8/16/2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Concerning Human Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung
UniversityTo: tahr@seed.net.tw
CC: rquinn@midway.uchicago.edu
BCC: Ray Dah-tong
Paul
Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Hsin-sheng S. Road, Section 3
Lane 25, No. 3, 9th Floor
Taipei, TAIWAN
Telephone:886-2-23639787
Facsimile:886-2-23636102
E-mail:tahr@seed.net.tw
cc: Scholars at Risk
University of Chicago
16 August 2003
Dear Ms. Wu,
I appreciate the involvement of TAHR in the case of human rights abuses
at National Cheng Kung University, in Tainan. From what I understand, a
lawmaker, upon request, contacted the Ministry of Education and was
advised issues were in administrative process.
However, this case should not be reduced to an administrative
matter. Rather it involves a history of abuses, as well as basic
problems in administrative remedy at all institutional levels.
An appeal that drags on for years (in my case, more than four)
undermines the purpose of administrative remedy. A process without
conclusion or punishment of officials is no remedy, but delays remedy.
These are causes for concern and reflect a wider problem.
Abuses have become routine at our university. Several professors
have resigned, frustrated by administrative remedy.
University regulations, presumably protecting faculty, are vague
and easily ignored by officials indifferent to democratic principles.
Advised the university president was defying the law, one dean expressed
disbelief. After all, she said, the university had a lawyer.
Perhaps such naivete is feigned. Even uneducated people know that
lawyers represent a client, not the law, while democracy is rule by law,
not lawyers.
But the fact that a Ministry of Education committee boldfaced
countless violations in its ruling of 8 January 2001 shows our officials
are undereducated about human rights. This lack of education should
concern human rights groups.
Indeed, our officials routinely adopt democratic forms while basing
decisions on relationships. Vague regulations make this easy, such as
(translated): “The chairman may see the need to invite an accused
professor for the purpose of defense,” making that rule open to
arbitrary application, allowing or barring a professor’s defense.
Rights, such as the right to appeal, turn out, in reality, to be no
rights at all. Rules insuring due process seem good on paper. But
these regulations are easily ignored.
Laws are differently used or interpreted, as happened in my case.
A committee is considered legal so long as the right number of committee
members is present, regardless of the number of rights violated.
Principles of right and wrong are replaced by rules of right and wrong
procedures.
Committee members are not even certain of what they voted for until
a committee chairman writes it. In my case, committee members thought
they had voted to cancel my dismissal, according to law, and were
surprised to read a decision that referred my case for further “review.”
So law at our university is in the hands of a few officials who
advance their designs against the public interest. Is there a
difference between Mainland Chinese officials writing selective laws to
punish the Falun Gong and a few officials using laws arbitrarily to
punish some and reward others? Is there a difference between unjust
laws and interpreting just laws for unjust goals?
As everyone knows by now, the university “interpreted” a Final
Ministry Appeal to mean the appellant, an American, should be reviewed
again. Indeed, not merely again, but again and again, endlessly
reviving accusations rejected on appeal. This is the form of democracy
without its substance and a travesty of its purpose.
Human rights officials should not be deceived by a process that
took so long and continues, with revivals of accusations rejected in the
Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001, forcing another appeal. How long
will this mockery of law be tolerated before someone voices public
concern?
The purpose of administrative appeal is to allow for a time-limited
remedy, preventing a stronger party from harassing the weaker. This
discourages misconduct while encouraging appeal. Principles of human
rights, including final appeal, insure that justice, not power,
prevails.
The alternative is what happened in my case, even worse when a
foreign professor has visa concerns. Except for a few enlightened
colleagues who dedicated themselves to justice, and the sacrifice I
myself made, I could not have outlasted the delay tactics of university
officials who violated laws with impunity.
Their violations were not technical errors but human rights
abuses. Officials should not solicit secret letters, suborn students to
write them, or collude to secretly circulate them. These abuses are
documented, including letters from former students retracting suborned
accusations.
In addition, when the president of a university ignores a Ministry
ruling for more than two years, I call that obstruction of justice,
regardless what it’s called in Taiwan. A president of the United States
was forced to resign for obstruction of justice, while the president of
our university was re-elected.
These abuses are typical, not isolated examples. It's commonly
hoped officials act for the best. But democracy advances by suspecting
the worst.
However, based on a culture of subservience ("relationships"),
committee members presume the best. The assumption seems to be that
whatever an official did was right or he would not have done it.
Thus committees routinely ratify ("rubber-stamp") decisions rather
than deliberate them. Since nobody is held accountable, misconduct is
commonplace.
In a culture of face, a petitioner is considered outside the
system instead of part of it. He is wrong rather than trying to right
wrongs.
Review becomes revenge. Officials convince committees to accept
baseless accusations. Or laws are “interpreted” to suit committee
aims. Other officials then “close ranks” in support.
Committees protect each other instead of the law. Yet democracy is
a government of laws, not committees. Committee members should uphold
the law, not replace it.
Reversals on technical grounds delay remedy. Afterwards,
committees spitefully repeat the same accusations or invent new ones,
saving face while the appellant loses time and finally gives up.
Meanwhile, officials stonewall by passing responsibility to
others. The assumption is no one is responsible.
But in a democracy, everyone is responsible, from the top down, or
there are laws, but no Law. A human rights group should be concerned
about this, since human rights issues cannot be separated from human
welfare, as the cover-up at Ho Ping hospital showed.
When a dean ignores a request for a supervised meeting with a
student who wrote a secret accusatory letter, human rights are at stake
but also the common welfare. Professors have a right to request a
supervised meeting with a student, or why have an Office of Student
Affairs? How can there be academic standards if no officials enforce
them? And if there are no academic standards, the future of Taiwan
education is dim.
Court decisions, reviewed in a previous email, should be of related
concern. A district attorney should not be allowed to dismiss a
complaint on hearsay testimony. Nor should he excuse review members of
libel because their accusation was based on a letter they themselves
signed. And if a court concludes it is reasonable for a student to
complain of a grade received eight years before, this undermines
confidence in judicial remedy in Taiwan and discourages international
association.
I think human rights groups should be concerned about these issues,
affecting education as well as the general welfare. No faculty member
aware of my case, as most are, will defend academic standards against
peer pressure knowing administrative remedy is futile. But if
education is compromised, so is the future of Taiwan.
Finally, a human rights group should be concerned that faculty,
instead of advancing human rights, are indifferent to, or in violation
of, them. In view of these issues, it seems to me concern should be
publicly voiced to encourage development of human rights here.
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