Professor Kao Chiang
President,
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
cc: Taiwan Commission on Human Rights, Control Yuan, Ministry of
Education, Department of Higher Education
5 August 2003
Dear President Kao,
Despite countless emails that I have sent to you and other parties
involved in human rights violations at our university, I
have been unable to resolve outstanding issues in the university's
illegal actions against me, beginning in 1999.
As you know, university officials engaged in countless legal rights
violations in order to effect my illegal dismissal from the
university in 1999. Then, following the Ministry of Education's ruling
in my favor, which canceled my dismissal (8 January
2001), officials conveniently decided to "interpret" that ruling in a
way that nullified its binding legal effect and benefits to the
appellant.
Following eight advisory letters from the Ministry of Education to
follow the law, officials, under your administration,
finally decided to comply with the law more than two years after the
ruling. Even so, I have yet to receive compensation, full
back pay, or a formal apology. In addition, the student who spitefully
collaborated with officials to effect my dismissal has
not even been punished, although she is currently a student and, indeed,
a part-time teacher at our university. Finally,
immediately following the university's belated compliance with the law,
a university committee convened, in May 2003, in
order to repeat accusations already rejected in the Ministry ruling of 8
January 2001, as if to show contempt for the law or
to show faculty at our university that officials, in effect, do not
enforce the law but are the law. I was neither formally
notified of this meeting nor invited to appear. But regardless, since
previous accusations were revived, the meeting was in
defiance of the Final Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001 and therefore
must be considered in violation of the law.
Officials at our university cannot raise the cry of human rights
violations when such offenses occur in Mainland China but
claim to be "following laws" and "proper procedures" (as you have in
your email to me) when they occur at our university.
Don't you understand that officials in Mainland China believe they are
"following laws" and "proper procuedures" as well?
That's why we have general principles of human rights, from which
specific laws derive their ultimate and moral legitimacy.
I refer you to Articles in the United Nations' International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
In Part 2, Article 2, it is written that,
"[A]ny 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; to ensure that any
person claiming such a remedy shall have his rights thereto determined
by competent judicial, administrative or
legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided
for by the legal system of the State, and to develop
the possibilities of judicial remedy; 2. To ensure that the competent
authorities shall enforce such remedies when
granted. (My emphasis.)
Clearly an official is not above the law, not if you believe in
human rights.
Regarding secret accusations made against me in 1999, consider
Article 14, where it states that "everyone shall be
entitled to a fair and public hearing. . . ."
This article also cautions against unfair or secret meetings, such
as occurred at our university. I remind you that I was
never informed of "the nature and cause" of accusations against me until
Faculty Union members and I petitioned for this,
and only after I had already been dismissed from the department.
Concerning the case of Lily Chen, who wrote a spiteful secret
letter against me, secretly circulated by committee
members at so-called "appeal" and "review" hearings, despite repeated
requests made to your current Dean of Student
Affairs, Professor Ko Huei-Chen, I have still been denied the right to
face this person for the purpose of administrative
remedy, as stated in Article 14, namely the right of the accused,
"To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to
obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on
his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him. . . ."
As for your defiance of the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001,
which canceled my dismissal, I refer you to Article 14 and
"the right" to review "by a higher tribunal according to law" and that,
following such judicial reversal, the person "shall be
compensated according to law. . . ."
Regarding the university's repeated revival of accusations against
me, even following the Ministry ruling of 8 January
2001, I refer you to Article 14, Number 7: "No one shall be liable to
be tried or punished again for an offence for which he
has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the
law. . . ."
The Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001 in my favor is a final
ruling; a final ruling can not be undermined, in any way or by
whatever means, or it would not be called a final appeal. Nor can
issues rejected in that ruling be revived, or the appeal
would not be final; indeed, no appeal would ever be final. Power, not
appeals, would be final. Clearly this is not the intent
of human rights protections, which insures that justice, not power, is
final.
I advise you to consider that the disreputable behavior of
officials at our university is threatening to turn a fourth-ranked
university into a fourth-rate university and it is your responsibility
to insure that this does not occur. At the same time, your
noncompliance with a legal Ministry ruling, as well as universally
shared principles of human rights, has already undermined
the reputation of our university as a reputable academic institution.
Finally, I remind you yet again that I am fully committed to
upholding the human rights of American professors at our
university, regardless of the legal channels necessary to enforce those
rights. Hopefully, we can resolve the outstanding
issues related to this case, including full compensation and back pay,
formal apologies, and the nullification of that illegal
meeting held in May, 2003, as soon as possible and before I find it
necessary to pursue those other legal channels.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
No comments:
Post a Comment