Letter to Scholars at Risk

Robert Quinn
Director
Scholars at Risk Network
http://scholarsatrisk.uchicago.edu

c/o Human Rights Program
University of Chicago, Pick 124
5828 South University Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
tel: 773-834-4408
fax: 773-702-9286
e-mail: rquinn@uchicago.edu

25 August 2000

Dear Dr. Quinn,

Thank you for your response to our previous email.
Enclosed are several letters from Taiwan professors detailing legal
and human rights abuses in this case.
As can be seen from the letters, there are serious issues of both
legal and human rights violations in this case.
At the same time, there is reasonably clear evidence of a lack of
commitment on the part of higher institutional authorities to enforce
protections of foreign faculty in Taiwan in such a manner as to be
reciprocal with the protection of the rights of Taiwan citizens in other
democratic countries.
Protective laws and rights are ambiguously worded in such a way as
to tip the hat to the legal rights and norms of democratic law while
nullifying the efficacy of legal protections in practice, since any
authority (chairperson, dean, committee chair) can "interpret," select,
or enforce laws to suit any occasion or purpose. There is the show of
democracy without either its transparency or objectivity. Democracy
becomes, in such a situation, a mere form with little substance.
Practically speaking, it is, for the most part, still relationships,
rather than laws, that govern many conflicted transactions in Taiwan.
To be fair, ordinarily the difference between rights and relationships
is theoretical merely. But this is based (as in a legitimate democracy
it should not be) on the good will of the parties, rather than the good
laws of the country.
Moreover, at its worst, as at National Cheng Kung University, where
there are, quite bluntly, many corrupt, negliglent, or incompetent
officials, there is no practical difference between the incrimination of
a foreign professor and, say, the incrimination of a member of the Falun
Gong in Mainland China, susceptible to arbitrary and capricious
discrimination and persecution, selective or maliciously specific laws,
secret meetings and accusations, unknown accusers, and discriminatory or
selective interpretation and enforcement of laws to effect the
malevolent goals of adversaries with a personal axe to grind.
(Admittedly, no foreign professor has yet been incarcerated, to the best
of my knowledge, but this should not minimize the other human or civil
rights abuses involved in this case.)
I should add that a dismissal notice has legal status yet, in
Taiwan, bypasses legal protections. The university functions as a court
of law without the protections of a court of law. Accusations that
would never survive in a court of law are easily "legitimated" by
university committees and officials with a severely limited grasp of
democratic process or rights.
The dangers become clear when one attempts to describe the "status"
of this case, which is mired in a no-man’s land of endless deferral of
rights, responsibilities, and protections. The Ministry of Education
claims it has no authority over its universites (despite the fact that
illegalities have been fully documented); the District Attorney claims
the university is a private institution and therefore not liable to a
public law such as libel; the Administrative Court asks the Ministry of
Education to investigate; the Ministry of Education asks the university
to investigate; the university asks its officials to investigate
accusations against themselves with predictable results. The
Administrative Court then explains to the plaintiff that the
investigation has been completed and no legal problems were discovered.
When the circuit is completed, the routine justifies itself and
seems to fulfill democratic norms of appeal, investigation, etc., when,
in fact, nothing can be less democratic in substance.
In many ways, Taiwan is still a culture of benevolence rather than
laws. One official at the Ministry of Education literally said that
"teachers are considered above the laws" in Taiwan. An official at the
Administrative Court disputed that statement as absurd and insisted that
the MOE official was speaking for herself. Nonetheless, in practice,
this seems to be the case; and, despite clear violations of both
criminal laws and Ministry of Education regulations, the Ministry of
Education has claimed it is powerless to intervene; while the Minister
of Education, Dr. Ovid Tseng, has repeatedly declined to respond to
letters written to him in both English and Chinese.
The simple fact is that Taiwan officials must ensure that the rights
of foreign faculty are fully protected, in the same way that Taiwan
faculty rely on due process and protections in the democratic countries
where they teach or where their children go to school.

Sincerely,

Professor Richard de Canio