Letter to Taipei Times

12/12/2001 7:59 AM
Subject:To: letters@taipeitimes.com

Dear Editor,
Based on my experiences at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan,
I was, to say the least, bemused, if not amused, by your recent
editorial on the questionable status of human rights in Taiwan:

Chinese Association for Human Rights Chairman Chai Sung-lin
((r)ãªQªL) was off the mark when he said the condition of Taiwan's
human rights is "so pathetic one cannot even bear to look at it
(ºG¤£§Ô)." After all, this description is better-suited for
countries notorious for gross human rights violations such as
China.

Since I have already sent a letter regarding this issue (to the
best of my knowledge, never published), I should like to remind you
that, after teaching about 11 years at National Cheng Kung University,
in March of 1999, a secret meeting was held, secret and unproven
accusations were made, and I was dismissed.
In what other democracy in the world would secret accusations be
allowed like this and then used as a basis for dismissal, especially
after teaching at a university for more than ten years? Yet National
Cheng Kung University is the "fourth-ranked" university in Taiwan, as
I've been told, and officials at that university see no problem in
secret and unproven letters.
Now I won a university appeal in December 1999. But that appeal was
a tactical maneuver. For I was then informed that, as a foreigner, I
would have to be reviewed again. In other words (and I hope your
readers can follow this, and enjoy the humor in it as well), a person
has the right to appeal in order to have the right to appeal again.
Where in the world would this kind of duplicity be tolerated? In
fact, it wouldn’t be called duplicity in the democracy with which I am
familiar; it would be called fraud. Democracies are far more Confucian
than authoritarian societies, because they honor the Confucian
prescription to "rectify the names." As Confucius knew, without a
proper naming of things, there is no justice.
After two years of countless committee hearings and committee
appeals, during which accusations changed like the weather, I finally
won an appeal decision at the Ministry of Education Appeal Committee. I
received notice of my victory early this year, around the Chinese Lunar
New Year.
The New Year is usually celebrated as a time of moral renewal, as
well as a mere passing of time. Well, time has merely passed, with no
moral renewal; I have still not received either my teaching contract or
compensation. How is this possible in an "advanced democracy" such as
Taiwan is claimed to be?
You see, believe it or not, apparently National Cheng Kung
University can defy the Ministry of Education ruling, as well as several
subsequent reminders that the university abide by the law and issue me a
teaching contract. However, the university claims, as it did
once before, that winning an appeal merely gives me, the appellant, the
right to appeal again. Therefore, winning two appeals merely gives me
the right to appeal a third time.
Apparently a foreigner has neither honor nor legal protections in
Taiwan. In fact, in defiance of the Ministry ruling, the university
convened a series of committee meetings to accuse me and review me all
over again.
Now, in the democracy with which I am familiar, this is called
abuse of power. If the Ministry of Education concluded the appeal
process in my favor, one assumes, perhaps naively, that any subsequent
university meetings using the same accusations are unsanctioned, and
therefore an abuse of official power. But perhaps there is no such
concept, and no such legal protection against this, in Taiwan.
Or perhaps these protections apply, but not to foreigners. But
then I question the degree to which democracy has been established in
Taiwan. And where there is no democracy, there is unlikely to be
human rights.
Now, in the democracy with which I am familiar, a president
of a university who defied a Ministry ruling would be dismissed, then
probably prosecuted. Similarly, a legal adviser who counseled, in any
way, defiance or obstruction of the law, or of the execution of the law,
would be subject to both legal and professional penalties (for example,
disbarrment). At least in the democracy with which I am familiar, legal
counsel cannot advocate, in any way, defiance of the law, impeding the
law, or legal duplicity. This is generally subject to penalties under
the sanctions against obstruction of justice. Even presidents and
ex-presidents have been subject to these penalties.
Now by law is usually meant the face meaning of the law. Nobody
can "interpret" a law or ruling in any way but the apparent way it is
intended; the way that the "common person" or traditional practice would
understand the meaning. If I am shown a picture of a car and pay
NT800,000 for it, the law interprets the transaction at face value to
mean I will get the car, not a picture of the car. If I agree, in
Taiwan, to pay 500,000 dollars, the law in Taiwan interprets this, at
face value, to mean Taiwan currency, unless clearly spelled out
otherwise. I cannot pay with weaker foreign currency and make a profit
