To the Esteemed Members of Academia Sinica, regarding human rights issues at a Taiwan university

Dr. Chi-Huey Wong,

President

Academia Sinica

128 Academia Road

Section 2, Nakang

Taipei 115

Taiwan

cc: Academicians of Academia Sinica

American Exchange Universities

Scholars at Risk

Ministry of Education

28 July 2012

Dear Dr. Chi-Huey Wong and Academicians of Academia Sinica,

I am writing because of long-standing human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan.

In 1999, on the basis of illegal procedures, including a secret letter circulated at oversight hearings, I was dismissed from the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature. On appeal, the Ministry of Education ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001 (attached).

Emboldened by a passive or ignorant faculty, the administration of Kao Chiang contested the ruling, claiming “foreigners” had no right to appeal and were not protected by the Teacher’s Law, though the university had previously held bogus appeal hearings.

Despite ten warning letters from the Ministry of Education (attached), two letters from Scholars at Risk, and a court verdict rejecting the university’s claim, NCKU delayed for nearly two and a half years before reinstating me, in May 2003, after which it held more hearings; as if MOE and court rulings had no legal effect. These hearings were canceled by the MOE.

Despite these abuses, neither the MOE nor the court imposed penalties on NCKU. Undeterred, and confident of faculty indifference, officials now defiantly claim on NCKU’s web page that the university did nothing wrong (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php). The page is signed by current president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung and the Secretariat Office, whose current occupant is Chin-Cheng Chen. Dr. Chen once chaired the Teachers Union, which contested my dismissal.

How, in a lawful society, can a university repeatedly violate the rights of a professor, documented in an MOE ruling (attached), yet post that "The resolution to discontinue his employment followed the required procedure"?

First, an illegal dismissal is not the same as “discontinued employment,” no more than theft is the same as a legal transfer of property.

Second, if violating human rights is "required procedure" at National Cheng Kung University then that university should be discredited as an academic institution. For a detailed rebuttal of the English post and a link to the Chinese post, see my dedicated web page at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/search/label/Explaining%20an%20%22Explanation%22

The Secretariat even had the audacity to accuse me of violating Taiwan statutes, though he only repeats malicious accusations rejected by the MOE. If the Secretariat's accusation were true, I would have been indicted under articles mentioned. Repeating a lie does not make it true, it makes it libel.

It's clear university officials were humiliated by losing the case. But they have only themselves to blame. They were repeatedly warned by members of the Teachers Union that their actions were illegal, but defiantly ignored them, as they continue to defy legal rulings years later.

Embarrassed by their foolish misconduct, they now whitewash their actions, impugning my reputation to save theirs. I blame the lack of deterrent penalties by the courts and the MOE for their brazen arrogance.

Does it seem reasonable that university officials conspire to dismiss a professor and interrupt his academic career for four years yet escape punitive damages or administrative penalties?

Punitive damages have a deterrent function in lawful societies. They are awarded to discourage similar misconduct in the future. They set a deterrent “example” in monetary terms, hence are “exemplary damages.”

Deterrence, whether by fines or incarceration, is integral to social order. If thieves were merely told to return stolen money, would they be discouraged from stealing again? If the police rescued an abducted child, without penalty to its kidnapper, would that deter abductions?

I was not even awarded compensation, which NCKU contested. Yet the dismissal cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and travel costs.

Some esteemed colleagues of this institute have benefited from American laws, hospitality, legal rights, and remedial channels. I don’t think it’s asking too much to request that you reciprocate to help formally resolve this case.

Please sign a formal petition to the responsible government agencies and strongly urge this case be resolved according to principles of international law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights your Legislative Yuan ratified on March 31, 2009.

Part II, Article 2, Section 3, paragraph (a) insures “that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity (my emphasis).

Effective remedy includes a formal apology, an admission of wrongdoing, a commitment to reform, compensation, and, as determined by law, punitive damages.

The president of this esteemed institute writes that it will “establish standards of academic integrity, [and] forge closer ties with universities and research institutions around the world . . . for the benefit of humanity.”

These are fine goals, but they will not benefit humanity unless government agencies exercise oversight, with effective punitive sanctions, so all faculty can teach and research without fear, while academic exchanges with universities abroad are maintained with mutual respect for the rights of foreign professors.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio

formerly, Associate Professor

Department of Foreign Languages and Literature

National Cheng Kung University

Tainan, Taiwan

Letter to Taiwan and American Universities

26 July 2012

Dear University Presidents,

I am addressing university presidents in Taiwan, as well as in America, in view of long-standing human rights abuses at a Taiwan university.

In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), in Tainan, Taiwan. Defamatory accusations were used, later discredited by the Ministry of Education on appeal (attached).

