11/22/2001 11:34 AM
Subject: Rights Violations in Taiwan
To: contactustr@ustr.gov
Dear United States Trade Representatives:
I am not certain if this is the proper committee to address. But,
if not, please advise me otherwise.
I am an American professor living in Taiwan.
Last January I won an appeal decision against National Cheng Kung
University in Tainan, Taiwan. The appeal decision, under the auspices
of Taiwan's Ministry of Education, reversed the university's illegal
dismissal action against me.
However, despite my appeal victory, the university has defied the
Ministry of Education's directive to "revive" my teaching contract at
National Cheng Kung University. Unbelievable as it may seem in the
United States, the Ministry of Education appears powerless to enforce
its own decision. Instead, it sends periodic letters to the university
to honor the decision.
This paper chase has been going on for almost a year. A
spokesperson from the Ministry even encouraged my personal lawsuit
against the university.
But the university appears to be indifferent to legal consequences.
It sees the lawsuit merely as another way to delay resolution of the
case, in hopes I will run out of money or will not be
able to maintain residence to contest the case further.
My appeal case, from the first dismissal, has already lasted more
than two-and-a-half years. In the meantime I have had to renew my visa
every two months, often traveling to Hong Kong or other countries to do
so. I have exhausted my savings. I have lived with no health care
during this period.
Except for a very few conscientious Taiwan colleagues who are
determined to have justice prevail, I have had no legal advocacy or
institutional support. There are no Civil Rights groups here that will
help, nor "pro bono" lawyers, nor other assistance that foreigners in
America take for granted.
My Chinese colleagues insist that contact with American officials
is necessary to effect a just resolution of this case. After all, I
know of no country in the world, much less a "democracy," where an
appeal decision, fully sanctioned by a country's Ministry, is not
honored. I know of no country in the world where an individual, least
of all a foreigner, is required to file a lawsuit on his own behalf in
order to execute a Ministry decision.
I don't think it's fair that Taiwan citizens are fully protected by
laws in foreign countries, but the Taiwan government does not similarly
protect foreigners in Taiwan. This kind of one-sided respect for
rights is not what one expects of a country that wants to join world
trade organizations. Money is not enough, if there is no respect for
laws and human rights.
I would appreciate your assistance or referral. If you wish, you
may contact the Ministry of Education directly.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626
Showing posts with label Human Rights in Taiwan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Rights in Taiwan. Show all posts
Monday, August 2, 2010
Legal Rights Abuses at National Cheng Kung University
4/28/2003 6:25 AM
Subject: Important: Legal rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan, Taiwan (ROC); in response to the president of NCKU claiming that
laws were observed in a dimissal action against an American
professor
To: tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org
CC: rquinn@uchicago.edu, Ray Dah-tong
Chien-jen (C.J.) Chen,
Dr. Lyushun Shen,
Mr. Michael Ming-Shian Tsai
Taiwan Representative Office
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO)
4201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016-2137
Tel: 202-895-1800
Fax: 202-363-0999
tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org
cc: Scholars at Risk
NCKU Faculty Union
27 April 2003
Dear Sirs,
I am outraged that Kao Chiang, the president of National Cheng Kung
University, claims the university has followed laws in my dismissal case
(Letter #0920002126, 23 April 2003).
From the beginning, my dismissal was illegal, based on secret and
unproved allegations (29 March 1999). To insure my dismissal, more
secret accusations were solicited (9 June 1999) and secretly circulated
(14, 25 June 1999).
These illegal actions are fully documented. Why does Kao Chiang
claim the university has followed laws? Is it lawful to libel a
professor or solicit secret letters against him?
On 3 December 1999, the University Appeal Committee canceled my
dismissal, yet the university refused to issue my contract (27 December
1999). Instead, it returned my case for further “review,” claiming the
Teacher’s Law does not protect foreign teachers. This decision not only
defied the Teacher’s Law, Article 32, but also commonsense: A final
appeal that subjects an appellant to further review is pointless.
But this decision was a tactical maneuver that allowed the
committee to ignore countless legal violations and cancel my dismissal
on a single technicality, assuming another cycle of review hearings
would discourage me. These hearings lasted from the Department of
Foreign Languages Review meeting on 10 March 2000 to the University
Appeal decision on 18 August 2000, which concluded that the Teacher’s
Law does not protect foreign teachers.
