Regarding outstanding matters of my illegal dismissal in 1999

, 22 JUL 2004 11:47:18
¥D¡@¡@¦®: Regarding outstanding matters of my illegal
dismissal in 1999
ªþÀɼƶq: 0 ­ÓÀÉ®×

Kao Chiang,
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

20 July 2004

Dear President Kao,

Please inform me as soon as possible when you plan to
resolve the
outstanding issues related to my illegal dismissal in
1999. As a matter of principle, these matters must be
resolved soon.
They include full compensation according to law and human
rights
principles; a formal apology from the administration
and the student, Lily Chen; and of course the formal
nullification of
the illegal (so-called) "hearing" on accusations disposed
of in the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001.
I think you also owe the Ministry of Education a formal
apology.
You defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than two
years, despite eight warning letters and urgings to comply
with the law
from Faculty Union members. Instead, you conspired
with your lawyer to obstruct the law. To do this, you used
taxpayers'
money. I'm sure taxpayers would like their
hard-earned money used for better things, like updating
resources at our
university. Aside from academic resources, as you
probably know, many washing machines and clothes dryers
have been out of
order for years in our faculty housing complex
at 350 Tung Feng Road. The university claims it is out of
money; yet
you're spending taxpayers' money on lawsuits without
legal reason, just because you don't like to lose.
I remind you yet again that there is no basis to contest a
legal
Ministry appeal ruling. If there were a legal basis, your
lawyer should have made a legal challenge before the final
Ministry
ruling in my favor, not afterward. In law, you can't
change a reason for legal action even during the trial,
much less after
it. Doesn't your lawyer know these basic legal facts or
did he purposely disregard them?
Even if there were no legal principles in Taiwan preventing
such
double talk, certainly there are moral principles, such as
honor, truth, and fair play. Even if I were not bound by
law to do
something, I would be bound by moral principles to do it.
Many people refused to own slaves although the law allowed
them to.
Only naughty children need laws to force them to
behave.
Human rights principles, to which Taiwan subscribes,
clearly
dictate that human rights offenders are not protected by
their office and that full compensation must follow a
ruling that favors
the appellant. Yet you seem to believe that your office
places you above these principles.
First you claimed that although I won a legal Ministry
appeal I
should appeal again! Then for more than two years you
defied the ruling completely, even taking me to court to do
so. After
you finally complied, your officials promptly revived
and passed accusations rejected in that ruling. You still
claim I'm not
entitled to full pay since I wasn't teaching, due to my
illegal dismissal.
Where's the moral logic here? If I win an appeal for an
illegal
dismissal, it clearly follows that everything I lost in
that
illegal action should be returned to me, even more as
"monetary
damages." If your argument were correct, a faculy member
could be routinely punished by being dismissed, even though
the Ministry
would reinstate him, because he would still lose
half pay for his dismissal.
Finally your lawyer, who defied the Ministry ruling of 8
January
2001 for two years and four months, now claims, in
court, that I'm not entitled to compensation since the
statutory
limitations should be dated from that same letter of 8
January
2001, which you defied for two years and four months!
Apart from laws and moral principles, there are principles
of
reciprocity, part of your culture too. Taiwan professors
and
students are treated according to laws and moral principles
in my
country. I'd think you'd feel compelled to honor the same
principles in treating Americans (or all foreign faculty)
here.
In the most advanced cultures, God is said to protect
strangers.
Zeus, for example (the Greek God) especially protected
strangers in Greece. The Hebrew God "loves the alien,
giving him food
and clothing" (Deuteronomy 10:18). In 27:19 we
read, "Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the
alien, the
fatherless or the widow." And the Christian, Saint Paul
warned to, "Be careful how you treat strangers, for they
may be angels
in disguise."
Your pretended claim that you are following laws is beyond
belief.
What university president thinks that winning an
appeal merely entitles the appellant to another review and
appeal? What
university president believes that winning an appeal
merely entitles the appellant to part compensation, since,
due to his
illegal dismissal, he wasn't working at the university?
What university president would defy a legal ruling for
more than two
years then appeal to the date of that ruling to deny
compensation on the basis that the statutory deadline has
passed?
Your claim to the China Times that you didn't understand
warning
letters to you is also beyond belief. If you don't
understand administrative directives then you're not
qualified to be
president, apart from other reasons given here.
Quite frankly, Professor Kao, I think you're a discredit
not only
to our university, but to my profession, to which I've
dedicated my life. I don't think you have any business
being president
of a university.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan