Letter to Scholars at Risk

Yuh Wen Ling
Scholars at Risk ~ The University of Chicago
Email: yuhwen.ling@eudoramail.com


Dear Professor Yuh,
Thanks for your email.
Since I last wrote, the Taiwan Ministry of Education Appeal
Committee ruled, in February, 2001, to cancel my dismissal, finding
countless irregularities committed during the many committee hearings on
my case.
They have also issued several notices since then to reactivate my
teaching contract immediately. But, thus far, these have been ignored
by the university. Hence, I have filed a lawsuit for the issuance of my
contract and for compensatory ("spiritual") damages, mostly to cover
costs accrued during the nearly two and a half years of my appeal.
Apart from pending issues, I wish to emphasize key points here.
The main point is that National Cheng Kung University has repeatedly
shown it is unwilling to "play" by rules or norms recognized by much of
the international community. Therefore, these violations should concern
the international community.
First, officials here have repeatedly failed to observe even the
most basic protections of legal rights, including the right to defense,
the obligation to investigate and prove accusations, the right against
"double jeopardy," and the right to appeal.
For example, often I am not even notified of accusations against me,
much less invited to defend myself against them.
Repeatedly (indeed, as recently as June of this year), accusations
are made of which I am not even aware, except by general reference
(vague accusations made in unidentified letters, etc.).
In addition, although Ministry of Education laws clearly require
that all accusations be investigated, new accusations are repeatedly
made against
me without being investigated, much less proven; while old accusations,
although already rejected by the Ministry of Education Appeal decision,
are repeatedly made again; as if, indeed, an appeal decision was merely
a piece of paper and had no binding legal status.
As you can see, this involves the issue of "double jeopardy"
(regardless what it is called in Taiwan law) as well as the right to
appeal.
It is important to stress that I have won on appeal on two separate
occasions:
The first was the University appeal decision. However, I was then told
that the decision was not binding, since I was a foreigner and had to be
reviewed again. In other words, laws at National Cheng Kung University
do not apply equally to foreign faculty! Yet even a Taiwan legal
professor, and expert on university laws, insisted to me that I had won
the appeal, therefore was entitled to a retroactive contract and back
pay! But the university ignored due process, based on what are
obviously devious readings of laws.
Then, after winning my Ministry of Education appeal decision, and
following several admonitory notices from the Ministry of Education to
issue the contract, the university is still reprobatively insisting
that I be reviewed again. Indeed, they have since established a
pretense of having an outside committee investigate accusations against
me, even though those are the same accusations the Ministry of Education
rejected in my appeal victory. The university has notified me of a new
hearing in my case; but I have protested these actions to be in
violation of the law; and, specifically, in violation
of the Ministry of Education appeal decision in my favor.
Let me ask you a direct question: in what other democratic nation in
the world would appeal
decisions be nullified in this manner? This is not only in contempt of
a specific ruling but of general, and universally acknowledged
principles of justice and fair play.
In addition, under the cover (or "color") of office, university
officials are engaged in an obvious policy of persecution; because, as
the Ministry of Education appeal judgment pointed out, accusations are
constantly changed, added, and dropped on whim.
There is, in other words, not even the pretense of legal process at
National Cheng Kung University. The university simply does not want to
"lose" the case (therefore "lose face") regardless of both Taiwan and
international legal norms.
It is important to point out that there is really no institutionalized
advocacy here as in other democratic countries. Foreigners are pretty
much on their own when it comes to institutionalized advocacy.
For example, in America, a foreigner would have a bevy of ACLU lawyers
taking up such a case, since it is a clear-cut case of discrimination.
There would also be wide-spread media coverage.
Indeed, last year, a reasonably similar case of official misprision at
a Hong Kong university drew massive media attention and student
protests, forcing a serious administrative investigation. I know,
because I was in Hong Kong during one phase of the investigations.
But Taiwan, in general, has a very inactive faculty. And when I phoned
the Taiwan Association for Human Rights two years ago, the person I
contacted said as much; in fact, he claimed there were only one or two
colleagues working with him! He said there was not much interest in
human rights here.
Therefore, please understand, that if it were not for a few colleagues
who have supported me from the very beginning, based solely on their
sense of justice, I could not possibly have contested this case, much
less won it (and, as I indicated above, even this, against all legal
principles, continues to be disputed by the university).
The residence problem in itself has been a serious obstacle in fighting
this case; and, disreputable as it seems, there is no question that
university officials have hoped, for the more than two years this case
has been contested, that I would not possibly be able to survive in
Taiwan long enough to obtain justice. I would get tired of having my
visa renewed (every two months), run out of money, need medical care (my
medical insurance was canceled with my contract), lack advocacy, or
numerous other problems facing a foreigner. And this kind of "dirty
pool" politics, by an institution presumably democratic in structure and
part of an international academic community, should be sanctioned.
In summary, university violations, including contempt for lawful
process and defiance of the Ministry of Education decision in my favor,
are egregious by any standards. I don't see why National Cheng Kung
University should be allowed, by the international community, to behave
like this with impunity. And my Chinese colleagues
here in Taiwan argue that NCKU would be more fearful of losing face and
suffering possible
sanctions in the international community than of lawsuits or possible
internal sanctions imposed by the Ministry of Education here.
Clearly, what is happening at National Cheng Kung University is not
merely wrong, but grievously wrong. Apart from all other issues,
already covered here and in documents included in previous email, if an
appeal decision is not honored, then why have an appeal process at all?
If the university knew it would not honor an appeal, why allow the
appeal in the first place?
This case is not only an example of injustice against an individual, but
it is, indeed, a blatant mockery of the very idea of justice or of any
process enforcing it.
Finally, there is the more general issue of the Employment Law
passed a couple of years ago. According to this law, foreign laborers
should be annually reviewed.
There are several issues here.
First, all academics should be treated equally. Taiwan professors, so
far as I know, do not suffer a double standard of treatment at British
or American universities.
Second, even if we resign ourselves to this unjust double standard
governing foreign and native faculty, most democracies would agree that
no law should be applied retroactively in any case (how can one nullify
assumed rights at a later date?).
Although the meaning of the law has been contested, it enabled the
chairman of my department to "review" all foreign teachers, regardless
how long we’ve been teaching at the university, as if we were, indeed,
hired laborers rather than colleagues.
Finally, the law is being used to intimidate foreign teachers here. My
Chinese colleagues have informed me of several cases of foreigners who
were dismissed based on this Employment law. Rather than put up a
lengthy battle in the courts to establish the application or proper
interpretation of the law, they gave up the fight and bitterly left, one
(a French
teacher, as I've been told) with a broken heart.
Obviously foreigners can't be expected to fight a lengthy battle of
judicial interpretation. This is
really the responsibility of Taiwan academics, assuming they reciprocate
the (usually) fair and just treatment they or their relatives receive in
foreign countries where they matriculate or teach.
But, as I observed above, with the exception of a very limited number
of conscientious colleagues, it seems that most Taiwan academics simply
do not care about general issues of legal protections of foreigners.
"Relationships" obtain in the university system, not laws; and
relationships favor Taiwan faculty, not foreigners. Hence, on
recommendation by those few conscientious colleagues, I appeal, instead,
to the international community.
Therefore, I would hope that you would take the more general issues
involved in this individual case seriously and that your sympathy and
concern will result in some form of intervention or policy position.
At the same time, a Chinese colleague has advanced the idea of perhaps
establishing a Taiwan branch of SCHOLARS AT RISK here in Taiwan.
Perhaps you could explain if this is possible and how to establish such
an affiliated branch here.
Thank you very much for your attention and assistance in this case.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.