The American Institute in Taiwan
April 2, 2011
Dear AIT Offiicials,
What are the options for an American citizen in Taiwan who is subject to egregiously unfair rulings under Taiwan's justice system.
In 1999 I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University. The ruling was overturned by the Ministry of Education in January 2001, but the university refused to enforce that ruling for more than two and a half years (see attached).
During the dismissal action the university claimed foreign teachers were not protected by the Teachers Law, itself a discriminatory claim by a high-ranked Taiwan university having numerous academic exchanges with reputable US universities. Then, although the university itself held appeal hearings and attended MOE hearings in Taipei, it claimed, after the appeal ruling favored me, that foreign teachers had no right to appeal and contested the Ministry ruling in court.
Court rulings suggest a pattern of discrimination. Although university officials circulated accusations against me without attempting to prove them or even notify me of the accusations, the case was rejected on the basis the accusations were not published outside the university, even though they were used to effect my dismissal from the university and all libel statutes I have read say libel is committed if one person other than the plaintiff reads the false accusation.
Similarly, the student who wrote a malicious letter against me was excused on the basis her letter did not directly cause my dismissal, though the letter was secretly circulated at several dismissal hearings and, in fact, was solicited for that purpose after initial accusations against me were discredited. (These are all facts documented in the university's own minutes.)
Although university officials acted in reckless disregard of the law and of human rights (see attached), the courts imposed no punitive damages. Similarly, apart from retroactive salary, the courts awarded me no compensatory damages, though my academic career was interrupted for four years and I paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in court fees and travel costs to renew my visa, not to mention hundreds of hours spent writing letters (such as this one) over twelve years trying to obtain justice.
I think officials in Taiwan believe that so long as foreigners are allowed to file lawsuits, justice is served, regardless of the outcome of the suit. It reminds me of a line from a Shakespeare play, "I can call the dead from their graves too, but will they come?" Sure, I can sue officials in Taiwan: but will I win?
My request for compensation was denied by the courts on the claim there was no reason for me to reside in Taiwan to contest my case! How could I have contested my case in the United States? In another case, when an American returned to the United States during a custody dispute with a Taiwanese woman, the court ruled against him on the basis he returned to the United States and so showed he had no parental concern for the child. "Heads I win, tails you lose."
Academic and cultural exchanges between nations can only take place on the basis of mutual respect, not evident in the university's misconduct or in court rulings on my case. I should add that not a single human rights group in Taiwan has responded to my request for assistance.
Several years ago National Cheng Kung University students were caught illegally uploading copyrighted music and within hours several Taiwan lawyers volunteered pro bono assistance to those students. I find it odd that Taiwan lawyers were willing, in a matter of hours, to volunteer pro bono assistance to students who technically broke the law but, in thirteen years, not a single Taiwan lawyer has volunteered to take my case to uphold the law!
The Latin words "pro bono" mean "for the good (of the cause)." But Taiwan lawyers seem to think that Taiwan students who illegally upload copyrighted music have a more worthy cause than an American teacher who is illegally fired. Is that the way to insure law and human rights in Taiwan?
American legal aids daily volunteer their services to immigrant residents in America who find themselves in legal straits in cases more complicated than mine. Yet there is no attempt in Taiwan to reciprocate treatment to Americans.
English-language newspapers have repeatedly declined to publish letters exposing my case. But within hours of the taekowondo incident Taiwan's press and the Internet bubbled with outrage over the perceived injustice suffered by a Taiwanese citizen and the athlete was promptly offered free legal assistance.
I don't understand the disparity in handling these cases. The Taiwan people are given voice in the American congress, despite the many issues the American government is faced with daily. Yet not a single Taiwan legislator has voiced my case. Apart from law, how is the principle of reciprocity honored in Taiwan?
I, or a Chinese colleague, have repeatedly sent letters (in Chinese and English) to the Ministry of Education, the Control Yuan, the Prime Minister, and Taiwan's president, to no avail. The letters aren't even answered.
Surely the issues are plain enough to indicate discrimination against an American citizen in Taiwan, and so justify some kind of American mediation.
