---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:32 PM
Subject: URGENT: I strongly urge MOE officials to place this letter directly on the Minister's desk.
To: moemail@mail.moe.gov.tw
The Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan
7 July 2011
Dear Ministry,
Since there seems to be confusion on the part of the Ministry of Education whether the case at National Cheng Kung University has been resolved, let me explain things more plainly.
Despite the claim that Taiwan is governed by Law, the Ministry of Education seems to think that anything a university official does is right just because he does it! That is NOT the way law in a democracy works.
Not only did university officials break many laws, but the Ministry of Education even listed those laws in its Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. So how can a lawful government say, on the one hand, that officials violated laws, but, on the other hand, that officials followed laws?
It doesn't make sense. And a government must make sense.
That means there are laws in Taiwan but not Law, which means the prompt and automatic execution of laws. Would the MOE argue that NCKU's delay of nearly two and a half years before enforcing the MOE ruling of 8 January 2001 was a "prompt and automatic execution of laws," or that the MOE's refusal to punish the officials involved is a "prompt and automatic execution of laws"?
You can check the Ministry ruling yourselves. But I will quote from the English translation of the ten warning letters the Ministry sent to the university over a period of nearly two and a half years when the university defied the Ministry ruling to reinstate me.
On April 6, 2001, the MOE says NCKU "has seriously influenced the appellant's rights." That means my rights were violated.
On May 11, 2001 the MOE writes "The university is urged to do lawful amendment immediately."
Now since exactly two years passed after the warning "to do lawful amendment immediately," one must assume the university acted against the law or that the MOE does not represent the law. Or if the MOE does represent the law but does not enforce the law then there is no Law in Taiwan (that is, "the prompt and automatic execution of laws," which democratic constitutions mandate).
On June 14, 2001 the MOE writes "Procedural justice should be upheld first" and refers to NCKU's "previous improper procedures."
Although MOE officials recently claimed to my NCKU colleague that my contract had to go through a committee approval process and therefore the university did not violate laws, in a letter dated August 7, 2001, the MOE clearly states that "If not being gone through legal dismissal procedures, a teacher's contract is obviously valid."
So what MOE officials are saying today contradicts their own words on June 14, 2001! But even if the MOE's present claim were true, certainly no committee hearing on contract renewal should take two and a half years! If a contract renewal lasted two and a half years then that means all NCKU professors would be out of work for two and a half years every two years! The university would have to shut down or teach on a rotation basis!
In this same letter the MOE says, "The dismissal decision no longer exists." But if the dismissal decision "no longer exists" then there is no need for a contract renewal.
The MOE also refers to NCKU misconduct "so as to damage the teacher's rights" and that NCKU officials "should hold the complete responsibility." Have any officials been held "responsible" since the MOE wrote these words?
Why hasn't the MOE acted on its promise when it wrote, "The MOE will pursue administrative responsibility of related university personnel." That personnel included former university president, Kao Chiang. Why hasn't he been punished, based on the written promise made by the MOE in the letter just quoted?
On October 15, 2002 the MOE warns "The university should immediately start to process the application of contract renewal." But that was not done until May, 2003, nearly two and a half years after the MOE ruling and about seven months after this letter when the MOE used the word "immediately."
If staff in a hospital interpreted the word "immediately" the way NCKU officials do there would be a lot of dead patients. "This patient needs a blood transfusion immediately," and the nurse gives a blood transfusion seven months later, there would be a lot of grieving relatives. Do you think the nurse would go unpunished, even if she delayed for ten minutes?
On March 5, 2003, the MOE asks for the "names of persons having wrongdoings."
By the MOE's own words, NCKU officials were guilty of "wrongdoings." So how can the MOE argue otherwise in July 2011?
Time does not change legal rulings or laws. A murder committed in 1966 is still murder in 2011. Human rights violations committed in 1999 are still human rights violations in 2011, until they've been remedied. Remedy includes penalties, compensation, and apologies.
These Ministry letters don't even address all the human rights violations, such as the malicious letter written by the student, Chen An-chun, who is still employed at our university; the solicitation and/or circulation of that letter by two NCKU officials, Li Chung-hsiung and Lee Chian-er; the defiance of a legal Ministry ruling by former president, Kao Chiang, who not only wasn't punished but was actually approved for another three-year term as president.
In addition, the current university president, Dr. Hwung, and his Secretary-General, Dr. Chen, should both be held accountable for posting on the official NCKU web page that the university followed laws during my illegal dismissal, even suggesting I was "involved" in misconduct that justified my dismissal. Yet the MOE ruling of 8 January 2001 and the ten warning letters quoted here contradict that claim. What culture of arrogance has taken root at National Cheng Kung University thanks, in part, to the failure to execute laws on the part of the Ministry of Education?
