Letter to Scholars at Risk

Scholars at Risk

Dear Professor Yuh,

Thanks for your email.
Since I last wrote, the Taiwan Ministry of Education Appeal
Committee ruled, in February, 2001, to invalidate 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 the 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. Indeed, 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
(accusations made in unidentified letters, etc.).
In addition, although Ministry of Education laws 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 status.
As you can see, this involves the issue of "double jeopardy"
(regardless its name in Taiwan law) as
well as the right to appeal.
For I have won on appeal on two different
occasions:
The first was the University appeal decision, which, I was
then
informed, 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, apart from common sense
(why have an appeal, if nothing is gained
by appeal?), a Tainan expert in university law assured me that, since
I won my university appeal, I should request my retroactive contract and
back salary. But these, in fact, were never issued.
Then, after winning my Ministry of Education appeal decision, and
following several stern notices by the Ministry of Education that the
university immediately issue me my contract, the university is still
reprobately
insisting
that I be reviewed again. They have since established a pretense of
having an outside committee investigate accusations against me. They
have 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. Now, I ask
you: 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.
These 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 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? This case is
not only an example of injustice against an individual, but it is a
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.
This law is very ambiguous. Some Chinese colleagues, who have both
a legal and linguistic grasp of the law, insist the law was intended for
"laborers." Second, it was intended in a lenitive, rather than
punitive,
sense. That is to say, it was intended to "liberalize" or facilitate
the re-employment of foreign laborers directly by the employers
themselves, bypassing annual review by outside agencies. Indeed, the
Ministry of
Education appeal decision in my case asserted teachers are protected in
all cases by the universal Teacher's Law, except where the Teacher's Law
does not apply. Finally, I have been informed that there is a
Grandfather's
clause to that Employment Law, and that it should not apply
retroactively.
There are several issues here. First, regardless of the Employment
law or how it is interpreted, in an academic community, all academics
should be treated equally. Taiwan professors, so far as I know, do not
receive
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?). Third, academics (in Taiwan as elsewhere) should
make policy in an honorable, which means a patent, manner with patent or
obvious
meanings. The law should not allow meanings to be "teased" out of or
into it. In any case, one would have hoped that, by now, the Ministry
of Education would have issued a formal announcement addressing the
key issues of this law, regarding its application, its limits, its
retroactive protections, and so forth. Because the law, framed as it
is, in effect allows unrestricted abuse by any official against 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 meaning 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 other academics here, assuming they
reciprocate the (usually) fair and just treatment they or their
relatives receive in foreign countries where they matriculate or teach.
But, to be honest, 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);
or, if they do care, do not care enough to do anything about
it. 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.