When the Ministry of Education ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001, the university claimed "foreigners" had no right to appeal. Both the court and the Ministry of Education rejected this. Moreover the university itself had previously held appeal hearings, proving they were bogus.

NCKU faculty maintain academic exchanges with universities in my country, the United States, where their rights are insured. Yet NCKU shamelessly denied an American professor equal protection under the law.

Emboldened by faculty ignorance or passivity, NCKU, under the administration of Kao Chiang, refused to enforce the Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years, though the Ministry sent ten warning letters (attached). Even when I was reinstated the university tried to impose penalties, as if the MOE ruling had no effect.

This is a brazen defiance of law and human rights as most civilized societies understand them. Still NCKU colleagues did nothing.

My experience with Taiwan's other "democratic" channels proved just as dismal. Emails I sent to Taiwan's premier and president received automated replies.

I went directly to the Office of the Control Yuan in Taipei. Through a translator I asked how university officials could commit abuses without penalty. The official said he would reply to a Chinese colleague at NCKU's Teacher's Union. My colleague said he was never contacted.

The court upheld the Ministry ruling but seemed to go out of its way to protect the university, despite its duplicity and rights abuses.

My libel suit against review members who used unproved accusations failed. The court argued since the accusations did not circulate outside the committee it was not libel.

All statutes I know say defamation is committed if one other party hears (slander) or reads (libel) it. Indeed, those accusations did more damage inside the university than they would have outside it. As recently as two years ago a student told me her classmates believed false claims made in a secret defamatory letter used to insure my dismissal, which I saw only by court order.

Despite willful, malicious, defiant, and repeated violations of laws and human rights, the court imposed no punitive damages against the university. To this day, no official has been punished, either by the courts or the Ministry of Education.

My claim for compensation for costs fighting my appeal, including legal fees and travel to renew my visa, was rejected on the basis I should not have stayed in Taiwan during my appeal.

Other channels of remedy proved futile. No Taiwan human rights group responded with assistance. If brazen human rights violations at a major university are not a concern, what is?

When a taekwondo athlete was disqualified, pro bono assistance was promptly offered. When NCKU students illegally shared copyrighted files online, Taiwan lawyers promptly offered pro bono assistance.

Which is a better cause? Students who share files illegally or an American professor whose rights are violated at a major Taiwan university?

Despite pretentious editorials about human rights abuses in Mainland China, Taiwan's English-language newspapers ignore the case. One reporter was even stopped from reporting it. The editor "explained" he was awaiting "further developments," though the case was 12 years old! The Taiwan press didn't await "further developments" in the taekwondo incident.

In Mainland China, with official censorship, citizens expose human rights abuses. In Taiwan, with a free press, newspapers won't expose human rights abuses at a major university!  (See my blog for  documentation at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/search/label/Censorship%20in%20Taiwan%27s%20English-Language%20Press.)
(NOTE: After 13 years, one paper finally published a letter that referred to the case. See http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2012/02/12/2003525251.)
At least one Chinese-language newspaper published my case. But the focus was on two sides, as if this was a matter of arbitration, not justice. Yet clearly the university was wrong. The MOE said so. Are legal rulings meaningless in Taiwan?

A lack of legal sanctions against university officials will discourage faculty from contesting abuses, whether in promotion, grading, funding, or research. This will undermine the university system in Taiwan. A society  without remedy is a society without hope.

Having exhausted all channels of remedy, I appeal to universities here. As an enlightened franchise, you know this is a test whether there are human rights, law, and lawful remedy in Taiwan. It also tests the role faculties are willing to play to insure human rights in Taiwan.

I lost four years of my career. Yet I have received no compensation, no formal apology, and no official has been punished.

Is violating the rights of an American professor of no consequence here? Yet remedy is guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights your Legislative Yuan ratified on March 31, 2009.

Part II, Article 2, Section 3 states (my emphasis):

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

Because Taiwan's courts neglected their deterrent function, the university continues to defy legal rulings. Despite human rights violations, it brazenly suggests on its web page it did nothing wrong (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php). The posts are signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung and the Secretariat Office.

Do Ministry and court rulings have legal force in Taiwan? How can a university violate a professor's rights yet post that "The resolution to discontinue his employment followed the required procedure"?

If violating human rights is "required procedure" at National Cheng Kung University then that university should be discredited as an academic institution. For a detailed rebuttal of these posts, see my dedicated web page at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/search/label/Explaining%20an%20%22Explanation%22

Though NCKU's Secretariat once chaired the Faculty Union that contested my illegal dismissal, he now claims, along with the university president, no illegal dismissal occurred. "When the butt changes, the head changes."

My illegal dismissal included numerous human rights violations. If that is a "discontinued employment," then theft is a transfer of property, kidnapping is a quick adoption, and rape is a one-sided love affair.