On 8 January 2001, the MOE Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and boldfaced rights violations. In defiance of that ruling, NCKU
refused to issue a contract (27 March 2001).
The MOE sent eight letters, on 11 May, 14 June, 7 August, 27
August, 3 May 2002, 15 October, 2 December, 17 January 2003 ordering the
university to issue the contract. The university defied these letters.
How can a university defy the Ministry of Education and claim to be
following laws?
In contempt of the Ministry ruling, the NCKU Review Committee
repeated its dismissal action (12 September 2001), using accusations the
Ministry already rejected. These hearings, in defiance of the Ministry
ruling, were illegal and doubly improper, since the university had not
even issued me a contract.
Kao Chiang claims observance of law. What law allows a university
to use tax-paid money to investigate a teacher without legal basis?
On 18 June 2002, the NCKU Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and again refused me a contract. Instead, the university filed a
lawsuit at the Tainan District Court, claiming, in denial of the
Ministry ruling, “there is no employment relationship between the NCKU
and De Canio.” Indifferent to legal principles, the lawyer now
contested my right to appeal at all, although I had already won several
appeals and been subjected to countless appeal hearings.
On 11 October 2002, the Tainan District Court ruled that, “until a
legal dismissal, the employment relationship between the NCKU and De
Canio is valid and continues.”
On 14 November 2002, the university appealed to the Taiwan Higher
Court. The judge asked NCKU to settle. In response, on 22 January
2003, university officials tried to extort a “settlement” that violated
the legal substance of the Ministry ruling, offering partial salary if I
resigned from the university. Otherwise, the university threatened to
contest the case for years.
These officials are not only without a sense of law, but without a
sense of shame. Hiding behind committees, they forget that committees
are not above the law, but answerable to the law.
The university’s contempt for human rights is obvious to anyone
with a fourth-grade education. Kao Chiang’s claims to be following laws
suggest a tactical ploy of naivete. But ignorance of the law, real or
feigned, is no excuse in law, where transparency, not duplicity, is the
rule.
The law is “what the common citizen understands it to be.” A legal
ruling is not a word puzzle, except to those puzzled by recognized
standards of good faith and fair play, such as keeping one’s word,
respecting final rulings, and, where wrongs are committed, admitting
them. Officials, who, by law, represent these values, must first uphold
them. They should be more concerned about the loss of those values than
their loss of face.
The goal of appeal is to insure that justice prevails. But in a
university where rule by committees has replaced rule by law, illegal
hearings are used punitively, to harass and intimidate and force an
appellant’s resignation.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my reputation,
medical care, income, and academic career. It has seriously undermined
confidence in administrative remedy at National Cheng Kung University.
Despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of Education,
and the Taiwan courts, university officials, using tactical delays, have
cost taxpayers millions of dollars and recklessly discredited their
university. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
they will not acknowledge the authority of the law until they stand in
judgment before it.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Subject: Important: Legal rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan, Taiwan (ROC); in response to the president of NCKU claiming that
laws were observed in a dimissal action against an American
professor
To: tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org
CC: rquinn@uchicago.edu, Ray Dah-tong
Chien-jen (C.J.) Chen,
Dr. Lyushun Shen,
Mr. Michael Ming-Shian Tsai
Taiwan Representative Office
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO)
4201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016-2137
Tel: 202-895-1800
Fax: 202-363-0999
tecroinfodc@tecro-info.org
cc: Scholars at Risk
NCKU Faculty Union
27 April 2003
Dear Sirs,
I am outraged that Kao Chiang, the president of National Cheng Kung
University, claims the university has followed laws in my dismissal case
(Letter #0920002126, 23 April 2003).
From the beginning, my dismissal was illegal, based on secret and
unproved allegations (29 March 1999). To insure my dismissal, more
secret accusations were solicited (9 June 1999) and secretly circulated
(14, 25 June 1999).
These illegal actions are fully documented. Why does Kao Chiang
claim the university has followed laws? Is it lawful to libel a
professor or solicit secret letters against him?
