---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 4:57 PM
Subject: Regarding Taiwan's Democracy
To: hsiao@project2049.net
Cc: edun@jamestown.org, project2049@project2049.net, tahr@seed.net.tw, tfd@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, hefpp@hef.org.tw, scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu, higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw, lchsiao@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, moemail@mail.moe.gov.tw, david92@mail.moe.gov.tw, letters@taipeitimes.com, editor@it.chinatimes.com.tw, edop@etaiwannews.com, editor@etaiwannews.com, info@chinapost.com.tw, info@taipeitimes.com, louwei.chen@msa.hinet.net, Control Yuan <cymail@ms.cy.gov.tw>, Prime Minister <eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw>
26 November 2011
Dear Dr. Hsiao,
In reply to your article in The Taipei Times (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/11/26/2003519231/1), I would like to comment that democracy, like charity begins at home.
It is true enough that Mainland China (or "China," as independence advocates prefer) has a dismal human rights record and the English-language press in Taiwan frequently editorializes on this fact. However this same press is not too eager to expose human rights abuses that occur in Taiwan.
For years I have been sending letters to the three or four English-language newspapers, trying in vain to expose human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. Yet the case involves egregious human rights issues at Taiwan's fourth-ranked university.
One would think, if democracy was of primary concern in Taiwan, that this case would have been exposed almost immediately, especially since it involves a high-ranked university here and numerous high-ranked university officials, including several university presidents, who have refused to address issues in the case and one of whom defied a legal Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years.
In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from the university. When original accusations against me were challenged by members of NCKU's Teachers Union, since they were neither investigated nor proved and I wasn't even informed of the accusations before my dismissal, a secret letter was circulated at subsequent so-called "review" and "appeal" hearings to insure my dismissal.
How, in a "democracy," a secret letter can insure someone's dismissal is beyond belief, especially since committee chairs refused to divulge the contents of the letter, which I saw only years later when I took the student to court. It turned out the student said, without proof, I failed her unfairly in a class eight years before (the same year I gave her three high passing grades in two classes).
NCKU's Teachers Union repeatedly warned the administration of human rights abuses, to no avail. Several months later, in December, 1999, my dismissal was canceled. But this was a dilatory tactic, presumably hoping to delay the case long enough so I would give up or be forced to leave Taiwan.
Though the case was canceled, my reinstatement was suspended indefinitely. This was illegal since every appeal guarantees a benefit or it would be pointless to appeal. Even a campus law professor insisted I should go to the personnel office to get my contract, since (and he pointed to a university law text) once a dismissal is canceled reinstatement is automatic. But the university administration would not budge.
After I appealed again in 2000, the university appeals committee upheld the illegal dismissal by ignoring the basis of the dismissal entirely. This decision was based on the bogus legal claim that as an American citizen, I was a "foreigner," and "foreigners" were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law, hence could not benefit from an appeal, since the "foreigner" was not guaranteed an automatic contract renewal anyway.
In what democracy in the world does an appellant go through an appeal process only to be told, at the end of it, that it is without benefit? In what democracy in the world would the media ignore this?
Bear in mind that National Cheng Kung University has numerous academic exchanges with American universities, where Taiwan faculty or students are protected equally under American laws. Bear in mind the faculty involved in this decision, or indifferent to it, has many members who matriculated at, or were accredited by, American universities. But, as the Chinese proverb phrases it, "When the butt changes, the head changes."
Finally I appealed to the Ministry of Education, which, in a ruling dated 8 January 2001, canceled the dismissal, bold-facing numerous human rights violations committed by NCKU, and specifically chastising the NCKU Appeals Committee for not following laws and for claiming foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (attached).
This ruling had no legal effect on NCKU, which ignored it for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters from the MOE (attached). Meanwhile NCKU appealed to the court claiming "foreigners" had no right to appeal.
Even apart from the university's discrimination of foreign faculty, its violation of government laws, and its defiance of a legal Ministry of Education ruling, what reputable institution would contest a decision only after it loses the decision? For that matter, what court would allow it? (From my understanding, the legal principle of estoppel is not recognized in Taiwan.)
Even schoolchildren learn about fair play at very young ages. Yet these officials, including chairs, deans, presidents, and faculty colleagues, many of whom were accredited at American universities, don't observe basic principles of law, human rights, and fair play.
Even after my belated reinstatement in May, 2003, the university continued to harass me with hearings, as if the MOE ruling had no legal effect. It imposed penalties, which were subsequently canceled as illegal by the MOE.
Taiwan's courts did not even see the need to punish the university or to award me compensation for the four-year interruption to my academic career and the immense resources, personal and financial, expended to fight the case. Instead the university was merely told to reinstate me. It's as if a kidnapper is merely told by the court to return a child it has held for four years, with no further penalty against the kidnapper or compensation to the child's parents.
No democracy can endure without strong deterrent rulings. That's why as recently as this year the university whitewashed the illegal dismissal on its official web page, claiming my illegal dismissal was "discontinued employment," that I was "declined for employment renewal" and that "legal procedures were carefully observed." This was signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet the MOE plainly stated the dismissal was "not done through legal dismissal procedures" (MOE ruling, letters, NCKU web page; attached).
