Letter to Scholars at Risk

Scholars at Risk

Dear Professor Yuh Wen Ling,

I appreciate your interest in the issues of this case. However, I
would like you to clarify the level of involvement of you or SAR in this
case. In a strict sense, nobody is at "risk" here. And I am certain
there are graver issues brought to the attention of SAR. Still, I would
like to make several points:
1. Although I was reluctant to contact SAR, my Chinese colleagues
insisted I do so. (In fact, one of them forwarded your web page to
me.) They remain seriously concerned about the failure of legal
implementation here.
2. I use the phrase "legal implementation" because of the devious or
convoluted nature of adjudication involved. Just now, we returned from
a court session and the university lawyer did not even deign to appear,
requesting a postponement until mid-August. It was granted. Yet it is
obvious that, lacking any legal justification in their case against me,
the university knows its only hope are these endless delays (presumably,
I cannot stay and fight this case much longer).
Indeed, in one form or another, the university administration has
effected delays for more than two years now. This is without doubt the
most devious adjudication one could imagine. Let me sum up once more:
1. My dismissal was voted in March of 1999. There were so many
irregularities and legal violations, my Chinese colleagues assured me
the case could not possibly pass.
2. Nonetheless, it did pass, without any real investigation, defense,
etc. The dismissal notice itself was clearly libelous and based merely
on unproven and undocumented accusations that have since been rejected
by the MOE appeal committee.
3. Under the circumstances, the University Appeal Committee had to
cancel the dismissal. But, very deviously, they did not award me the
retroactive contract/salary, as logically/legally they should have.
Instead, they concocted an argument that as a foreigner, I had to have
another review!
4. After countless delays, the university passed the same dismissal,
using the same uninvestigated accusations. This time the University
Appeals committee passed it. By this time, there was no doubt in the
minds of my sympathetic colleagues that the case was an albatross for
the university and they approved the dismissal hoping to discourage me.
5. In January of this year, in a strongly worded decision, the
Ministry of Education Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal. The MOE
decision pointed out that not a single accusation was proven or
investigated as it should have been and therefore the dismissal could
not be maintained.
6. The University deviously "interpeted" this to mean that I should be
reviewed again.
7. The Ministry of Education sent a strongly worded letter that the
decision can only mean my contract should be revived and appropriate
compensation issued.
8. The university ignored this too. The MOE sent another letter
saying, in plain language, to issue the contract immediately.
9. The university has ignored this.
10. In defiance of universally recognized principles of the terminal
process of appeal, and in defiance of the MOE appeal decision as well as
two MOE letters mentioned above, the university reviewed me yet again!
Under protest, and referring to my appeal victory, I declined to respond
to accusations already rejected by the MOE appeal judgment. Still under
protest, I was persuaded by sympathetic colleagues to appear before the
University appeal committee. We circulated my protest to the MOE as
well. I wished to make clear from the beginning that I could not accept
the legality of any hearing following my MOE victory and using the same
accusations.
11. This Monday (23 July) was the university hearing. My colleague
spoke on my behalf and clarified all the issues. We also issued a
written statement making clear that I was there under protest and did
not acknowledge the legality of the hearing, since the MOE had issued an
appeal decision in my favor.
12. The university appeal committee decided not to make any decision,
but to wait for the court case this morning (25 July).
13. The university lawyer did not even appear and the case was
postponed to mid-August.
The issues here are very plain.
Clearly, a Taiwan university is declining to honor basic and universal
principles of justice, good faith, and fair play. The university has
rules of investigation and does not abide by them. It has legal
principles and does not abide by them. It has an appeal process and
does not abide by the decision or makes a devious interpretation: I'm a
foreigner and am therefore not protected by the appeal process. Why
have an appeal process at all? The MOE reviews the case and issues its
decision and the university does not abide by it. The MOE issues two
interpretations of its decision, namely that the university should issue
a contract and retroactive compensation, and the university does not
honor this.
I spoke to a friendly judge not involved in my case. I challenged her
to name another country in the world where an appeal decision is not
honored. She could not do so. I repeatedly asked her, "What is the
point of having an appeal process if the university does not have to
honor the appeal decision? If I lose, I lose; if I win I lose also. So
why have an appeal process?" She could not answer.
Apart from other avenues we've been advised to seek, my sympathetic
colleagues once more encouraged me to seek assistance from the American
congress. Clearly, what is happening in this situation is wrong, at
almost every level one looks at it. It goes against universally
acknowledged principles of legal process and legal sense (how can a
professor win an appeal only to be forced to appeal again?). It goes
against principles of fair play, honor, and good faith. Obviously, if
the university never intended to honor an appeal, why not at least say
so from the beginning? Finally, it goes against rules of international
reciprocity. Why should Taiwan professors be protected by American laws
if American professors are not protected by Taiwan laws? And make no
mistake: The laws are there but they are being deviously interpreted by
some parties, or defied in some instances (as when the university defies
the Ministry of Education decision), or simply ignored. In addition,
because of the endless institutional resources and monetary means the
university has, it can indulge every routine of delay at its
convenience, while even a couple of weeks delay may mean a lot to me. I
emphasize, this case has been in continuous adjudication since March of
1999! (I should inform you that National Cheng Kung University is
considered one of the leading universities in Taiwan.)
Surely there is something Scholars at Risk can do here. Is it possible
to issue a statement such as this: "Taiwan professors are protected by
legal process and laws in foreign countries; we expect foreign
professors to be similarly protected when they teach at Taiwan
universities."
At the same time, I am planning to contact an American senator about
this issue. If you know of any who would be particularly concerned
about this issue, please let me know.
Like my Chinese colleagues insist, we have waited for justice within
the Taiwan system long enough. If Taiwan academics wish to have the
sympathy of the international community, they have got to practically
implement democratic laws and protections in addition to writing them
down.
In any case, please respond to this email one way or another; and
please make your position, or the position of SAR plain; because,
although I contacted SAR many months ago, I am still unclear about the
level or kind of interest you support.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio.