4 December 2011

Dear NCKU Colleagues,

On March 4, 2011 a so-called "explanation," signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung was posted on the official NCKU web page (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php), where my illegal dismissal from the university in 1999 is now called "discontinued employment." By this logic a bank robbery is a quick withdrawal of funds.

The MOE ruling of 8 January 2001 explicitly states "the Appeals Committee's decision violated the law and was wrong" (http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Ministry%20of%20Education%20Ruling). Why does Mr. Hwung call it "discontinued employment"?

Perhaps for the reason many ignore the 228 incident: "For several decades, the KMT-ruled government prohibited public discussion of the 228 Massacre and many children grew up without knowing this event had ever occurred" (Wikipedia).

So faculty and students at NCKU teach and matriculate "without knowing" my illegal dismissal "had ever occurred." In Mr. Hwung's sanitized language, I was "declined for employment renewal." Perhaps a foreign hostage is "declined for repatriation."

Mr. Hwung asserts "Legal procedures were carefully observed." Yet the MOE warned that NCKU "has seriously influenced the appellant's rights" (April 6, 2001), made "previous improper procedures" (June 14, 2001), and cautioned NCKU officials "not to repeatedly and deviously interpret the law" (August 17, 2001) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCDpwd8lE2WN5jzfNAvBIP4GTM_j6jC3yuA4Gq2IbLlxGTsQ_9s6MDqEK596XXZLrnI7cADZW_L5Fa-TC5LVbKzkMRjdIsrkpXSmu-6_WTYyShiY91YQ0_pMc860OoEu3GSD8WntXOLdM/s1600/moeLetters10-726356.JPG).

Mr. Hwung concludes his whitewash by saying, "I believe few people are perfect in this society of great variety." I'm not sure what Mr. Hwung means by "this society of great variety," unless he means that some people believe in laws while others do not.

As for his comment that "few people are perfect," the law does not require perfection, but compliance. It's a fact university officials failed to comply with the law. The Ministry ruling says so. If a university president says otherwise he has no business being president.

Mr. Hwung concludes, "With happy mood, we work together to contribute to the society in pursuit of the true, the good, and the beautiful."

In Plato "the true, the good, and the beautiful" refer to justice. In the Republic Socrates evokes a just person who sees "the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner" and "tries to make people understand who have never seen real justice" but know only "images of justice" (Book VII).

Mr. Hwung, as president of a university, should seek real justice, not images of justice. He should post an apology, not a whitewash.

Perhaps he failed to read the Ministry ruling: "The university's Appeals Committee did not investigate the faults in the decision made by the university's three-level Review Committees. Moreover, it did not clarify and point out the correct procedures according to laws."

If Mr. Hwung can sustain a "happy mood" in the midst of injustice he should not be president of a university. He should cheer the just execution of laws at his university instead of the donation of a piano by former NCKU president, Michael Ming-Chiao Lai (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/14-1083-85388,r614-1.php).

Mr. Lai, like other NCKU officials, ignored repeated petitions to resolve my illegal dismissal on just principles of law, including apology, accountability, and compensation. Instead of "the gift of love," why not "the gift of justice"?

As if to prove two wrongs make a right, Mr. Hwung's cohort, Chin-Cheng Chen, the current Secretariat, also signed a post about my illegal dismissal, dated May 4, 2011.

In a game of follow the leader, Mr. Chen refers to my illegal dismissal as my "being declined for employment renewal."  He boasts "it was approved . . . as a result of multiple rounds of review," ignoring "the faults in the decision made by the university's three-level Review Committees" (MOE).

Thus "multiple rounds of review" multiplied abuses rather than remedied them. That's not something to boast of in a high-ranked university here.

Moreover, how could my illegal dismissal have "followed the required procedure" by being "in accordance with the Employment Service Law" if the MOE clearly stated that law was not applicable and NCKU "mistakenly claimed 'foreign teachers' hiring relationship ends after the contract period is fulfilled and there is no need to follow the regulations written in Article 14, Item 1 of Teacher's law'" (MOE)?

Mr. Chen's Orwellian Newspeak reaches new lows when he refers to malicious accusations of plagiarism, rejected by the MOE, as a "fact" that I "was involved in plagiarism"! For good measure he adds I was "in violation of Articles 91 and 94 of the Intellectual Property Rights."

In his sleight-of-hand trick, Mr. Chen apparently hopes quoting real laws will dignify false accusations, like accusing one's teetotal neighbor of being "in violation of Articles 55 and 59 of the Public Intoxication Code." The reference to real laws seems to give substance to false accusations.

This is the trick NCKUs "multiple rounds of review" tried. Presumably, if one cites laws and repeats lies long enough they will becloud the truth, a tactic the MOE soundly rejected on the basis NCKU committees "did not clarify and point out the correct procedures according to laws." Citing inapplicable laws does not replace the law in a just society. It might work at NCKU but not at MOE.

As for "the allegation of grading imparity" by my former student, Mr. Chen neglects to mention the letter was solicited by an FLLD chair and secretly circulated at "the multiple rounds of review" Mr. Chen boasts of.

In using the word "allegation" I assume Mr. Chen does not know the word "defamation" or doesn't care to use it. Yet the student had no proof of her "allegation," complained about her grade eight years after her class, did not mention she received three high passes from me the same year, made her claim in secret, was solicited to write her letter by the same committee that had already started an illegal dismissal action against me, was never asked to prove her "allegation" before an independent committee, and is now employed at our university.

Based on official MOE rulings, these two posts are discredited. One of them was signed by a former chair of the Teachers Union, which formally contested my illegal dismissal. Now he claims no illegal dismissal occurred, a case of "When the butt changes, the head changes."

Democracy does not reckon butts or heads, but laws. Both officials who signed these posts should resign to restore credibility to the university.

NCKU faculty are also responsible by their complicity of silence. Other faculties stand up for human rights, why not here?

The lack of deterrent rulings emboldened NCKU officials and discouraged NCKU faculty. If officials are liable, as MOE documents state, why aren't they reprimanded, fined, or dismissed? Why isn't the university compelled to issue an apology and compensation?

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

For those who wish a more extended treatment of these two posts, please consult my dedicated case blog at http://rdca45b.blogspot.com/search/label/Explaining%20an%20%22Explanation%22.