Thank you for whatever assistance I receive.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Legal Aid and Human Rights in Taiwan
LEGAL AID FOUNDATION
Tainan, Taiwan
Thanks for your advice to contact the president of Taiwan. But I did that several times in the past, in both Chinese (by proxy) and in English.
I also repeatedly contacted other agencies, including probably two dozen emails to the Control Yuan and a face-to-face meeting with a Control Yuan official who declined to respond when I asked how the Control Yuan could ignore the university's misconduct. The official, through a translator, declined to answer and said he would contact a colleague and member of National Cheng Kung University's Teachers Union. He never did.
You also recommended I contact the president of the United States. Frankly, I was hoping for legal assistance in Taiwan. To be fair, you argued you only take indigent cases. But I wish to address wider issues here.
Several years ago National Cheng Kung University students were caught illegally uploading copyrighted music and within hours several lawyers volunteered pro bono assistance to those students. I find it odd that Taiwan lawyers were willing, in a matter of hours, to volunteer pro bono assistance to students who technically broke the law but, in thirteen years, not a single Taiwan lawyer has volunteered to take my case to uphold the law!
What do the Latin words "pro bono" mean? They mean "for the good (of the cause)."
Taiwan lawyers seem to think that Taiwan students who illegally upload copyrighted music have a more worthy cause than an American teacher who is illegally fired. Is that the way to insure law and human rights in Taiwan?
American legal aids daily volunteer their services to immigrant residents in America who find themselves in legal straits in cases less black and white than my own. Yet there is no attempt in Taiwan to reciprocate treatment to Americans.
English-language newspapers have repeatedly declined to publish my letters exposing my case. But within hours of the taekowondo incident Taiwan's press and the Internet bubbled with outrage over the perceived injustice suffered by a Taiwanese citizen and the athlete was promptly offered free legal assistance.
I don't understand the disparity in handling these cases. The Taiwan people are given voice in the American congress, despite the many issues Americans are faced with daily, including multiple military conflicts. Yet not a single Taiwan legislator has voiced my case in Taiwan's legislature. Apart from law, how is the principle of reciprocity honored in Taiwan?
Moreover, this issue does not just concern me. It concerns a high-ranked university. If it is not a "good cause" to insure human rights at a high-ranked university, then what is?
Democracy is a house in daily need of repair and renovation. A small leak in the house, if ignored, can weaken the whole building.
The law is built on case precedent and legal principles fought case by case. Academic writings don't establish law, they express opinions.
The law is a job of work, with numerous lawyers rolling up their sleeves and getting the job done in courts all over the country. If a person deprived of teaching for four years is not compensated, and if pro bono lawyers don't think that a "good cause," what kind of precedent is that in Taiwan law?
If a person robs a bank and is merely asked to return the money, that is not a good precedent to deter bank robbers. If a person kidnaps a child for four years, is it right to say, as has been said in my case, the mother "won" because she got her child back? Will the courts not punish the kidnapper with a long prison sentence for the four years the mother lost her child? Should the courts not punish university officials for interrupting my academic career for four years?
Should the National Cheng Kung University lawyer, who presided over appeal hearings at the university and even attended one at the Ministry of Education in Taipei, then be allowed to argue, out of both sides of his mouth, that a foreign teacher is not allowed to appeal? What kind of precedent is that in Taiwan law?
A court is established on legal principles, or should be. It involves legal debate, not mere argument. Those principles are established to uncover the truth, and to protect right from wrong.
Democracy is not, as one of my students said in class, doing whatever you want to do! In the famous US court ruling, freedom of speech does not mean one can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The law, in other words, is principled. Courts argue principles of law, not unprincipled opinions.
"Estoppel" is one such principle. Whether that principle exists in Taiwan law is another issue. But some such principle must exist, assuming Taiwan courts are involved in legal debate, based on principle, laws, and reason ("what the common citizen would do or think"), and not mere contention (he says, she says; I want, she wants).
Only a naive person believes court testimony is always truthful; but, in principle, testimony must always be truthful; and when it can be proved otherwise (as in the case with the lawyer), the court imposes (or should impose) penalties.
It's a known fact the university held appeal hearings. It's a known fact the lawyer later said I was not entitled to an appeal.