The fact that the MOE has not punished a single university official has emboldened NCKU officials with a sense of immunity from administrative penalties and/or prosecution. That's is why we have deterrent rulings in advanced democracies, which include large punitive and compensatory awards, precisely to discourage repeat offenses.
If all a robber risked was returning stolen money that wasn't his to begin with there would be tens of thousands of robberies a day all over Taiwan. If all a rapist risked was paying for a woman's abortion if she became pregnant or hospital fees if she developed AIDS from unprotected intercourse, there would be numerous rapes daily.
In fact, based on what happened in my case, the rapist would not even have to compensate his victim for AIDS so long as she got her pocketbook and clothes back. That's all I got back: my retroactive salary and my job.
If all that university officials risk if they illegally dismiss a colleague is to reinstate that colleague, officials would conspire to dismiss numerous colleagues on mere difference of opinion. What could they lose? They would lose nothing and the colleague would lose four years of his academic career contesting the dismissal without hope of compensation.
My own losses were tangible and back pay does not compensate for them. I lost four years of academic teaching and research. I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars contesting the case, which the university did not compensate. I had to commit four years of my life (and, in fact, thirteen years, as this letter proves) fighting this case. To the present students still tell me they heard the false rumor that I unfairly failed a student and what they heard favored the student's claim (see attachment). Finally, university officials continue to discredit me on the official NCKU web page as late as March and May of 2011.
The larger point is the end result will ultimately disfavor Taiwan's universities and society as a whole. If every professor lived in fear, there could be no standards at a university; since no professor would have the courage to contest the lack of standards at risk of his job. Without standards, universities would be discredited, citizens would lack education, etc.
The Ministry of Education has got to start acting responsibly, as a legitimate government agency, thinking of the long-term future of Taiwan society instead of sacrificing that future for the sake of a few disreputable officials who, if they had been appropriately disciplined years ago, may never have conspired in an illegal dismissal action in the first place.
Presumably because of the Ministry of Education's failure to oversee university officials, and to promptly execute laws to discipline errant officials, these officials became emboldened and have now compromised the Ministry and constrained it to act later rather than sooner.
If this case continues to be exposed, as it will be, it will only embarrass the Ministry of Education, since all the documents are irrefutable evidence that human rights were violated. Regardless what the Ministry of Education decides to do I will work tirelessly with US colleges until I obtain justice according to basic principles of law and international principles of human rights. The future of all Taiwan universities should not be sacrificed for the sake of a few disreputable officials at National Cheng Kung University.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:32 PM
Subject: URGENT: I strongly urge MOE officials to place this letter directly on the Minister's desk.
To: moemail@mail.moe.gov.tw
The Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan
7 July 2011
Dear Ministry,
Since there seems to be confusion on the part of the Ministry of Education whether the case at National Cheng Kung University has been resolved, let me explain things more plainly.
Despite the claim that Taiwan is governed by Law, the Ministry of Education seems to think that anything a university official does is right just because he does it! That is NOT the way law in a democracy works.
Not only did university officials break many laws, but the Ministry of Education even listed those laws in its Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. So how can a lawful government say, on the one hand, that officials violated laws, but, on the other hand, that officials followed laws?
It doesn't make sense. And a government must make sense.
That means there are laws in Taiwan but not Law, which means the prompt and automatic execution of laws. Would the MOE argue that NCKU's delay of nearly two and a half years before enforcing the MOE ruling of 8 January 2001 was a "prompt and automatic execution of laws," or that the MOE's refusal to punish the officials involved is a "prompt and automatic execution of laws"?
You can check the Ministry ruling yourselves. But I will quote from the English translation of the ten warning letters the Ministry sent to the university over a period of nearly two and a half years when the university defied the Ministry ruling to reinstate me.
On April 6, 2001, the MOE says NCKU "has seriously influenced the appellant's rights." That means my rights were violated.
On May 11, 2001 the MOE writes "The university is urged to do lawful amendment immediately."
Now since exactly two years passed after the warning "to do lawful amendment immediately," one must assume the university acted against the law or that the MOE does not represent the law. Or if the MOE does represent the law but does not enforce the law then there is no Law in Taiwan (that is, "the prompt and automatic execution of laws," which democratic constitutions mandate).
On June 14, 2001 the MOE writes "Procedural justice should be upheld first" and refers to NCKU's "previous improper procedures."
Although MOE officials recently claimed to my NCKU colleague that my contract had to go through a committee approval process and therefore the university did not violate laws, in a letter dated August 7, 2001, the MOE clearly states that "If not being gone through legal dismissal procedures, a teacher's contract is obviously valid."
So what MOE officials are saying today contradicts their own words on June 14, 2001! But even if the MOE's present claim were true, certainly no committee hearing on contract renewal should take two and a half years! If a contract renewal lasted two and a half years then that means all NCKU professors would be out of work for two and a half years every two years! The university would have to shut down or teach on a rotation basis!
