Letter to Scholars at Risk

From:


-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 4:20 AM
To: rquinn@midway.uchicago.edu

Subject: Re: Abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan

Scholars at Risk,
Robert J. Quinn,
Director

17 July 2002

Dear Mr. Quinn,

Today I received copies of the letters you wrote, on behalf of
Scholars at Risk, to Professor Kao Chiang, president of National Cheng
Kung University. One letter was dated 24 August, 2001; the other was
dated 18 October, 2001. Regretfully, due to the circumstances with
which you are familiar, I was unable to access my mail at my
departmental mailbox until today, when a colleague delivered the mail
to
me personally.
Although, as you know, I was legally reinstated by the Ministry
of
Education in early 2001, due to the university’s defiance of this
ruling, I believe it best to avoid contact with the university until
the law is enforced.
First of all let me thank you for your strong support of the
principles involved in this case, as is shown in the copies of your
letters. I am grateful for this, although I regret I was unaware of
the forceful content of these letters until today.
At the same time I was dismayed by the note, penned on a page of
one of your letters, by President Kao, seeming to dismiss your
strongly
stated concerns by appealing (under the circumstances, cynically) to
“laws, regulations, etc.”
Based on the documented facts of this case one wonders what laws
and
regulations he refers to. Because the university has repeatedly
defied,
not only its own written laws and principles, not only rulings by the
Ministry of Education, but universally recognized moral principles as
well.
As is well documented, officials held secret meetings; they
circulated secret and libelous letters; they (punitively) evaluated
foreigners, but not native teachers; they claimed that foreigners are
not protected by the Teacher’s Law, although in a recent letter the
Ministry of Education has stated otherwise; they scorned their own
appeal ruling in my favor, as well as the Ministry’s final ruling,
claiming that winning an appeal simply allowed me to appeal again,
although the Ministry (not to mention universal principles) has
challenged this claim; and, now, shamelessly, the university lawyer
has
argued in court that foreigners don’t even have a right to appeal,
although the university never challenged this right until after I won
the appeal!
Apart from previous appeal hearings in my case, the university
recently held yet another appeal hearing, which patently belies the
lawyer’s claim in court that I have no right to appeal. How can the
university administration claim two contradictory legal principles at
the same time, changing from one to the other depending on
convenience?
The obvious answer is they don't believe in legal principles.
Apparently holding appeal hearings in my case legitimates their action
with the Ministry; yet challenging my right to appeal legitimates
their
dismissal action in court. It’s apparent that university officials
care
neither about logic nor morality; they only care about effecting their
goals.)
The university lawyer was, as I’ve been informed, even chastised
by
the judge for suppressing the Ministry’s ruling in my favor, making it
appear to the court that an appeal never took place! Fortunately, a
member of the university Faculty Union, acting as my legal counsel,
submitted copies of the Ministry decision, as well as strongly worded
followup letters, enjoining issuance of my contract.
Apart from rights and laws, what are the moral principles of a
university administration that challenges a final appeal, not on
legitimate legal grounds but simply because university officials don’t
want to lose? Yet, despite the university’s obvious defiance of both
law and moral principles (the Ministry decision, fair play, keeping
one’s word, honesty, etc.), the Taiwan court has delayed a judgment in
this case, which has now lasted about a year!
Thus, as you yourself suggest in one of your letters, the problem
is wider than National Cheng Kung University, which is doubtless why
the
university has confidently mounted its challenge against the Ministry
ruling in the first place. The concept of a rationalized and routine
justice, including rights and due process, along with punitive
sanctions
against those who violate these principles, is certainly an alien
concept here, at least based on the documented abuses at National
Cheng
Kung University and the failure of judicial agencies, including the
courts, to sanction these abuses.
Yet any one of these documented abuses would have discredited a
university official on legitimate review in other democracies, with
significant press coverage. (A technical issue of conflict of
interest
at a Hong Kong university several years ago captured media headlines
and
catalyzed students and faculty. I know, since I was in Hong Kong at
the
time.)
To update my case, despite the Ministry ruling in my favor,
despite
continued warning letters from the Ministry of Education that the
university must issue me the contract and related benefits, and
despite
President Kao’s assurance that “we will do everything according to our
laws,” the university remains in defiance of the Ministry ruling.
Furthermore, it continues to harass me with yet further hearings in my
case based on the same accusations rejected in the Ministry ruling.
The
last hearing was about a month ago. The university also violated the
deadline for issuance of its formal ruling, although we heard about it
from a committee member sympathetically concerned about my case.
Apparently the committee chair plans to issue a decision
concluding
that, although there was a legal basis for my appeal, nonetheless the
university would not issue me a contract anyway. It is unclear what
the
basis of this argument will be, but the very fact that committee
members
are not even certain what the decision will be shows how dubious
democratic process is. One would think that committee members would
know what it is they are voting for! But apparently, despite the
presence of about fifteen committee members, it is the chairman who
decides how to write the decision, not merely in terms of style but in
terms of substance!
However, as a colleague told me several days ago over the phone
(and
this sums up the legal issues), the committee hearings after the
Ministry ruling are a legal travesty anyway. How can a committee
adjudicate a case already won on appeal?
Therefore I urge you, on behalf of all foreign faculty in Taiwan
and
in the name of those principles you recognized in your two letters, to
pursue this case as you have done, especially in light of President
Kao’s facile assurance of lawful observance; which, considering
documented abuses, suggests a cynical confidence in the power of his
office above the authority of the law.
In the meantime, the Ministry of Education plans to send a yet
more
strongly worded letter that the contract must be issued in accordance
with the law. Also, a member of the Faculty Union hopes to send you a
letter soon in response to copies of your letters that I sent him
today.

Thank you once again for your support. And, again I apologize for
my tardy update, as explained above. Since I did not hear anything
further from you by email, and since you are naturally preoccupied by
cases besides my own, I was uncertain whether further updates were
appropriate.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.