Regarding problems at a Taiwan university

3/24/2004 10:27 AM
Subject: Regarding problems at a Taiwan
universityTo: editor@asianresearch.org

Editor,
Asian Research

24 March 2004

Dear Editor,

I have an ongoing problem with human rights violations here and I'm
wondering if you can give me some advice or assistance.
In January 2001, Taiwan's Ministry of Education canceled a 1999
dismissal by a Taiwan university due to countless legal rights
violations. Despite eight warning letters, the university defied the
Ministry ruling for more than two years. It even contested the
ruling in court, claiming (after I won) that foreigners had no right to
appeal in the first place. Due to pressure from outside channels, the
university finally issued retroactive contracts in May 2001.
Partly compliant, officials spitefully revived accusations rejected
in the Ministry ruling, as if that ruling never happened and officials
are the law. In addition, they now maintain I'm entitled to only half
pay the years of my dismissal since I wasn't teaching those years,
although the dismissal (reversed on appeal) was by defnition illegal and
the appeal ruling was defied for two years!
Meanwhile, Taiwan's Ministry of Education has, over four years, not
punished a single official involved in this case, including the
president of the university who defied the Ministry ruling for more than
two years. The Control Yuan has found no wrongdoing on the part of
university officials, despite secret meetings, secretly circulated
letters, and noncompliance with a Ministry ruling for more than two
years.
Apparently, university officials are above the law in Taiwan.
They're allowed to "interpret" laws against recognized principles of
human rights, to which Taiwan subscribes, such as the principle of final
appeal, compliance, compensation, apology, and protections against
malicious revival ("double jeopardy").
By not apologizing, by reviving accusations rejected on final
appeal, and by denying compensation or even full retroactive pay, the
university is, in effect, defying the legal benefits of the appeal
ruling, as if that ruling never happened. Instead of enforcing its own
ruling, the Ministry of Education advises me to file a lawsuit against
the university!
A national university in a country that advances human
rights principles should not condone discriminatory policy against
foreign faculty, especially when that university has sister universities
in democratic countries such as the USA and England. A Ministry of
Education that sanctions appeal should enforce its appeal rulings.
Instead the Ministry advises individual litigation rather than routine
enforcement. Is Taiwan a government of laws or litigation? Does every
ruling have to be litigated before it is enforced?
Although with many sister universities in the States, England, and
other democracies, this university claimed foreign (in this case,
American) teachers were not protected by the Teachers' Law, which
prevents dismissal without due cause. Even if foreign faculty were not
protected by the Teachers' Law (which is not true), that would not
condone violations of human rights, due process of law, and other
principles the Taiwan government and most universities in democratic
nations subscribe to. Yet the university held secret meetings,
circulated secret letters, and twice defied final appeal rulings.
There's also the outrageous factor of duplicity, or trickery.
After the first university appeal ruling, in December, 1999, the
university claimed that foreigners had to appeal again. The university
repeated this tactic even after the Ministry ruling in January, 2001.
Finally, in May 2003, pressured by outside channels to issue retroactive
contracts, the university spitefully revived and passed accusations
rejected in the Ministry ruling, as if the appeal process had no binding
force. Yet at the same time it claims foreigners (Americans) have no
right to appeal!
Despite international recognition of Taiwan as a democracy,
the Ministry of Education has delayed complete enforcement of its own
sanctioned ruling. But if the Ministry of Education refuses to enforce
its rulings, the appeal process is a sham and one can place little
confidence in other so-called legal rights protections in Taiwan's
universities. If a university wins, it will claim to the world (and its
sister universities in the USA, England, and elsewhere) that it has an
appeal process and it won fairly. But if it loses, it will defy
the Ministry ruling.
This appeal is already in its FIFTH year. Regardless of final
disposition of this case, what foreign professor will likely appeal
facing five years or more of delays? Unable or unlikely to appeal,
foreign faculty will more likely comply with academic injustices here.
In reality, regardless of laws on the books, there are no
practical protections for foreign faculty at Taiwan universities. The
Ministry of Education tolerated the university's defiance for more than
two years. Only when I contacted outside channels did I receive,
belatedly, my contracts.
Human rights groups here have given me no help at all. Why doesn't
their appreciation for American support of "Taiwan democracy" translate
into legal advocacy for American rights here? Why do they attack human
rights abuses in Mainland China instead?
Taiwan's national human rights group (Taiwan Commission for
Human Rights) never responds to my countless emails, nor do Ministry or
other government officials, except by routine paperwork or robot mail.
Another national rights group claimed my case was best handled through
administrative remedy. But "remedy" here is merely a cathartic process