On 3 December 1999, the University Appeal Committee canceled my
dismissal, yet the university refused to issue my contract (27 December
1999). Instead, it returned my case for further “review,” claiming the
Teacher’s Law does not protect foreign teachers. This decision not only
defied the Teacher’s Law, Article 32, but also commonsense: A final
appeal that subjects an appellant to further review is pointless.
But this decision was a tactical maneuver that allowed the
committee to ignore countless legal violations and cancel my dismissal
on a single technicality, assuming another cycle of review hearings
would discourage me. These hearings lasted from the Department of
Foreign Languages Review meeting on 10 March 2000 to the University
Appeal decision on 18 August 2000, which concluded that the Teacher’s
Law does not protect foreign teachers.
On 8 January 2001, the MOE Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and boldfaced rights violations. In defiance of that ruling, NCKU
refused to issue a contract (27 March 2001).
The MOE sent eight letters, on 11 May, 14 June, 7 August, 27
August, 3 May 2002, 15 October, 2 December, 17 January 2003 ordering the
university to issue the contract. The university defied these letters.
How can a university defy the Ministry of Education and claim to be
following laws?
In contempt of the Ministry ruling, the NCKU Review Committee
repeated its dismissal action (12 September 2001), using accusations the
Ministry already rejected. These hearings, in defiance of the Ministry
ruling, were illegal and doubly improper, since the university had not
even issued me a contract.
Kao Chiang claims observance of law. What law allows a university
to use tax-paid money to investigate a teacher without legal basis?
On 18 June 2002, the NCKU Appeal Committee canceled my dismissal
and again refused me a contract. Instead, the university filed a
lawsuit at the Tainan District Court, claiming, in denial of the
Ministry ruling, “there is no employment relationship between the NCKU
and De Canio.” Indifferent to legal principles, the lawyer now
contested my right to appeal at all, although I had already won several
appeals and been subjected to countless appeal hearings.
On 11 October 2002, the Tainan District Court ruled that, “until a
legal dismissal, the employment relationship between the NCKU and De
Canio is valid and continues.”
On 14 November 2002, the university appealed to the Taiwan Higher
Court. The judge asked NCKU to settle. In response, on 22 January
2003, university officials tried to extort a “settlement” that violated
the legal substance of the Ministry ruling, offering partial salary if I
resigned from the university. Otherwise, the university threatened to
contest the case for years.
These officials are not only without a sense of law, but without a
sense of shame. Hiding behind committees, they forget that committees
are not above the law, but answerable to the law.
The university’s contempt for human rights is obvious to anyone
with a fourth-grade education. Kao Chiang’s claims to be following laws
suggest a tactical ploy of naivete. But ignorance of the law, real or
feigned, is no excuse in law, where transparency, not duplicity, is the
rule.
The law is “what the common citizen understands it to be.” A legal
ruling is not a word puzzle, except to those puzzled by recognized
standards of good faith and fair play, such as keeping one’s word,
respecting final rulings, and, where wrongs are committed, admitting
them. Officials, who, by law, represent these values, must first uphold
them. They should be more concerned about the loss of those values than
their loss of face.
The goal of appeal is to insure that justice prevails. But in a
university where rule by committees has replaced rule by law, illegal
hearings are used punitively, to harass and intimidate and force an
appellant’s resignation.
This case is now in its fifth year. It has affected my reputation,
medical care, income, and academic career. It has seriously undermined
confidence in administrative remedy at National Cheng Kung University.
Despite warnings from the Faculty Union, the Ministry of Education,
and the Taiwan courts, university officials, using tactical delays, have
cost taxpayers millions of dollars and recklessly discredited their
university. Abiding by neither moral principles nor a sense of shame,
they will not acknowledge the authority of the law until they stand in
judgment before it.
Sincerely,
Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626
Human Rights in Taiwan: Is the Battle Won?
Human Rights in Taiwan: Is the Battle Won?
By Brian Kennedy
Taipei Times, Jan. 4, 2000
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," said the late
US civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.
Traditionally, New Year's is a time to look back over the past year and
look forward to the coming year; to take stock of where we stand. The
execution of eight death row inmates in one day a couple of months ago
raises the issue of what is the state of human rights and civil
liberties here in Taiwan.