Though the Ministry of Education warned the university it must investigate accusations, the Secretariat now, with apparent impunity, repeats malicious accusations as fact:

 

Moreover, in view of the fact that the work authored by Associate Professor De Canio was involved in plagiarism and sold in public which went in violation of Articles 91 and 94 of the Intellectual Property Rights, NCKU could not continue his employment.
By quoting real laws, the Secretariat dignifies false claims. It's as if a jilted lover accused a woman of prostitution, "under Article 80 of the Social Order and Maintenance Act." The false accusation seems factual because the law is factual, though the woman never prostituted.

If the Secretariat's accusation were true, I would have been indicted under articles mentioned. Repeating a lie does not make it true, it makes it libel.

It's clear university officials were humiliated by losing the case. Like children, they now whitewash their actions, impugning my reputation to save theirs. I blame the lack of deterrent penalties by the courts and the Ministry of Education for this brazen arrogance.

The basis of a civilized society is remedy. But I have lost faith in remedial channels in Taiwan, as seen in court rulings, the inaction or ineffectual responses of the Ministry of Education and other government agencies, the lack of press exposure, the silence of colleagues, and the indifference of human rights groups.

No university should violate rights with impunity. I ask Taiwan's universities to insure a proper administrative closure to this case so that academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad can be maintained with mutual respect.

Sincerely,

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

Letter to Taiwan and American Universities

26 July 2012

Dear University Presidents,

I am addressing university presidents in Taiwan, as well as in America, in view of long-standing human rights abuses at a Taiwan university.

In 1999, I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), in Tainan, Taiwan. Defamatory accusations were used, later discredited by the Ministry of Education on appeal (attached).

When the Ministry of Education ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001, the university claimed "foreigners" had no right to appeal. Both the court and the Ministry of Education rejected this. Moreover the university itself had previously held appeal hearings, proving they were bogus.

NCKU faculty maintain academic exchanges with universities in my country, the United States, where their rights are insured. Yet NCKU shamelessly denied an American professor equal protection under the law.

Emboldened by faculty ignorance or passivity, NCKU, under the administration of Kao Chiang, refused to enforce the Ministry ruling for nearly two and a half years, though the Ministry sent ten warning letters (attached). Even when I was reinstated the university tried to impose penalties, as if the MOE ruling had no effect.

This is a brazen defiance of law and human rights as most civilized societies understand them. Still NCKU colleagues did nothing.

My experience with Taiwan's other "democratic" channels proved just as dismal. Emails I sent to Taiwan's premier and president received automated replies.

I went directly to the Office of the Control Yuan in Taipei. Through a translator I asked how university officials could commit abuses without penalty. The official said he would reply to a Chinese colleague at NCKU's Teacher's Union. My colleague said he was never contacted.

The court upheld the Ministry ruling but seemed to go out of its way to protect the university, despite its duplicity and rights abuses.

My libel suit against review members who used unproved accusations failed. The court argued since the accusations did not circulate outside the committee it was not libel.

All statutes I know say defamation is committed if one other party hears (slander) or reads (libel) it. Indeed, those accusations did more damage inside the university than they would have outside it. As recently as two years ago a student told me her classmates believed false claims made in a secret defamatory letter used to insure my dismissal, which I saw only by court order.

Despite willful, malicious, defiant, and repeated violations of laws and human rights, the court imposed no punitive damages against the university. To this day, no official has been punished, either by the courts or the Ministry of Education.

My claim for compensation for costs fighting my appeal, including legal fees and travel to renew my visa, was rejected on the basis I should not have stayed in Taiwan during my appeal.

Other channels of remedy proved futile. No Taiwan human rights group responded with assistance. If brazen human rights violations at a major university are not a concern, what is?

When a taekwondo athlete was disqualified, pro bono assistance was promptly offered. When NCKU students illegally shared copyrighted files online, Taiwan lawyers promptly offered pro bono assistance.

Which is a better cause? Students who share files illegally or an American professor whose rights are violated at a major Taiwan university?

Despite pretentious editorials about human rights abuses in Mainland China, Taiwan's English-language newspapers ignore the case. One reporter was even stopped from reporting it. The editor "explained" he was awaiting "further developments," though the case was 12 years old! The Taiwan press didn't await "further developments" in the taekwondo incident.

In Mainland China, with official censorship, citizens expose human rights abuses. In Taiwan, with a free press, newspapers won't expose human rights abuses at a major university!  (See my blog for  documentation at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/search/label/Censorship%20in%20Taiwan%27s%20English-Language%20Press.)
(NOTE: After 13 years, one paper finally published a letter that referred to the case. See http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2012/02/12/2003525251.)
At least one Chinese-language newspaper published my case. But the focus was on two sides, as if this was a matter of arbitration, not justice. Yet clearly the university was wrong. The MOE said so. Are legal rulings meaningless in Taiwan?