on the exchange rate. Such devious verbal transactions are not allowed;
and they would not be tolerated as "reasonable" actions under the
circumstances. In the same way, a teacher cannot tell a student after
she has passed a course that she must pass again, because she is a
foreign student.
But forget the law for the moment. Forget principles of due
process, of double jeopardy, and all the rest. For I know from personal
experience here in Taiwan that just mentioning the word "law" to
colleagues proud of their norm of "relationships" can jeopardize the
dialogue.
So let's, for the moment, discard the notion of law. What about
universally shared moral principles, such as honesty, not telling lies,
keeping one's word, good faith, honor, fair play, and all the rest? Do
these words ring a bell?
If not, what about the notion of reciprocity, so valued in Chinese
culture? How many Taiwan parents would appreciate it if their child
passed a college course in America but was then told that, being a
foreign student, she had to pass the course again; and then again after
that; until, in other words, she failed or gave up the course?
In fact, just recently the Taiwan government appealed to this very
concept of "reciprocity" when the Mexican government put Taiwan citizens
on a list of immigration risks. The Taiwan government retaliated
immediately by suspending previous visa privileges allowed Mexican
nationals. Why does Taiwan's government invoke the principle of
reciprocity on behalf of Taiwan citizens but not on behalf of foreign
citizens who are unjustly treated in Taiwan?
Now moral principles are shared by Judeo-Christian traditions as
well as Confucian traditions; by most Asian and Western religions and
philosophies. Aren't these the moral principles we teach our young
people. Aren't these the moral principles we expect our students to
follow?
But how can a student believe in moral principles, such as keeping
one's word, not telling lies, and all the rest, when a president of a
university is able to scorn an appeal process fully sanctioned by his
own university, and then by the Ministry of Education? Are we to teach
students and young people that they should observe moral principles,
unless they have enough power, money, or authority to defy or obstruct
these principles? If so, where does authority come from, since it
doesn't come from law and moral principles?
Are the rules of an appeal process merely in the eye of the
beholder? But then, students may argue, cheating on an exam is also in
the eye of the beholder.
In fact, if the reputation of a university is not based on moral
principle, on what can it based? On academic standards? But academic
standards are based on moral principles. We honor grading because we
assume, for example, an honest teacher and an honest Dean of Academic
Affairs. We also assume a legitimate academic review process, bound by
laws and sanctions.
It is not sufficient, for example, to vote one's conscience, if
one's conscience does not recognize the law. Failure of moral or legal
standards anywhere in a university undermines the entire university;
and, if tolerated by a Ministry of Education, it undermines the
reputation of all universities in that country.
I have now spent nearly three years fighting this case. It is as if
I have been held as a political hostage in Taiwan. I have exhausted
much of my savings. I have suspended my teaching career. I have gone
without health insurance, and therefore proper medical care, for almost
three years. I have had to take countless and costly trips abroad to
renew my visa. Sympathetic colleagues have expended their valuable time
in doing the work that tax-paid officials should have done, assuming
they were honorable.
As both a teacher and individual, I have been insulted by secret
accusations and by countless committee hearings that accept those
accusations at face value, even after I have been exonerated by the
highest review committee in the nation (the Ministry of Education Appeal
Committee). Meanwhile, university officials, in apparent defiance of
the law, have, to the best of my knowledge, gone unpunished, either by
the Ministry of Education, the Control Yuan, or other organs of
government.
At the same time, the so-called free press in Taiwan has yet to
expose this scandal, although it has been informed. Conversely, a
questionable conflict of interest at a Hong Kong university about a year
ago made front-page news and prime-time television news broadcasts. I
know, because I was in Hong Kong at the time.
A democracy without a responsible citizenry and investigative press
may have laws but no law, in the democratic sense. Democracy is not
exercised by debating its principles at international conferences
abroad, but by espousing its principles and exposing abuses at home.
So, in light of your editorial, let me ask you: do you consider the
violations listed here "notorious" "human rights violations," to quote
phrases from that editorial? If not, perhaps the press outside of
Taiwan, including public and campus newspapers in Hong Kong, America,
and England, will deem otherwise.