The Taiwanese public has become quite blase towards the issue of human
rights. The public consensus is that the "bad old days" of martial law
and all that it brought are over. The public seems to think that Taiwan
has got past the stage where there were serious and widespread human
rights abuses; death squads, torture, kangaroo court trials, the Taiwan
Garrison Command and all of that.
This public idea certainly has been fostered by the government.
President Lee Teng-hui calls himself "Mr Democracy" and his party, the
KMT, self-congratulates itself on the "new and progressive" Taiwan.
Prominent government officials of all parties talk of the strides
forward which have been made in the area of human rights and civil
liberties. The media joins in the chorus and the public accepts it.
It is certainly true that the human rights situation here in Taiwan has
improved markedly over the past 10 to 15 years. There are no more
prisoners of conscience, no more extra-judicial killings, the civil
liberties of freedom of the press and freedom of assemblage are, by and
large, respected. These are all positive developments.
However, to say the situation has improved greatly says more about
where Taiwan was 15 years ago than it does about where the nation is
today. It is easy to say things have improved when the relatively
recent past history includes such things as the 2-28 massacres, the
White Terror and literally hundreds of prisoners of conscience.
Undue complacency, undue self-congratulation, is not warranted
regarding Taiwan's human rights or civil liberties situation. The
public has accepted three ideas that are in fact completely false and
which serve to fundamentally weaken the human rights situation here.
First is the idea that human rights progress is historically a "one way
street." The idea that Taiwan could not return to the terrors of the
past is wrong. The fact that the 2-28 massacres and the White Terror
lie in the past does not preclude them from occurring again.
There is a common proverb that says history repeats itself. Any
historian of human rights could cite many examples of nations that made
considerable progress in human rights turning back, often with
frightening quickness, into periods of oppression and terror.
This is particularly true in nations where the concept of human rights
and civil liberties is not deeply rooted; which is exactly the
situation we have here in Taiwan.
Human rights education is practically nonexistent; the educational
system is not geared to instilling in Taiwanese children a sense of
their individual dignity and rights. The scant attention which is paid
to human rights in the school program always is set against a backdrop
of "obey your government, fulfill your responsibilities." This
essentially undermines the basic concept of human rights, which is that
each individual has certain inalienable rights regardless of what the
government says or does.
Human rights awareness, what might be termed a "human rights
mentality," has very shallow roots here in Taiwan. That fact makes it
far easier to turn back the clock. Human rights progress is not a one
way street. The public needs to understand this fact.
Second is the idea that there are no more human rights violations
occurring here in Taiwan. That too, is a completely false idea. Most of
the nations of the world consider the death penalty the gravest human
rights violation of all. Most nations of the world have renounced the
use of the death penalty. Taiwan executed 10 people in a one-week
period, eight of them in one day. The mere presence of the death
penalty in Taiwan is a grave human rights abuse.
Police torture also remains a serious and endemic problem. Human rights
abuses, including deaths, continue in the military. Conscientious
objectors to military service are imprisoned. The fundamental rights of
women, although protected by law, are routinely ignored in practice. To
say that Taiwan has no more human rights abuses ignores the reality of
the situation.
Third is the idea that there are two kinds of people: "good people and
bad people." This idea is quite common throughout the world, even in
countries that have a long history of human rights and civil liberties
such as the US. How this thinking works is thus: when a member of the
public hears of a suspect being tortured by the police, the member of
the public thinks "well the suspect is a bad person, he deserved it;
since I am a good person the police would never torture me".
The reality the public needs to understand is that the world is not, in
fact, divided up into "good people and bad people."
The late US President John F. Kennedy said it best: "The rights of all
men are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." If the
human rights of all people are not respected, then in reality no one
has human rights.
In reality, the state of human rights and civil liberties here in
Taiwan is not good. What civil liberties we have rest on very weak
foundations. Serious human rights abuses occur on a daily basis here
and the public has a very apathetic attitude towards that fact. Taiwan
has come a long way, but it still has far to go.
Brian Kennedy is a member of the boards of Amnesty International Taiwan
and the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
By Brian Kennedy
Taipei Times, Jan. 4, 2000
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," said the late
US civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.
Traditionally, New Year's is a time to look back over the past year and
look forward to the coming year; to take stock of where we stand. The
execution of eight death row inmates in one day a couple of months ago
raises the issue of what is the state of human rights and civil
liberties here in Taiwan.
The Taiwanese public has become quite blase towards the issue of human
rights. The public consensus is that the "bad old days" of martial law
and all that it brought are over. The public seems to think that Taiwan
has got past the stage where there were serious and widespread human
rights abuses; death squads, torture, kangaroo court trials, the Taiwan
Garrison Command and all of that.
This public idea certainly has been fostered by the government.
President Lee Teng-hui calls himself "Mr Democracy" and his party, the
KMT, self-congratulates itself on the "new and progressive" Taiwan.
Prominent government officials of all parties talk of the strides
forward which have been made in the area of human rights and civil
liberties. The media joins in the chorus and the public accepts it.
It is certainly true that the human rights situation here in Taiwan has
improved markedly over the past 10 to 15 years. There are no more
prisoners of conscience, no more extra-judicial killings, the civil
liberties of freedom of the press and freedom of assemblage are, by and
large, respected. These are all positive developments.
However, to say the situation has improved greatly says more about
where Taiwan was 15 years ago than it does about where the nation is
today. It is easy to say things have improved when the relatively
recent past history includes such things as the 2-28 massacres, the
White Terror and literally hundreds of prisoners of conscience.
Undue complacency, undue self-congratulation, is not warranted
regarding Taiwan's human rights or civil liberties situation. The
public has accepted three ideas that are in fact completely false and
which serve to fundamentally weaken the human rights situation here.
First is the idea that human rights progress is historically a "one way
street." The idea that Taiwan could not return to the terrors of the
past is wrong. The fact that the 2-28 massacres and the White Terror
lie in the past does not preclude them from occurring again.
There is a common proverb that says history repeats itself. Any
historian of human rights could cite many examples of nations that made
considerable progress in human rights turning back, often with
frightening quickness, into periods of oppression and terror.
This is particularly true in nations where the concept of human rights
and civil liberties is not deeply rooted; which is exactly the
situation we have here in Taiwan.
Human rights education is practically nonexistent; the educational
system is not geared to instilling in Taiwanese children a sense of
their individual dignity and rights. The scant attention which is paid
to human rights in the school program always is set against a backdrop
of "obey your government, fulfill your responsibilities." This
essentially undermines the basic concept of human rights, which is that
each individual has certain inalienable rights regardless of what the
government says or does.
Human rights awareness, what might be termed a "human rights
mentality," has very shallow roots here in Taiwan. That fact makes it
far easier to turn back the clock. Human rights progress is not a one
way street. The public needs to understand this fact.
Second is the idea that there are no more human rights violations
occurring here in Taiwan. That too, is a completely false idea. Most of
the nations of the world consider the death penalty the gravest human
rights violation of all. Most nations of the world have renounced the
use of the death penalty. Taiwan executed 10 people in a one-week
period, eight of them in one day. The mere presence of the death
penalty in Taiwan is a grave human rights abuse.
Police torture also remains a serious and endemic problem. Human rights
abuses, including deaths, continue in the military. Conscientious
objectors to military service are imprisoned. The fundamental rights of
women, although protected by law, are routinely ignored in practice. To
say that Taiwan has no more human rights abuses ignores the reality of
the situation.
Third is the idea that there are two kinds of people: "good people and
bad people." This idea is quite common throughout the world, even in
countries that have a long history of human rights and civil liberties
such as the US. How this thinking works is thus: when a member of the
public hears of a suspect being tortured by the police, the member of
the public thinks "well the suspect is a bad person, he deserved it;
since I am a good person the police would never torture me".
The reality the public needs to understand is that the world is not, in
fact, divided up into "good people and bad people."
The late US President John F. Kennedy said it best: "The rights of all
men are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." If the
human rights of all people are not respected, then in reality no one
has human rights.
In reality, the state of human rights and civil liberties here in
Taiwan is not good. What civil liberties we have rest on very weak
foundations. Serious human rights abuses occur on a daily basis here
and the public has a very apathetic attitude towards that fact. Taiwan
has come a long way, but it still has far to go.
Brian Kennedy is a member of the boards of Amnesty International Taiwan
and the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)