Prime Minister's Office
Prime Minister, YU Shyi-kun
23 July 2003
Dear Prime Minister Yu,
I have been a professor at National Cheng Kung University
since 1988. However, in 1999, I was illegally dismissed. Because of
countless legal rights violations, a Ministry ruling was issued on 8
January 2001, which overturned my dismissal. Routinely, this should
have been a final victory and I should have been allowed to get on with
my life and my vocation--teaching and research. However, this was not
the case. Despite the ruling and eight warning letters from the
Ministry of Education, National Cheng Kung University, under its
president, Kao Chiang, defied the Ministry ruling for more than two
years. Finally, after repeated pressure from the Ministry, the court,
and the National Cheng Kung Faculty Union, the university finally
complied with the Ministry ruling, in May, 2003, almost two and a half
years after the ruling. No sooner did officials at NCKU comply with the
ruling than they tried to weaken the full legal benefits of the ruling:
First, they insisted I was only entitled to half pay, since I
wasn't teaching during the years of my illegal dismissal and the
university's noncompliance with the Ministry ruling. This is what is
called "adding insult to injury." It's as if someone steals your car and
then asks you to pay for hospital expenses if he gets into an accident
driving it. Disregarding legal principles by not complying with the
Ministry ruling in the first place, they add to their offense by not
giving me the salary I lost.
Second, only days after officials complied with the Ministry
ruling, they repeated accusations already rejected in that ruling and
formally passed them at a meeting, in May, 2003. I wasn't even notified
of this meeting or invited to it. But also, this denies my right to
final judgment by the Ministry ruling. If accusations in a final appeal
ruling can be revived, or made again, then no appeal is ever final and
there is no point to a final appeal: The appellant can be continually
harassed and humiliated by repeated revivals of old accusations. It
would be better for an appellant to surrender his rights the first time
rather than the fifth time, instead of wasting time and money in a
futile exercise defending himself.
Now, more than four-and-a-half years since my illegal dismissal, I
am still defending myself against the same
accusations; I am still filing university appeals; I have not received
any monetary compensation for the losses I suffered during my dismissal;
and I have not even received a formal apology from the university to
restore my reputation, according to the full legal rights to which I am
entitled by the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001. Taiwan professors
are protected by human rights laws when they are in America. First, what
happened to me would be unlikely, today, to happen to a Taiwan
professor, because even one of the human rights violations that I
suffered would bring an American university, and officials responsible,
in a lot of trouble, academic and legal.
Second, no American university would defy a legal ruling by the
Board of Education or a similar agency. Compliance with the law would
be immediate and followed by a sincere apology to the appellant,
according to respect for the law common in democracies.
But National Cheng Kung University doesn't want to play by these
rules. It wants to be a law unto itself. Several times I won final
appeals within the university and I was told that, as a foreigner, I had
to be reviewed again. Even universities in countries that do not respect
democratic principles would respect a final appeal ruling. Indeed, if
the spouses or children of these NCKU officials were treated the same
way in America, they would be the first to protest to the ROC
government.
Nobody likes to lose. But in America, once the law takes effect,
the loser loses gracefully, commonly saying, "The Law has spoken.
Justice has been served. We will abide by the ruling." Academics should
show they are in advance of democratic progress, not behind. Officials
at the fourth-ranked university in Taiwan should not behave like sore
losers, advancing democratic principles only when speaking about
Mainland China's treatment of the Falun Gong, but themselves engage in
the worst violations of human rights when contested by a foreign
appellant, especially an appellant from a country that treats their
compatriots fairly when they reside there. Because of the stubborn
pattern of behavior shown in the handling of this case by officials at
my university, as well as the defiant scorn shown even towards Minstry
of Education officials, I don't see how this case can be resolved unless
the highest-ranking officials in the government intervene, making clear
to offiicals at NCKU, first, that the full legal benefits of the
Ministry ruling must be enforced; second, they must be enforced within a
suitable deadline; and, finally, similar actions will not be tolerated
in the future.
I don't think, in view of the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001,
that I should be expected to continually contest issues of that ruling
one by one over many months or years. That in itself would deny me my
right to a final disposition of the case, which is what a final ruling
means. I don't think in a lawful society it's my responsibility to fight
for the full benefits of the Ministry ruling. That's the job of the
government. That's what law and democracy mean. Taiwan citizens don't
have to enforce government rulings in America, why should I have to
enforce government rulings in Taiwan? National Cheng Kung University is
not a private business, but a public institution, funded by public money
and subject to national laws and Ministry regulation. The government
should enforce the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001, by persuasion, if
possible; but by punitive options if necessary, and within a suitable
and lawful deadline.
Not only are officials at NCKU in defiance of the law, but they are
undermine confidence in law, not only at NCKU but in Taiwan. Yet a
university should be in advance of supporting democratic values and
legal rights. If this case drags on much longer, international exposure
is inevitable, discrediting not only National Cheng Kung University, but
Taiwan's government. So I am compelled to respectfully request your
personal intervention in this matter.
Respectfully,
Professor Richard de Canio
Associate Professor,
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
ROC
(06) 237 8626
No comments:
Post a Comment