approved for a second three-year term?
Do you think it newsworthy that in Taiwan compensatory and punitive damages are not awarded by courts for an illegal and collusive dismissal?

Much of your reasoning in your brief email doesn't make sense. But it's typical of the equivocal use of language among Taiwanese officials.

Check out National Cheng Kung University's web page, where officials deviously "explain" the illegal dismissal case, for a lesson in equivocal rhetoric. Even the three witches in Macbeth would have been impressed by that exercise in slippery exculpation.

First, in your response, you seem to say you never heard of this case, though I've been emailing letters to the English-language newspapers in Taiwan for thirteen years and almost everyone I know has heard of this case; surely an editor of a newspaper must have heard of it, if only from my emails.

Then notice your careful use of language. You refer to my "protest," the way, on the NCKU web page, university apologists of the dismissal refer to my "resentment." This is not a "protest"; this is a proven case of human rights violations. And only the most tendentious argument would call it something else.

A rape victim is not protesting a rape; she's reporting it as a crime. Do you see the difference? I'm not protesting the university. I'm reporting their violations as a crime, fully documented in Ministry and court rulings. Is that "newsworthy" enough?

Then you refer to "the lawsuit between you and the NCKU," again equivocating the issue. This is NOT about a lawsuit; this is about HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS that are fully documented in Ministry and court rulings, as well as in other documents.

I assume you read Chinese. Have you read those documents that I often attach to my emails? Or have you consulted my blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/ . All the important documents are uploaded there, including an overview of human rights in Taiwan related to my experience.

Then you make a factual error: the lawsuit has not been going on for thirteen years. All the formal procedures have ended, unless there is extrajudicial intervention, say from Taiwan's president or other government agency, American universities, the American legislature, or exposure in the Taiwan or international press.

So you write about "further developments" when there are no potential "further developments" possible except exposure by newspapers like yours, and other such remedial channels.

Since there are no "further developments" I have no idea how a report can be more newsworthy ten years from today than today. Who cares about a fire on 30 May 2011 if you report it on 30 May 2021? What use is there?

If it's exposed today the fire report has many uses. It can improve fire inspections. It can improve building codes. It can improve people's awareness of smoke alarms, sprinklers, or not smoking in bed, or keeping window curtains away from a hot stove, etc.

The same applies with the university case. Do you want a university to continue on its defiant course, with contempt for law and human rights, and towards foreign faculty? Do want students educated in such a university? Do you want a student who wrote a false accusation against a teacher teaching there, with degrees she earned from graduate committee members who defended her accusation in a court letter, though she had no proof? Do you want a former university president, Kao Chiang, who defied the Ministry of Education, to be teaching the next generation of Taiwan citizens?

All this has been proved in documents, so there's no need to equivocally write of my "protest" instead of their "violations."

Then you conclude by assuring me "there is never any kind of censorship existed in our newspaper and we have never surrendered our journalism to any kind of power."

If there are 100 employees in a company and no women it MUST be due to sexism.
If there are 100 white employees in a company and no Black or Asian employees it MUST be due to racism.
If there are 100 gentile employees in a company and no Jews it MUST be due to antisemitism.

This is called preponderance of evidence. There is no need to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt. I can't prove there's an explicit policy of censorship at your and other Taiwan newspapers: DO NOT PRINT ANYTHING HARMFUL ABOUT OUR TOP-RANKED UNIVERSITIES. But what other reasonable explanations are there?

You're telling me that in thirteen years not a single English-language newspaper has exposed a major case of corruption at a major university in Taiwan and that does not represent "censorship." Perhaps so. But then it's worse than censorship; it's incompetence.

Your excuses, as expressed in this letter, are mind-boggling: "Newsworthy"? "Further developments"? Are we using the same language?

You say the case has been going on for thirteen years. That should make it more newsworthy, not less newsworthy; since it exposes an inefficient remedial system at all levels of the Taiwan government, from university oversight committees to the highest government agencies. If it takes thirteen years for a poor family to receive welfare payments, I would think that's more newsworthy than if it took 13 weeks!

Moreover, you're not asked to report a case, you're asked to expose corruption at a major Taiwan university. You're supposed to be the voice of the people, specifically the oppressed. So give them a voice. Or do you choose whose voices should be heard?

The taekwondo athlete, Yang Shu-chun, was disqualified at the Asian Games in China on 17 November 2010. A lengthy comment on that disqualification appeared in your newspaper, written by [name omitted] on 19 November 2010, just two days later [link omitted].