instead of a legal process. (The appellant is apparently supposed to
let off steam (or even feel grateful to have the right to file a formal
complaint, even though nothing is ever concluded or enforced.) My
Chinese colleagues and I spent years waiting for a ruling by the Control
(Censor Yuan), supposedly the "watchdog" body here, only to be told
there were no violations, despite evidence listed above and boldfaced in
the Ministry ruling rejecting my dismissal!
Instead this case has been a nightmare of paperwork, including
around 150 pieces of registered mail! This time-consuming "remedy" is
even more of a burden on foreigners, who have to renew their visa every
two months, as was my case before the university finally issued the
contracts, under outside pressure.
Officials here appeal to international human rights agencies for
support of Taiwan. They loudly condemn human rights violations in
Mainland China. English-langage newspapers constantly print letters
from American-based writers lauding Taiwan democracy. Yet not a single
Engling-language newspaper has reported this case, despite many
contacts. (Only a Chinese-language newspaper published an item about
this case, clearly stating facts that put the university in the
wrong.) The English-language newspapers prefer to make Mainland China
a human rights issue rather than deal with the human rights issues in
Taiwan.
My Chinese colleagues and I have contacted several well-known
"human rights" groups here, to no effect. It's always the same
bureaucratic routine: a courteous exchange of "documentation," delays
of many weeks, and final advice that I hire a lawyer!
It's unimaginable that human rights groups would ignore a case where a
president of a university defies a legal Ministry ruling for more than
two years and human rights abuses so blatant that the Ministry Appeal
ruling actually boldfaced them in their ruling "you've got to PROVE,"
etc.! In a more robust democracy, the case of Robert Chung and the
University of Hong Kong in 2000 was a scandal in the Hong Kong media for
weeks and caused the resignations of two top university officials.
Here, except for a very few dedicated Chinese colleagues, nobody seems
to care. They are content with democratic laws on the books regardless
whether those laws are enforced or not. (It looks good at international
conferences and it insures support from activists in other countries.)
But democracy here has clearly been adapted to a culture of
relationships as to lose all resemblance to the real thing. The laws
are written, but the final say on how to interpret them or when to
enforce them is left to each official.
This allows face-saving human rights laws on the books, while at
the same time allowing face-saving ways for officials to defy those
laws. So everyone's happy, except the victim. The government gets
to talk about "laws," saving face with the international community on
which it depends; while officials get to ignore those laws, interpret
them, delay them, and defy them. This is called "administrative
remedy." Meanwhile human rights groups here focus all their attention
on Mainland China, as if all human rights problems had been solved
here.
To be fair, the court rejected the university's legal challenge to
the Ministry ruling and told the university to "settle." Even then, two
university officials warned me in front of Faculty Union members, that
the university would delay the case in the courts for years unless I
quit the university with half pay! I told them they should be ashamed of
themselves and, with pressure from outside channels, I got my contracts
a few weeks later (but nothing else).
I'm grateful the court ruled in my favor. But why did the
court allow litigation in the first place? Litigation seems to have
replaced routine enforcement of laws here. In the law that I know, a
lawyer can't invent an appeal because he's a sore loser. The university
participated in the appeal process. Then, after it lost, it claimed I
had no right to appeal!
Is this legal or moral principle, especially from a university,
presumably in advance of human rights? An American lawyer here told me
that cannot be done, at least in American law. But he also warned me
that in Chinese culture it's common to litigate a contract or ruling
that is not to one's advantage.
I would like to add that litigation is longer here than in the
States. Court sessions are intermitted by months! A case that might
last 3-5 days in the States might last longer in months here.
In addition, there seems to be no concept of the "preponderence of
evidence" in civil cases. The litigant apparently must prove guilt
instead of showing probability. The judge who ruled on my lawsuit
against a student who wrote a secret letter complaining of a grade
received EIGHT YEARS BEFORE argued (despite strong evidence the student
was lying)that it was "reasonable" for a student to think she deserved a
higher grade! (The fact that the complaint was eight years later, in
secret, solicited on the day of my dismissal appeal hearing, secretly
circulated at that and later hearings; the fact that the student lied
about taking other classes from me in which she received high passes,
were all ignored in the ruling.)
This is a summary of the case. If nothing else, I want to be sure
the facts of this case are preserved. In sum, I am frustrated not only
by the university's human rights abuses and failure to admit wrongdoing
and compensate, but by the lack of concern I sense from people here.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

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