The lawyer must have been lying in the first instance or in the second instance. Should a court, in principle, accept a lie as part of a legal argument?
Saying there is no estoppel in Taiwan does not address the issue. The issue is, can there be law without a principle of estoppel? Can there be law if the court is a forum to conceal, instead of to reveal, the truth?
In principle I should not be allowed to fire a person for always being drunk and then, when that is disproved in court, claim I fired him for always being late.
It's not true a person's court testimony is protected. That is true only if the facts are contestatory ("he says, she says"), not if the facts are independently verified, say by a video recording.
If I swear in court I never beat my wife and a secret video shows otherwise, then I committed perjury, unless that video can be contested or the testimony defended on "reasonable" grounds. For example, I might not remember I beat my wife fifteen years ago; there's "reasonable" doubt that might protect my testimony.
I think officials in Taiwan believe that so long as foreigners are allowed to file lawsuits, then justice is served, regardless of the outcome of the suit. It reminds me of a line from a Shakespeare play, "I can call the dead from their graves too, but will they come?" Sure, I can sue officials in Taiwan: but will I win?
Am I supposed to boast of democracy in Taiwan because I can file a suit against powerful university officials even though, despite facts and a preponderance of evidence on my side, I cannot win?
Though Americans are supposedly liked and even honored in Taiwan in fact we are treated the way, for example, women were once treated in the US, but given half pay in the workplace; the way Americans are given half justice in Taiwan's courts.
The facts are plain. Accusations were not even investigated but used to dismiss me. I wasn't even notified of the dismissal meeting. To insure my dismissal a secret letter was solicited. I read the letter only years later when I took the student to court.
No one involved in these abuses was punished. Many were promoted. One is now chair, another dean. The university president who refused to enforce a legal Ministry ruling to reinstate me was later approved for a second three-year term as president.
The courts awarded me no compensatory damages, though my academic career was interrupted for four years and I paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in court fees and travel costs to renew my visa, not to mention hundreds of hours spent writing letters (such as this one) over twelve years trying to obtain justice.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
PS: This case has now entered its thirteenth year.
Tainan, Taiwan
Thanks for your advice to contact the president of Taiwan. But I did that several times in the past, in both Chinese (by proxy) and in English.
I also repeatedly contacted other agencies, including probably two dozen emails to the Control Yuan and a face-to-face meeting with a Control Yuan official who declined to respond when I asked how the Control Yuan could ignore the university's misconduct. The official, through a translator, declined to answer and said he would contact a colleague and member of National Cheng Kung University's Teachers Union. He never did.
You also recommended I contact the president of the United States. Frankly, I was hoping for legal assistance in Taiwan. To be fair, you argued you only take indigent cases. But I wish to address wider issues here.
Several years ago National Cheng Kung University students were caught illegally uploading copyrighted music and within hours several lawyers volunteered pro bono assistance to those students. I find it odd that Taiwan lawyers were willing, in a matter of hours, to volunteer pro bono assistance to students who technically broke the law but, in thirteen years, not a single Taiwan lawyer has volunteered to take my case to uphold the law!
What do the Latin words "pro bono" mean? They mean "for the good (of the cause)."
Taiwan lawyers seem to think that Taiwan students who illegally upload copyrighted music have a more worthy cause than an American teacher who is illegally fired. Is that the way to insure law and human rights in Taiwan?
American legal aids daily volunteer their services to immigrant residents in America who find themselves in legal straits in cases less black and white than my own. Yet there is no attempt in Taiwan to reciprocate treatment to Americans.
English-language newspapers have repeatedly declined to publish my letters exposing my case. But within hours of the taekowondo incident Taiwan's press and the Internet bubbled with outrage over the perceived injustice suffered by a Taiwanese citizen and the athlete was promptly offered free legal assistance.
I don't understand the disparity in handling these cases. The Taiwan people are given voice in the American congress, despite the many issues Americans are faced with daily, including multiple military conflicts. Yet not a single Taiwan legislator has voiced my case in Taiwan's legislature. Apart from law, how is the principle of reciprocity honored in Taiwan?
Moreover, this issue does not just concern me. It concerns a high-ranked university. If it is not a "good cause" to insure human rights at a high-ranked university, then what is?
Democracy is a house in daily need of repair and renovation. A small leak in the house, if ignored, can weaken the whole building.
The law is built on case precedent and legal principles fought case by case. Academic writings don't establish law, they express opinions.
The law is a job of work, with numerous lawyers rolling up their sleeves and getting the job done in courts all over the country. If a person deprived of teaching for four years is not compensated, and if pro bono lawyers don't think that a "good cause," what kind of precedent is that in Taiwan law?
If a person robs a bank and is merely asked to return the money, that is not a good precedent to deter bank robbers. If a person kidnaps a child for four years, is it right to say, as has been said in my case, the mother "won" because she got her child back? Will the courts not punish the kidnapper with a long prison sentence for the four years the mother lost her child? Should the courts not punish university officials for interrupting my academic career for four years?
Should the National Cheng Kung University lawyer, who presided over appeal hearings at the university and even attended one at the Ministry of Education in Taipei, then be allowed to argue, out of both sides of his mouth, that a foreign teacher is not allowed to appeal? What kind of precedent is that in Taiwan law?
A court is established on legal principles, or should be. It involves legal debate, not mere argument. Those principles are established to uncover the truth, and to protect right from wrong.
Democracy is not, as one of my students said in class, doing whatever you want to do! In the famous US court ruling, freedom of speech does not mean one can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The law, in other words, is principled. Courts argue principles of law, not unprincipled opinions.
"Estoppel" is one such principle. Whether that principle exists in Taiwan law is another issue. But some such principle must exist, assuming Taiwan courts are involved in legal debate, based on principle, laws, and reason ("what the common citizen would do or think"), and not mere contention (he says, she says; I want, she wants).
Only a naive person believes court testimony is always truthful; but, in principle, testimony must always be truthful; and when it can be proved otherwise (as in the case with the lawyer), the court imposes (or should impose) penalties.
It's a known fact the university held appeal hearings. It's a known fact the lawyer later said I was not entitled to an appeal.
The lawyer must have been lying in the first instance or in the second instance. Should a court, in principle, accept a lie as part of a legal argument?
Saying there is no estoppel in Taiwan does not address the issue. The issue is, can there be law without a principle of estoppel? Can there be law if the court is a forum to conceal, instead of to reveal, the truth?
In principle I should not be allowed to fire a person for always being drunk and then, when that is disproved in court, claim I fired him for always being late.
It's not true a person's court testimony is protected. That is true only if the facts are contestatory ("he says, she says"), not if the facts are independently verified, say by a video recording.
If I swear in court I never beat my wife and a secret video shows otherwise, then I committed perjury, unless that video can be contested or the testimony defended on "reasonable" grounds. For example, I might not remember I beat my wife fifteen years ago; there's "reasonable" doubt that might protect my testimony.
I think officials in Taiwan believe that so long as foreigners are allowed to file lawsuits, then justice is served, regardless of the outcome of the suit. It reminds me of a line from a Shakespeare play, "I can call the dead from their graves too, but will they come?" Sure, I can sue officials in Taiwan: but will I win?
Am I supposed to boast of democracy in Taiwan because I can file a suit against powerful university officials even though, despite facts and a preponderance of evidence on my side, I cannot win?
Though Americans are supposedly liked and even honored in Taiwan in fact we are treated the way, for example, women were once treated in the US, but given half pay in the workplace; the way Americans are given half justice in Taiwan's courts.
The facts are plain. Accusations were not even investigated but used to dismiss me. I wasn't even notified of the dismissal meeting. To insure my dismissal a secret letter was solicited. I read the letter only years later when I took the student to court.
No one involved in these abuses was punished. Many were promoted. One is now chair, another dean. The university president who refused to enforce a legal Ministry ruling to reinstate me was later approved for a second three-year term as president.
The courts awarded me no compensatory damages, though my academic career was interrupted for four years and I paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in court fees and travel costs to renew my visa, not to mention hundreds of hours spent writing letters (such as this one) over twelve years trying to obtain justice.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
PS: This case has now entered its thirteenth year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)