You certainly have a credibility issue here. And a newspaper can't afford to compromise on its credibility.

But let me give you the chance to explain yourself by asking you direct questions that require direct answers. Why aren't human rights violations at a major university "newsworthy"? The case is over, so you can't say it's "pending" and wait for its end, not that that's an excuse either. Many reports in Western newspapers publish at the beginning of a case, not the end, as in the DSK sex scandal in New York, or the Hong Kong scandal I referred to above. The media didn't wait for the case to "end"; in fact, the media hastened its end since the media are a powerful tool of exposure, accountability, and remedy.

But that's the Hong Kong and Western press I'm talking of. Even US student newspapers would have exposed this case almost immediately. But you're still looking for "further developments."

I hope an email like this changes your mind about the responsibilities of a free press, at least if Taiwan wants to establish itself as a democracy. But in the Internet generation there are many other avenues of exposure.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio

Receiving no reply, I sent a follow-up email a couple of day later:

date Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:06 PM
subject Re: Regarding the Question of Censorship at [newspaper anme omitted] in Taiwan

[Name omitted]
[Newspaper name omitted]
Taipei, Taiwan

1 June 2011

Dear Mr. [name omitted],

You did not reply to my email of 30 May 2011. Perhaps your newspaper has more newsworthy events on the agenda than human rights violations at a major Taiwan university.

But I do wish you would take the time to answer basic questions so you can adequately address the issue of possible de facto censorship at [your newspaper] as well as other English-language dailies in Taiwan.At the very least, the public, including the international community, does have a right to know if there is an investigative and adversarial press equal to the needs of a democratic franchise in Taiwan.

The fact is, one of your reporters committed himself to exposing the case of human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University the very next day ("tomorrow"), until his report was interdicted (I dare not use the word "censored") by your newspaper.

The excuse you gave was disingenuous, as was your use of words. You referred to abuses committed by NCKU officials not as facts, but, equivocally, as my "protest" against the university. I'm not protesting against the university. Students protest against the university if tuition rates are high, if toilets are dirty, if there are inadequate safety measures on campus such as better night lighting. Women protest against provocative billboards that suggestively demean women.

But a woman who has been raped doesn't protest the rape. She reports it as a crime.
A professor who was dismissed based on libelous accusations is not protesting the dismissal but reporting it as a crime, a violation of human rights.

Such equivocal use of language is common among university officials in Taiwan, so I'm used to it and I'm used to identifying it in texts.

I'm also used to the phrase "know more about," which it seems is used by just about every official I've ever spoken to about my case, who are forever "knowing more" or "gathering evidence" until the appellant gives up. When the university decided to illegally dismiss me it did not ask to "know more about" the facts, but promptly used false accusations against me.

I can't help thinking that if my dismissal had been upheld by the Ministry of Education in January 2001, instead of being canceled based on numerous human rights violations, that your newspaper would have promptly reported the dismissal of an American professor from the university. Even lauding, perhaps, "due process of law" at the university, to prove Taiwan was a mature democracy and handled the dismissal "according to law," as the former university president, Kao Chiang, indeed told Scholars at Risk, to the effect that the university was "following laws," even as he was defying a legal Ministry ruling.

My question, Mr. [name omitted], is how much "knowing" a newspaper editor in Taiwan needs before he knows enough to publish an editorial against the university, as is required of an investigative, critical, and adversarial press in advanced democracies. In giving voice to the people, it becomes the voice of the people.

I am "the people," Mr. [name omitted]; I want this case exposed. It will, sooner or later, to the possible discredit of English-language newspapers that don't expose it.

Most reputable newspapers can find all there is to "know" in a single day; but my case is now in its thirteenth year and you're writing me about how you want "to know more." Worse, you use that dismissive word "protest."

I repeat, this is no protest. I'm not protesting against the university; I'm reporting the fact of its human rights violations, indisputably recorded in a Ministry of Education ruling of 8 January 2001.

There are no "further developments" after that ruling. There are no "further developments" a newspaper requires once a woman reports a rape. That is a fact in itself that is "newsworthy," unless the paper wishes to protect a powerful official.

Whether the accused is convicted or not is another fact; but the fact of the accusation is sufficient in itself for a free press to report. If the woman is found to be lying, that's another fact that is "newsworthy." If the defendant is found guilty, that's also "newsworthy."