My colleagues at National Cheng Kung University, many of whom matriculated at American colleges, have remained silent about the case though I have sent numerous emails requesting assistance. One of them actually published a letter deploring the lack of human rights in Mainland China, but when I emailed him about my case he never replied.
The issue is complicated by the lack of remedial channels common in a democracy. No human rights group has assigned me a pro bono lawyer. The press has virtually censored this case, despite serious issues involved, such as a major university in violation of human rights and in defiance of 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.
Taiwan's 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 except 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]
Surprisingly, in response to my letters, 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]
Notice the euphemistic use of language in the above. A fully documented human rights case (see attachments) is referred to as my "protest," as if a rape victim "protests" being raped instead of reporting a serious crime. The case of egregious human rights abuses at a major Taiwan university is denatured as a "lawsuit." What should be a mandatory exposure of this case in a democracy is rationalized on the basis it is not "newsworthy." Instead, the editor awaits "further developments." What further developments can there be if the media don't expose the case? Apparently the US media is obligated to expose the plight of Taiwan but Taiwan's media is not obligated to expose the plight of an American citizen, both involving issues of democracy and human rights.
In Taiwan, whether Sean Connery marches on behalf of Taiwan independence is newsworthy but major human rights violations at a high-ranked university are not newsworthy? How is this different from China's press censorship, or its routine reference to human rights activists as "hooligans"? Confucius said to "Rectify the names" before there can be justice. And my reference to officially documented human rights abuses at NCKU is not a "protest," but a formal complaint, which, in a democracy, should be exposed by a free (that is, adversarial and inquisitorial) press.
(For documented exchanges I had with this newspaper see my entry on my blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Case%20Summary. For lettes documenting the history of this case, see my dedicated case blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Summary%20History%20of%20Human%20Rights%20Abuses%20at%20NCKU.)
Despite the fact that several NCKU presidents have completely ignored human rights issues in this case and one actually defied a legal Ministry ruling and ten warning letters to enforce that ruling, NCKU presidents continue to congratulate one another on mundane issues such as the donation of a piano, though both presidents involved in this report have ignored my pleas to formally acknowledge human rights abuses and effect formal remedy (
http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/14-1083-85388,r614-1.php). Can a university survive based on piano donations or on human rights enforcement? Can Taiwan democracy in Taiwan flourish under these conditions, regardless what the US does or does not do?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(886) 06 2378626
From: Richard John <rdca25@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 4:57 PM
Subject: Regarding Taiwan's Democracy
To: hsiao@project2049.net
Cc: edun@jamestown.org, project2049@project2049.net, tahr@seed.net.tw, tfd@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, hefpp@hef.org.tw, scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu, higher@mail.moe.gov.tw, peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw, lchsiao@taiwandemocracy.org.tw, moemail@mail.moe.gov.tw, david92@mail.moe.gov.tw, letters@taipeitimes.com, editor@it.chinatimes.com.tw, edop@etaiwannews.com, editor@etaiwannews.com, info@chinapost.com.tw, info@taipeitimes.com, louwei.chen@msa.hinet.net, Control Yuan <cymail@ms.cy.gov.tw>, Prime Minister <eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw>
26 November 2011
Dear Dr. Hsiao,
In reply to your article in The Taipei Times (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/11/26/2003519231/1), I would like to comment that democracy, like charity begins at home.
It is true enough that Mainland China (or "China," as independence advocates prefer) has a dismal human rights record and the English-language press in Taiwan frequently editorializes on this fact. However this same press is not too eager to expose human rights abuses that occur in Taiwan.
For years I have been sending letters to the three or four English-language newspapers, trying in vain to expose human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan. Yet the case involves egregious human rights issues at Taiwan's fourth-ranked university.
One would think, if democracy was of primary concern in Taiwan, that this case would have been exposed almost immediately, especially since it involves a high-ranked university here and numerous high-ranked university officials, including several university presidents, who have refused to address issues in the case and one of whom defied a legal Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years.
In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from the university. When original accusations against me were challenged by members of NCKU's Teachers Union, since they were neither investigated nor proved and I wasn't even informed of the accusations before my dismissal, a secret letter was circulated at subsequent so-called "review" and "appeal" hearings to insure my dismissal.
How, in a "democracy," a secret letter can insure someone's dismissal is beyond belief, especially since committee chairs refused to divulge the contents of the letter, which I saw only years later when I took the student to court. It turned out the student said, without proof, I failed her unfairly in a class eight years before (the same year I gave her three high passing grades in two classes).
NCKU's Teachers Union repeatedly warned the administration of human rights abuses, to no avail. Several months later, in December, 1999, my dismissal was canceled. But this was a dilatory tactic, presumably hoping to delay the case long enough so I would give up or be forced to leave Taiwan.
Though the case was canceled, my reinstatement was suspended indefinitely. This was illegal since every appeal guarantees a benefit or it would be pointless to appeal. Even a campus law professor insisted I should go to the personnel office to get my contract, since (and he pointed to a university law text) once a dismissal is canceled reinstatement is automatic. But the university administration would not budge.