In this same letter the MOE says, "The dismissal decision no longer exists." But if the dismissal decision "no longer exists" then there is no need for a contract renewal.
The MOE also refers to NCKU misconduct "so as to damage the teacher's rights" and that NCKU officials "should hold the complete responsibility." Have any officials been held "responsible" since the MOE wrote these words?
Why hasn't the MOE acted on its promise when it wrote, "The MOE will pursue administrative responsibility of related university personnel." That personnel included former university president, Kao Chiang. Why hasn't he been punished, based on the written promise made by the MOE in the letter just quoted?
On October 15, 2002 the MOE warns "The university should immediately start to process the application of contract renewal." But that was not done until May, 2003, nearly two and a half years after the MOE ruling and about seven months after this letter when the MOE used the word "immediately."
If staff in a hospital interpreted the word "immediately" the way NCKU officials do there would be a lot of dead patients. "This patient needs a blood transfusion immediately," and the nurse gives a blood transfusion seven months later, there would be a lot of grieving relatives. Do you think the nurse would go unpunished, even if she delayed for ten minutes?
On March 5, 2003, the MOE asks for the "names of persons having wrongdoings."
By the MOE's own words, NCKU officials were guilty of "wrongdoings." So how can the MOE argue otherwise in July 2011?
Time does not change legal rulings or laws. A murder committed in 1966 is still murder in 2011. Human rights violations committed in 1999 are still human rights violations in 2011, until they've been remedied. Remedy includes penalties, compensation, and apologies.
These Ministry letters don't even address all the human rights violations, such as the malicious letter written by the student, Chen An-chun, who is still employed at our university; the solicitation and/or circulation of that letter by two NCKU officials, Li Chung-hsiung and Lee Chian-er; the defiance of a legal Ministry ruling by former president, Kao Chiang, who not only wasn't punished but was actually approved for another three-year term as president.
In addition, the current university president, Dr. Hwung, and his Secretary-General, Dr. Chen, should both be held accountable for posting on the official NCKU web page that the university followed laws during my illegal dismissal, even suggesting I was "involved" in misconduct that justified my dismissal. Yet the MOE ruling of 8 January 2001 and the ten warning letters quoted here contradict that claim. What culture of arrogance has taken root at National Cheng Kung University thanks, in part, to the failure to execute laws on the part of the Ministry of Education?
The fact that the MOE has not punished a single university official has emboldened NCKU officials with a sense of immunity from administrative penalties and/or prosecution. That's is why we have deterrent rulings in advanced democracies, which include large punitive and compensatory awards, precisely to discourage repeat offenses.
If all a robber risked was returning stolen money that wasn't his to begin with there would be tens of thousands of robberies a day all over Taiwan. If all a rapist risked was paying for a woman's abortion if she became pregnant or hospital fees if she developed AIDS from unprotected intercourse, there would be numerous rapes daily.
In fact, based on what happened in my case, the rapist would not even have to compensate his victim for AIDS so long as she got her pocketbook and clothes back. That's all I got back: my retroactive salary and my job.
If all that university officials risk if they illegally dismiss a colleague is to reinstate that colleague, officials would conspire to dismiss numerous colleagues on mere difference of opinion. What could they lose? They would lose nothing and the colleague would lose four years of his academic career contesting the dismissal without hope of compensation.
My own losses were tangible and back pay does not compensate for them. I lost four years of academic teaching and research. I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars contesting the case, which the university did not compensate. I had to commit four years of my life (and, in fact, thirteen years, as this letter proves) fighting this case. To the present students still tell me they heard the false rumor that I unfairly failed a student and what they heard favored the student's claim (see attachment). Finally, university officials continue to discredit me on the official NCKU web page as late as March and May of 2011.
The larger point is the end result will ultimately disfavor Taiwan's universities and society as a whole. If every professor lived in fear, there could be no standards at a university; since no professor would have the courage to contest the lack of standards at risk of his job. Without standards, universities would be discredited, citizens would lack education, etc.
The Ministry of Education has got to start acting responsibly, as a legitimate government agency, thinking of the long-term future of Taiwan society instead of sacrificing that future for the sake of a few disreputable officials who, if they had been appropriately disciplined years ago, may never have conspired in an illegal dismissal action in the first place.
Presumably because of the Ministry of Education's failure to oversee university officials, and to promptly execute laws to discipline errant officials, these officials became emboldened and have now compromised the Ministry and constrained it to act later rather than sooner.
If this case continues to be exposed, as it will be, it will only embarrass the Ministry of Education, since all the documents are irrefutable evidence that human rights were violated. Regardless what the Ministry of Education decides to do I will work tirelessly with US colleges until I obtain justice according to basic principles of law and international principles of human rights. The future of all Taiwan universities should not be sacrificed for the sake of a few disreputable officials at National Cheng Kung University.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