But your newspaper seems to be using every tactic and strategy not to expose what happened at National Cheng Kung University in 1999 and thereafter, up to the present day, when the university continues to refuse an apology and has even published a revisionist version of the case, as if did nothing wrong, despite court and Ministry rulings to the contrary. Yet you still want to "know more"! I suppose you're waiting for the international press to expose the case first! That's the only rational explanation of the words, "further developments."

Otherwise there's no rational explanation for using the phrase "further developments" in a case that has enough "developments" to fill a volume of legal rights abuses.

I refer again to your equivocal use of language in the phrase, "the lawsuit between you and the NCKU." I remind you, this is not about contestatory parties in a lawsuit. The Ministry of Education ruled against the university in 2001.

Yet you equivocally refer to a "lawsuit" as if to obfuscate the issue; making a determined case of human rights violations (the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001) into a pending case of contestatory issues between two parties in a civil suit!

There is no contestatory issue pending at National Cheng Kung University. It is liable for numerous human rights violations that would discredit even a fourth-ranked bushiban much less a fourth-ranked university. In fact, the case was used at a technical college . . . as an example of how officials SHOULD NOT CONDUCT A DISMISSAL ACTION. Is that "newsworthy" enough?

So please answer the following questions, so Scholars at Risk in New York can be sure there is no censorship at [this newspaper], and, presumably, at other English-language newspapers in Taiwan:

1. What do you call "newsworthy"?
2. Alternately, what is NOT "newsworthy" about this case?
3. What do you mean by "further developments," since the Ministry of Education overturned the illegal dismissal in 8 January 2001, listing numerous human rights violations?
4. What do you mean by "censorship"? Do you mean an overt policy of censoring the news? Or do you mean a covert policy of "interdicting" the news, because they are not "newsworthy" or pending "further developments"?

Do you think companies fifty years ago had overt discriminatory employment policies, saying "We don't hire Asians here," or "We don't hire women," or "Jews not wanted here." That happened only in Nazi Germany or in some places in the American South, where restaurants had signs saying, "WE DON'T SERVE COLORED PEOPLE."

But most discrimination was more covert, subtle, and insidious, as in the movie, Gentleman's Agreement. Discrimination used polite phrases, like:

"You don't fit the type of person we're looking for, Miss Chen."
"If anything turns up suited to your skills, we'll notify you, Mr. White."
"Unfortunately, we don't have any vacancies, Mr. Green."

Censorship may work in the same way. I'm sure events in Mainland China are not overtly censored; they're merely not considered "newsworthy" or are suspended until "further developments," coded language for "Wait until the Party Officials give the green light to publish it."

I'm not interested in "proving" there is censorship at your newspaper. That's up to a formal investigation to determine.

What I do know for a fact is that, over thirteen years, neither your paper nor other English-language dailies, to my knowledge, have published (i.e. exposed) a case of grievous human rights abuses at a fourth-ranked university in Tainan. That's a fact.

Perhaps it is not "newsworthy." Perhaps whether Sean Connery marches for Taiwan independence is more "newsworthy." Perhaps a disputed ruling against a taekwondo athlete in China is more "newsworthy," though, God knows, you hardly waited for "further developments" in that case, but published it immediately.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
________________________________________________________
Censorship of English-language news, perhaps concerned about an enlightened readership abroad, suggests why this case, involving many human rights abuses by a high-ranked university, has, to my knowledge, never been published in the English-language press here.

The above emails illustrate my point. As can be seen, censorship need not be explicit, but may be equivocal or insidious.

This editor uses expressions like "further developments" and "newsworthy" for a case that would be considered finished and newsworthy by almost any newspaper in another democracy!

I suppose a young motivated reporter eager to exercise his journalistic skills on a newsworthy case would be cautioned by that editor to wait for "further developments" until the case becomes more "newsworthy." In other words, the editor interdicts the story but never explicitly censors it.

This could be done for almost any report that would discredit a reputable institution, such as a ranked university. If two students report they were sexually assaulted by a college dean the editor could interdict the story in lieu of "further developments."

I suppose those "developments" would be the trial and conviction of the dean for sexual assault. But that means the newspaper is not an adversarial or investigative press organ, just a published police blotter.

Presumably a similar case at a Mainland Chinese university would be considered "newsworthy" by many Taiwan newspapers, to discredit the human rights record in that country. An American citizen involved in violating the rights of a Taiwan teacher or student would presumably be newsworthy for similar reasons.

I found similar problems with so-called human rights groups in Taiwan. They have pat names that suggest a robust democracy. But all ignored repeated petitions for assistance. One prominent group claimed to have just a single member.

Recently a legal aid group suggested I write a letter to President Obama. As if Mr. Obama has nothing better to do than to enforce laws in Taiwan.

Presumably it never occurs to activists in Taiwan to write a letter to their own president, or contact media to expose issues, instead of expecting an American president to enforce laws in Taiwan. Besides, I have more respect than to want Taiwan to enforce rights in deference to another country rather than in deference to the law.

The lack of legal aid here isn't even consistent or logical. Several years ago students at National Cheng Kung University were caught illegally sharing files online and Taiwan lawyers promptly volunteered pro bono assistance to these students!

What the students did was illegal and it's difficult to see a "good cause" to defend. Yet these activists don't consider the illegal dismissal of an American professor a good cause.

Similarly, when a Taiwan taekwondo athlete was thought to have suffered an injustice in a match in China, Taiwan lawyers promptly volunteered legal aid. Presumably human rights and legal aid groups in Taiwan care only about the rights of Taiwan citizens. Yet they expect Americans to defend their "strong democracy."

This is not just an issue of an American professor whose rights were violated. If a high profile and fully documented case like mine has been suppressed by the Taiwan media one wonders if other cases are suppressed.

How many cases of sexual harassment or discriminatory practices at Taiwan universities have been interdicted pending "further developments"?

No democracy can endure without a free, robust, critical, and investigative press. As Thomas Jefferson believed, a free press was the voice of a free people. Moreover, the abuses of a free press are less harmful than the abuses of a covert government.

In addition, academic exhanges like NCKU has with American universities, such as its long-standing partnership with Purdue University, should be based on mutual respect and principles of law. In view of my case, there is no basis on which American universities can justify continued exchanges with National Cheng Kung University. Those exchanges should be terminated or suspended until this case is resolved according to international principles of law and human rights.

Moreover, a university that boldly violates human rights, makes a mockery of the appeal process, claims American and Taiwan professors are unequal under the law, and even defies its own Ministry, cannot insure academic standards. By not imposing penalties on university officials involved in an illegal dismissal, the government compromises academic standards as well.

Unless rigorous enforcement discourages punitive dismissals, a teacher is not likely to conscientiously uphold standards in grading, promotion, research, funding, or accreditation. The student who wrote an accusatory letter received two graduate degrees at the university where she discredited me and now teaches part-time.

Members of her graduate committees defended her character in a court letter. Why would they defend the characer of a student who accused a colleague without proof? Why would they sit on her committees? Did they sit as conscientiously as when they defended her character in a letter to the court?

NCKU officials have become encouraged by the lack of penalties for their human rights abuses and recently posted a revisionist version of the illegal dismissal action on the NCKU web page (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php), claiming they did nothing wrong and again discrediting me, as if the university were a law unto itself, an autonomy without moral compass and emboldened by a lack of deterrent rulings.

Here is the university president's post, presumably addressing an illegal dismissal in 1999:

A Letter of Explanation for the Discontinued Employment Case of Associate Professor Richard De Canio

March 4, 2011

Recently, Dr. Richard de Canio, former associate professor of Foreign Languages and Literature Department of National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), has delivered email messages where he conveyed resentment at his being declined for employment renewal in 1999. This case, as I understand it, was dealt with by NCKU following the resolution of the Teacher Grievances Committee of the Ministry of Education. Dr. de Canio was re-employed and reimbursed with the overdue salary. Legal procedures were carefully observed. In 2010, Dr. de Canio retired from NCKU at the legal retirement age.

I regret that Dr. de Canio was displeased with how the case was handled. Should similar cases occur in the future, in the administrative procedure, the faculty’s rights and interests will be the primal concerns. Emotional, rational, and legal perspectives on the cases will be equally considered to avoid sense of resentment by the faculty concerned. I believe few people are perfect in this society of great variety. It is my hope that we tolerate and encourage each other. With happy mood, we work together to contribute to the society in pursuit of the true, the good, and the beautiful. With this good faith, I hereby express my sincere gratitude for Dr. de Canio’s devotion to NCKU for the past 20 years.

Hwung-Hweng Hwung
President
National Cheng Kung University

I rhetorically deconstructed this and the Secretary-General's letter below it in extended emails to the university, now on my blog under the label "whitewashing." Here I'll give a summary analysis of the quoted text.

The heading sufficiently exposes the doubletalk here, calling an illegal dismissal "discontinued employment." That's like calling a murder "discontinued life." My legal complaint about an illegal dismissal is similarly whitewashed as my "resentment at . . . being declined for employment renewal. . . ." There is no mention of human rights violations or of an illegal dismissal.

This disingenuous deployment of Orwellian Newspeak then covers over the illegal dismissal with my subsequent reinstatement, which, cryptically, "was dealt with." How it "was dealt with" is not said. Bu the reader is assured "Legal procedures were carefully observed."

There is no mention of what was illegal (dismissal) while what was legal (reinstatement) is mentioned. There is no mention of a careless disregard of human rights in the dismissal, only that laws "were carefully observed" in reinstatement.

This is false anyway, unless defiance of a Ministry ruling is considered part of "legal procedures." This is an Orwellian rhetoric of omission.

It omits the fact that university president Kao Chiang defied a Ministry ruling and impeded my reinstatement for nearly two and a half years. That's like a murderer saying "legal procedures were carefully observed" because he buried his victim as required by law; as if the murder itself were of no consequence.

Then the fact of the university's illegal dismissal in mishandling the case is verbalized as my feeling "displeased" with the "handling" of the case. Negatives magically become positives. As if a rapist regrets not the rape but that his victim is "displeased" with him. Magically, the rape never happened.

Not once does the president of a fourth-ranked university in Taiwan, Hwung-Hweng Hwung, admit an illegal dismissal occurred. Yet he vows "in the future . . . the faculty's rights and interests will be the primal concerns," which logically implies that "rights" were not the "primal" concern in the illegal dismissal.

Even so he refers to a teacher's "sense of resentment" than to his own sense of right and wrong. Thus issues of right and wrong disappear.

True, "few people are perfect." But that would not excuse a bank robber or rapist. The law requires compliance, not perfection.

Finally he refers to "the true, the good, and the beautiful," presumably unaware those Platonic attributes are represented by Justice, which the university twice violated: first, in its illegal dismissal and, second, by its refusal to remedy that injustice.

Yes, we should "tolerate and encourage each other." But to insure a greater respect for, and enforcement of, human rights. This can only be done through a just remedy, including apology, penalties, and compensation; not by a revisionist history of this case, as in this whitewash of it.

A revisionist history was also made on NCKU's Wikipedia page edits, regardless by whom. The denial of the illegal dismissal by Apache776 in the Revision History of 17:26, 20 October 2010 is false:

"If true, a travesty, but no evidence or specifics provided. Also, sadly, it is a fact that at the time the alleged incident occured [sic], foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC."

Irrefutable "evidence" and "specifics" are on my blog (http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/). The claim "foreign faculty were not protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC" should suprise Taiwan's courts and Ministry of Education, who ruled otherwise. The only truth in this edit is the dismissal was a "travesty," which the university refuses to admit.

Even if Apache776's claim were true, why would a Taiwan university with numerous academic exchanges with American universities not insure Americans were "protected by the Teachers Law of the ROC"?

Presumably defending National Cheng Kung University, Apache776 admits American faculty did not have equal rights with Taiwan faculty. Not something to advertise, sadly or otherwise.

The "incident" (note the characteristic euphemism for "illegal dismissal") was not "alleged" but actual, assuming legal rulings mean anything. In fact, presumably the only place where foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law was National Cheng Kung University, where, it's been shown, legal rulings don't mean much.

Therefore it's a "fact" human rights were violated there. This is incontestable, unless the writer's use of the word "fact" is different from common or legal usage.

It's also a fact my academic career was interrupted for four years; or five, since my first year back I got leftover classes. It's a fact I was denied compensatory and punitive awards. It's a fact I paid court costs for cases I lost (compensation, the student letter). It's a fact all I received was back pay. It's a fact no official was punished. It's a fact the university has to this day not apologized and continues to deny an illegal dimissal occurred, as it continues to compromise my character by implying I was the cause of the dismissal.

It's a fact democracy in Taiwan has been compromised by this case. As if one's child was kidnapped four years. A court tells the kidnapper to return the child. The kidnapper is neither imprisoned nor fined. He doesn't apologize or admit a kidnapping occurred. He even refers to Legal Statute 987 of the Crminal Code that outlaws prostitution, deviously implying, by sleight-of-hand rhetoric, the kidnapped child was a prostitute. The parents are not compensated, though they spent tens of thousands of dollars on private detectives and public appeals.

Would such rulings discourage kidnappers? Is that a system of justice a democracy should boast of?