After I appealed again in 2000, the university appeals committee upheld the illegal dismissal by ignoring the basis of the dismissal entirely. This decision was based on the bogus legal claim that as an American citizen, I was a "foreigner," and "foreigners" were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law, hence could not benefit from an appeal, since the "foreigner" was not guaranteed an automatic contract renewal anyway.
In what democracy in the world does an appellant go through an appeal process only to be told, at the end of it, that it is without benefit? In what democracy in the world would the media ignore this?
Bear in mind that National Cheng Kung University has numerous academic exchanges with American universities, where Taiwan faculty or students are protected equally under American laws. Bear in mind the faculty involved in this decision, or indifferent to it, has many members who matriculated at, or were accredited by, American universities. But, as the Chinese proverb phrases it, "When the butt changes, the head changes."
Finally I appealed to the Ministry of Education, which, in a ruling dated 8 January 2001, canceled the dismissal, bold-facing numerous human rights violations committed by NCKU, and specifically chastising the NCKU Appeals Committee for not following laws and for claiming foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law (attached).
This ruling had no legal effect on NCKU, which ignored it for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters from the MOE (attached). Meanwhile NCKU appealed to the court claiming "foreigners" had no right to appeal.
Even apart from the university's discrimination of foreign faculty, its violation of government laws, and its defiance of a legal Ministry of Education ruling, what reputable institution would contest a decision only after it loses the decision? For that matter, what court would allow it? (From my understanding, the legal principle of estoppel is not recognized in Taiwan.)
Even schoolchildren learn about fair play at very young ages. Yet these officials, including chairs, deans, presidents, and faculty colleagues, many of whom were accredited at American universities, don't observe basic principles of law, human rights, and fair play.
Even after my belated reinstatement in May, 2003, the university continued to harass me with hearings, as if the MOE ruling had no legal effect. It imposed penalties, which were subsequently canceled as illegal by the MOE.
Taiwan's courts did not even see the need to punish the university or to award me compensation for the four-year interruption to my academic career and the immense resources, personal and financial, expended to fight the case. Instead the university was merely told to reinstate me. It's as if a kidnapper is merely told by the court to return a child it has held for four years, with no further penalty against the kidnapper or compensation to the child's parents.
No democracy can endure without strong deterrent rulings. That's why as recently as this year the university whitewashed the illegal dismissal on its official web page, claiming my illegal dismissal was "discontinued employment," that I was "declined for employment renewal" and that "legal procedures were carefully observed." This was signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung. Yet the MOE plainly stated the dismissal was "not done through legal dismissal procedures" (MOE ruling, letters, NCKU web page; attached).
My colleagues at National Cheng Kung University, many of whom matriculated at American colleges, have remained silent about the case though I have sent numerous emails requesting assistance. One of them actually published a letter deploring the lack of human rights in Mainland China, but when I emailed him about my case he never replied.
The issue is complicated by the lack of remedial channels common in a democracy. No human rights group has assigned me a pro bono lawyer. The press has virtually censored this case, despite serious issues involved, such as a major university in violation of human rights and in defiance of 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.
Taiwan's 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 except 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]
Surprisingly, in response to my letters, 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]
Notice the euphemistic use of language in the above. A fully documented human rights case (see attachments) is referred to as my "protest," as if a rape victim "protests" being raped instead of reporting a serious crime. The case of egregious human rights abuses at a major Taiwan university is denatured as a "lawsuit." What should be a mandatory exposure of this case in a democracy is rationalized on the basis it is not "newsworthy." Instead, the editor awaits "further developments." What further developments can there be if the media don't expose the case? Apparently the US media is obligated to expose the plight of Taiwan but Taiwan's media is not obligated to expose the plight of an American citizen, both involving issues of democracy and human rights.
In Taiwan, whether Sean Connery marches on behalf of Taiwan independence is newsworthy but major human rights violations at a high-ranked university are not newsworthy? How is this different from China's press censorship, or its routine reference to human rights activists as "hooligans"? Confucius said to "Rectify the names" before there can be justice. And my reference to officially documented human rights abuses at NCKU is not a "protest," but a formal complaint, which, in a democracy, should be exposed by a free (that is, adversarial and inquisitorial) press.
(For documented exchanges I had with this newspaper see my entry on my blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Case%20Summary. For lettes documenting the history of this case, see my dedicated case blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Summary%20History%20of%20Human%20Rights%20Abuses%20at%20NCKU.)
Despite the fact that several NCKU presidents have completely ignored human rights issues in this case and one actually defied a legal Ministry ruling and ten warning letters to enforce that ruling, NCKU presidents continue to congratulate one another on mundane issues such as the donation of a piano, though both presidents involved in this report have ignored my pleas to formally acknowledge human rights abuses and effect formal remedy (
http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/14-1083-85388,r614-1.php). Can a university survive based on piano donations or on human rights enforcement? Can Taiwan democracy in Taiwan flourish under these conditions, regardless what the US does or does not do?
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(886) 06 2378626
No comments:
Post a Comment