Letter to the Prime Minister of Taiwan, et. al.

Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung
University
ªþÀɼƶq: 0 ­ÓÀÉ®×

The Prime Minister’s Office
The Ministry of Education
The Control Yuan
Taiwan Commission on Human Rights

23 January 2003

Dear Officials,

In a letter dated 8 January 2001, the Ministry of Education
Appeals
Committee ruled in my favor and canceled my dismissal. As
university
president, Kao Chiang should have complied with that
ruling. Instead he
defied it and eight Ministry letters for more than two
years.
In the meantime, the university held more “hearings” on
accusations
rejected in the Ministry ruling. The university lawyer then
used
tax-paid money to contest the Ministry ruling in court,
saying (after
the ruling favored me) that foreigners had no right to
appeal.
(This lawsuit, which cost the university millions of
dollars in back
pay, could have funded dozens of scholarships for needy
students.)
Meanwhile two university officials warned me to quit the
university or
the administration would contest the Ministry ruling for as
long as
possible.
Forced to comply with the Ministry ruling to issue back and
current
teaching contracts, officials prevented the benefits of
that ruling. As
soon as the contracts were issued, a College Review
committee approved
accusations rejected in the Ministry ruling and, as
punishment, denied
me increments and promotion for six years.
Only recently, Professor Kao publicly claimed it was
“reasonable” I
be denied teaching pay the years of my illegal dismissal.
His office
has yet to issue an apology for human rights abuses,
including the use
of secret and unproved accusations to insure my dismissal
in 1999.
Finally, the student who wrote a letter secretly circulated
at dismissal
hearings has not been punished and is, instead, a graduate
student and
teacher at our university.
These are violations not only of law but also of moral
principles
that even children respect. Taiwan is a democracy, yet the
university
denies the Teacher’s Law protects foreigners. The
university accepted
my appeal but claimed, after I won, that foreigners have no
right to
appeal. The university deposed at the Ministry hearing but,
after I
won, defied the Ministry ruling.
Is this democracy? Administrative remedy that continues
into a
fifth year is laughable and mocks the word “remedy.” Who
will seek
remedy knowing it will last years? And if there is no
remedy there is
no hope, either for teachers or for education in Taiwan.
No respectable university should allow abuses listed here.
Just
recently our College Review Committee ignored a University
Appeals
ruling and repeated an illegal disciplinary action against
me, as if
neither the Ministry nor its own University Appeals
Committee had legal
force. Faced with such defiance, on 16 January 2003, the
University
Appeals Committee declined to reverse the College decision!
So I have
to appeal to the Ministry of Education again, three years
after its
ruling of 8 January 2001!
How can this happen at the so-called “fourth-ranked”
university in
Taiwan? Why does Taiwan’s government allow it?
Is Taiwan a government of laws or of officials? Do
university
officials have the final say on what a law means, when to
obey a law,
and which laws to use? The rights of a university do not
include the
right to interpret laws or to defy them, any more than the
rights of a
citizen allow this.
To appear lawful, officials at our university quote lawyers
instead
of laws. But democracy is a government of laws, not
lawyers. In a
democracy, a lawyer is only a citizen. Yet an official who
defied a
Ministry ruling for more than two years goes unpunished
because (he
says) a lawyer “interpreted” the law to mean what the
university wants
it to mean. This does not sound like a university official
but more
like Humpty Dumpty, who boasted power because “words mean
what I want
them to mean.”
If allowed, all citizens can do the same thing. They can
interpret
prices in the currency of their choice or use play money.
In a national
emergency, the government will notify citizens to serve and
each can
claim he “doesn’t understand” what the notice means.
Apart from law, university officials discredit their
university.
They should be punished and this case settled, as Taiwan
law requires.
In law, a final ruling should prevent further action on
accusations
already heard. Accusations rejected on appeal cannot be
revived, or
final appeals are useless.
I therefore ask that officials who repeated accusations
against me
following the Ministry ruling be punished. Where committee
members
voted unanimously, I ask that all members be punished.
I remind you that Taiwan is a democracy. Its citizens
receive
legal protections when they reside in other democracies. It
is a
recognized principle of law that a final appeal ruling
insures final
settlement, including apology and compensation. Since my
academic
career was interrupted for more than four years, this
should be weighed
in my promotion hearings as well.
In the meantime, I expect the Ministry of Education to
punish
officials involved in misconduct, even if they have
transferred to
another university, as two have. I expect the student who
wrote a
secret spiteful letter to be punished. I expect full
compensation and a
formal apology from the university.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626