A lack of legal sanctions against university officials will discourage faculty from contesting abuses, whether in promotion, grading, funding, or research. This will undermine the university system in Taiwan. A society  without remedy is a society without hope.

Having exhausted all channels of remedy, I appeal to universities here. As an enlightened franchise, you know this is a test whether there are human rights, law, and lawful remedy in Taiwan. It also tests the role faculties are willing to play to insure human rights in Taiwan.

I lost four years of my career. Yet I have received no compensation, no formal apology, and no official has been punished.

Is violating the rights of an American professor of no consequence here? Yet remedy is guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights your Legislative Yuan ratified on March 31, 2009.

Part II, Article 2, Section 3 states (my emphasis):

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

Because Taiwan's courts neglected their deterrent function, the university continues to defy legal rulings. Despite human rights violations, it brazenly suggests on its web page it did nothing wrong (http://news-en.secr.ncku.edu.tw/files/13-1083-78482-1.php). The posts are signed by current NCKU president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung and the Secretariat Office.

Do Ministry and court rulings have legal force in Taiwan? How can a university violate a professor's rights yet post that "The resolution to discontinue his employment followed the required procedure"?

If violating human rights is "required procedure" at National Cheng Kung University then that university should be discredited as an academic institution. For a detailed rebuttal of these posts, see my dedicated web page at http://rdca45b.blogspot.tw/search/label/Explaining%20an%20%22Explanation%22

Though NCKU's Secretariat once chaired the Faculty Union that contested my illegal dismissal, he now claims, along with the university president, no illegal dismissal occurred. "When the butt changes, the head changes."

My illegal dismissal included numerous human rights violations. If that is a "discontinued employment," then theft is a transfer of property, kidnapping is a quick adoption, and rape is a one-sided love affair.

Though the Ministry of Education warned the university it must investigate accusations, the Secretariat now, with apparent impunity, repeats malicious accusations as fact:

Moreover, in view of the fact that the work authored by Associate Professor De Canio was involved in plagiarism and sold in public which went in violation of Articles 91 and 94 of the Intellectual Property Rights, NCKU could not continue his employment. By quoting real laws, the Secretariat dignifies false claims. It's as if a jilted lover accused a woman of prostitution, "under Article 80 of the Social Order and Maintenance Act." The false accusation seems factual because the law is factual, though the woman never prostituted.

If the Secretariat's accusation were true, I would have been indicted under articles mentioned. Repeating a lie does not make it true, it makes it libel.

It's clear university officials were humiliated by losing the case. Like children, they now whitewash their actions, impugning my reputation to save theirs. I blame the lack of deterrent penalties by the courts and the Ministry of Education for this brazen arrogance.

The basis of a civilized society is remedy. But I have lost faith in remedial channels in Taiwan, as seen in court rulings, the inaction or ineffectual responses of the Ministry of Education and other government agencies, the lack of press exposure, the silence of colleagues, and the indifference of human rights groups.

No university should violate rights with impunity. I ask Taiwan's universities to insure a proper administrative closure to this case so that academic exchanges with universities in democracies abroad can be maintained with mutual respect.

Sincerely,

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

Regarding the "shameful" attack on a Taiwanese taxi driver

Letters
Taipei Times
14 Fl., No. 399, Ruiguang Rd
Neihu, Taipei
Taiwan

11 February 2012

Editor,

Recently the Taiwan media have been vocal about an abuse of a Taiwanese taxi driver by a "foreigner." Your paper even used the word "shameful" in one headline (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/02/11/2003525188). But when a "foreigner" was viciously assaulted by a gang last year you editorialized the incident as "unfortunate."

I'm happy to know this incident is treated as a crime—as it should be. But I'm unhappy to know there seems to be a chauvinistic double standard in Taiwan, where the "dignity" of Taiwanese is treated with more respect than the dignity of "foreigners." This was evident in the media frenzy over a taekwondo incident a while back.

As you know, National Cheng Kung University illegally dismissed me thirteen years ago. The case involved a high-ranked university and numerous human rights abuses, including the refusal to enforce a Ministry of Education ruling for nearly four years. Yet your paper has not exposed the case as "shameful" or editorialized about the dignity of Americans in Taiwan.

In your article, the protesters are quoted as shouting "We want dignity! We want the truth!"

What do you think I want? Is my "dignity," or the "truth" of human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University, of less merit or social import?

A taxi union official thanked Taiwan's media for speaking on behalf of the victim and justice. I wish I could say as much.

I understand this case is different, because the victim was Taiwanese. It has lasted a few days but a taxi official is quoted  saying the case "had dragged on for so long."

My case has lasted thirteen years and your paper awaits "further developments," as one of your editors emailed me last year. Apart from the establishment of a genuinely free and adversarial press in Taiwan, I have no idea what those "developments" could be.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan