Taipei, Taiwan
ROC
Dr. Hwung-Hweng Hwung), Senior Executive Vice-President, NCKU
Dr. Da-Hsuan Feng, Senior Executive Vice-President, NCKU
The Secretariat, The Secretary-General, Woei-Shyan Lee, NCKU
14 January 2008
Dear President Lai,
You have repeatedly ignored my appeal for remedy of human rights abuses committed against me since 1999. If National Cheng Kung University is to rank as a legitimate academic institution it must enforce human rights and allow prompt and appropriate remedy.
Until you have routine remedy at our university, scholars will continue to be at risk here. This is especially true of foreign scholars, who lack the networking necessary to survive in Taiwan universities.
Some faculty at our university seem to believe it's enough to freely elect committee members to insure democratic process. One former dean even seemed puzzled when I informed her of the university's human rights abuses, protesting, "We have a lawyer."
That kind of thinking will jeopardize our university. Only human rights principles, laws, and due process of law can protect a university. Each party has a lawyer on its side, but only one party has the law on its side.
My illegal dismissal was not the action of a few misfits. It was approved by the university's lawyer. It repeatedly passed department, college, review, and appeal committees.
Despite warnings from concerned Faculty Union members, and despite abuses a grade-school child would recognize (lack of due process; secret accusatory letters; secret meetings; unproved accusations; capricious, arbitrary, or selective use of laws), the university stubbornly finalized the dismissal process.
Predictably, in its ruling of 8 January 2001, the MOE Appeals Committee canceled the dismissal and boldfaced abuses to enforce its point. Indeed, an official at another college informed me my dismissal case was used as a tutorial to warn newly appointed officials against misconduct.
It's a sad commentary when our university is used as a model of human rights abuses instead of serving as a model of human rights enforcement. It's even sadder when the university president, Kao Chiang, replied to the New York-based human rights group, Scholars at Risk, that the university was following laws (see attachment).
Even after the Ministry of Education overturned the dismissal, the university stubbornly revived it, as if the MOE ruling had no legal effect. Thereafter the university contested in court my right to appeal, though it participated in the MOE appeal and held numerous hearings of its own (see below for a list of meetings, all denying due process of law or in defiance of the Ministry ruling).
The university then unsuccessfully argued in court foreign faculty were not protected by Taiwan's Teacher's Law, which insures rights of teachers. Pressured to comply with the Ministry ruling, Kao Chiang appointed two colleagues to convince me to resign or the university would contest the ruling in the courts for years, suspending enforcement.
Meanwhile, our faculty has been mainly silent, apparently in the belief (never mind facts or laws) an action is democratic if committees pass it. But every school child knows democracy is a government of laws, not committees.
Those laws are established on human rights principles. Yet sadly, a highly ranked university is unwilling to observe due process of law, while highly educated people (some with doctorates from abroad) seem indifferent to human rights, allowing this case to drag on for nearly ten years. One wonders what is happening with cases less exposed than mine.
The tragedy is, thinking democracy here is the real thing, our colleagues have stopped reaching for the real thing. Indeed, it's a sad commentary to think the Ministry of Education's ruling would have been promptly enforced under martial law.
Human rights must be a priority if a university is to maintain its credibility. To marginalize my complaint, like it was on the same level as pencil purchases, will discredit our university as well as you.
For a university president bears full responsibility for such abuses or the failure to remedy them. He may delegate responsibility, but he cannot escape responsibility.
Scholars at Risk has been kept up to date on events here, for I wish to insure something like this never happens again. But to effect change it may require that US universities suspend academic exchanges in cases of documented rights abuses or failure to take remedial action.
This case has cost me nearly ten years of my life; it has interrupted my academic career. I am committed to a just and prompt remedy, including a formal apology and reasonable compensation, which can be arbitrated by the Faculty Union.
Failing this, I will continue to appeal to human rights groups and sister universities in the US as well as to US members of Congress with ties to our university or Taiwan. If Americans are willing to commit huge resources to defend Taiwan democracy thousands of miles away, it's reasonable to ask Taiwan citizens to commit far fewer resources to do so in their own backyard.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
For additional documents, confirmation of facts, or remedial action, please contact Professor Ray Dah-ton, of NCKU's Faculty Union at (06) 2757575-62831 (office phone), (06) 2380421 (office fax), or raydon@mail.ncku.edu.tw (email).
Chronicle of National Cheng Kung University Meetings
Note: The following is not a mere chronicle; it's a sad commentary on the lack of human rights principles or awareness at our university and a summons to both reform and remedy.
1. March 29, 1999 - the FLLD review committee passed the dismissal decision (without legal reasons).
2. April 23, 1999 - Appealed to the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals group.
3. May 3, 1999 - the College of Liberal Arts Appeals Group decided the "evidences" listed by the FLLD were not objective and solid. Instead of being canceled, the case was sent back to FLLD for "more evidence"!
4. June 9, 1999 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal, based on a secret letter submitted by the FLLD chairman.
5. June 14, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (without legal reasons).
6. June 25, 1999 - the University Review Committee passed the "dismissal" decision (without legal reasons).
7. July 28, 1999 - Appealed to the University Appeals Committee.
8. December 3, 1999 - the University Appeals Committee canceled the dismissal, but the university lawyer, who also served as committee chair, argued the case should be returned to the department.
9. March 10, 2000 - the FLLD Review Committee passed the dismissal (without legal reasons).
10. March 21, 2000 - Appealed to the College of Liberal Arts Appeals group.
11. March 29, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal.
12. April 12, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the dismissal (without legal reasons).
13. April 17, 2000 - Appealed to the University Review Committee's Appeals Group.
14. April 28, 2000 - the University Review Committee's Appeals Group decided the FLLD and CLA did not list reasons for dismissal. They should re-review.
15. May 5, 2000 - the FLLD review committee passed the dismissal decision (with the same illegal reasons as the previous year).
16. May 10, 2000 - the College of Liberal Arts Review Committee passed the dismissal decision (with the same illegal reasons as the previous year).
17. May 24, 2000 - the university review committee passed the dismissal decision (with the same illegal reasons as the previous year).
18. June 12, 2000 - Appealed to the University Appeals Committee.
19. August 18, 2000 - the University Appeals Committee rejected the appeal (chairman was the university lawyer, Wang).
20. September 5, 2000 - Appealed to the MOE Central Appeals Committee.
21. January 8, 2001 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee canceled the dismissal decision.
22. May 24, 2001 - the university requests appellant to defend against accusations that were part of the MOE appeal, which favored the appellant.
23. May 24, 2001 - the FLLD review committee again passed the dismissal.
24. June 19, 2001 - the College of Liberal Arts review committee passed the dismissal decision.
25. June 28, 2001 - Appealed to the University Review Committee's Appeals Group.
26. July 5, 2001 - the University Review Committee's Appeals Group rejected the appeal.
27. July 23, 2001 - the University Review Committee suspended the dismissal decision, and requested the FLLD provide more evidence to fit the requirements of Employment Law: Article 41.
28. September 12, 2001 - the university review committee passed the dismissal decision (with the same illegal reasons as previous year).
29. October 23, 2001 - Appealed to the University Appeals Committee.
30. June 18, 2002 - the University Appeals Committee canceled the dismissal (chairman was a different person).
From May 11, 2001 to April 21, 2003
the MOE sent eight letters urging the university to reinstate me.
31. May 6, 2003 - the university notified me it will issue the contract and compensate only part of the salary.
32. May 20, 2003 - the University Review Committee passed penalties for unproved accusations, including denial of promotion, salary increments, and sabbatical leave for six years.
33. March 22, 2004 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee canceled the "compensate part of the salary" decision, and ordered the university to make a proper decision within twenty days.
34. November 1, 2004 - the MOE Central Appeals Committee canceled the "punishments" decision, on the basis the law cannot be applied retroactively. (NOTE: The accusations were unproved by due process of law and were already part of the Ministry appeal, which favored me.)
35. August 19, 2004 - the university compensated the rice money but refused to compensate the four years (1999-2003) yearly salary increment.
36. August 28, 2007 - the university finally compensated the four years (1999-2003) yearly salary increment.
37. Present - The university continues to deny monetary damages, a formal apology, or disciplinary action against those involved in the illegal dismissal action.
No comments:
Post a Comment