Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Office of the President
Professor Kao Chiang

cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

14 July 2003

Dear President Kao,

You write in your last email that,

[M]any of your requests are beyond the right of the
university, or even the Ministry of Education. There
is nothing this university could do, without the
advise and permision of the Ministry of Education, the Court,
or other government officials.

If this is true, then why have officials at our university?
The job of an official is to effect administrative remedy and ease the
burden on superior agencies, such as the Ministry of Education and the
Department of Higher Education. If you feel you need to ask the Ministry of
Education to advise you every time you have a problem, then a secretary can
pick up the telephone and do as well.
But if it is indeed the case you need advice from the Ministry of
Education, then I ask you why you didn't follow its advice when you were
told to issue the teaching contracts? Why did you defy the Ministry of
Education for more than two years before you complied? You received advice
in the form of eight letters over two years and you elected to ignore them.
As for your statement that "the president cannot overrule the rules of
the university, and should not interfere with the proper operation of any
committee," this is true, if a committee is engaged in a "proper operation."

But the president must know when a committee is acting within the law
and when it is not. To argue that what a committee does must therefore be
proper is to argue in a circle.
A committee of the finest academics in Taiwan cannot ignore a legal
ruling or the benefits of that ruling, as one of your committees did when it
approved accusations already rejected on Ministry appeal (8 January 2001).
That ruling is final. All the committees at National Cheng Kung University
will never reverse that fact; like all the lawyers at our university can
never invalidate a Minstry ruliing. Democracy is a government of laws, not
lawyers, or committees.
An appointed or elected official can delegate responsibility, but not
transfer it. The president of a university remains ultimately responsible
for administrative remedy.
If committees are indeed necessary to effect the resolution of these
issues, as you assert in your email, then the president is no less
responsible for effective leadership to insure just and expedient remedy,
including a deadline.
These issues should have been resolved within days after the Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2001. But since the university elected to defy that
ruling for more than two years, action should have been taken by the end of
the last academic year, immediately following the university's belated
compliance with the law.
But I have not received a single official letter from a university
official amounting to an apology to me and an admission of wrongdoing, while
establishing an agenda for compensation, including a deadline. Instead,
days following partial compliance with the Ministry ruling, a university
committee convened to repeat accusations against me rejected in the Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2001.
Why do you need the "advice" of the Ministry of Education or the courts
to issue a formal letter of apology and compensation but you don't need
their advice to approve an accusation already rejected by a formal Ministry
appeal ruling of 8 January 2001?
Why does your Dean of Student Affairs take years to call a student into
her office to resolve the issue of the student's secret, malicious letter?
Why do your legal assistants take years to understand a ruling by the
Ministry of Education?
If a child breaks a window, must the parent hold meetings for two years
before she decides her child did something wrong and he must apologize and
compensate the owner of the house? Must a diner in a restaurant "interpret"
in what currency to pay for a meal because there is no "NT$" on the menu?
Any judge in the world will tell the diner to use common sense and pay in
local currency.
Based on the history of this case and the brazen disregard for basic
laws shown by faculty and committee members at our university, there is no
reason for me to trust in due process of law here. Therefore, until this
case is resolved according to acknowledged principles of remedy and
compensation, I will use whatever channels I can outside the university to
effect complete remedy in this case.

Sincerely,


Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626

Letter to NCKU president, Kao Chiang

Office of the President
Professor Kao Chiang

cc: Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

14 July 2003

Dear President Kao,

You write in your last email that,

[M]any of your requests are beyond the right of the
university, or even the Ministry of Education. There
is nothing this university could do, without the
advise and permision of the Ministry of Education, the Court,
or other government officials.

If this is true, then why have officials at our university?
The job of an official is to effect administrative remedy and ease the
burden on superior agencies, such as the Ministry of
Education and the Department of Higher Education. If you feel you need to
ask the Ministry of Education to advise you
every time you have a problem, then a secretary can pick up the telephone
and do as well.
But if it is indeed the case you need advice from the Ministry of
Education, then I ask you why you didn't follow its
advice when you were told to issue the teaching contracts? Why did you defy
the Ministry of Education for more than two
years before you complied? You received advice in the form of eight letters
over two years and you elected to ignore them.
As for your statement that "the president cannot overrule the rules of
the university, and should not interfere with the
proper operation of any committee," this is true, if a committee is engaged
in a "proper operation."
But the president must know when a committee is acting within the law
and when it is not. To argue that what a
committee does must therefore be proper is to argue in a circle.
A committee of the finest academics in Taiwan cannot ignore a legal
ruling or the benefits of that ruling, as one of your
committees did when it approved accusations already rejected on Ministry
appeal (8 January 2001). That ruling is final. All
the committees at National Cheng Kung University will never reverse that
fact; like all the lawyers at our university can never
invalidate a Ministry ruliing. Democracy is a government of laws, not
lawyers, or committees.
An appointed or elected official can delegate responsibility, but not
transfer it. The president of a university remains
ultimately responsible for administrative remedy.
If committees are indeed necessary to effect the resolution of these
issues, as you assert in your email, then the president
is no less responsible for effective leadership to insure just and expedient
remedy, including a deadline.
These issues should have been resolved within days after the Ministry
ruling of 8 January 2001. But since the university
elected to defy that ruling for more than two years, action should have been
taken by the end of the last academic year,
immediately following the university's belated compliance with the law.
But I have not received a single official letter from a university
official amounting to an apology to me and an admission of
wrongdoing, while establishing an agenda for compensation, including a
deadline. Instead, days following partial compliance
with the Ministry ruling, a university committee convened to repeat
accusations against me rejected in the Ministry ruling of 8
January 2001.
Why do you need the "advice" of the Ministry of Education or the courts
to issue a formal letter of apology and
compensation but you don't need their advice to approve an accusation
already rejected by a formal Ministry appeal ruling
of 8 January 2001?
Why does your Dean of Student Affairs take years to call a student into
her office to resolve the issue of the student's
secret, malicious letter? Why do your legal assistants take years to
understand a ruling by the Ministry of Education?
If a child breaks a window, must the parent hold meetings for two years
before she decides her child did something
wrong and he must apologize and compensate the owner of the house? Must a
diner in a restaurant "interpret" in what
currency to pay for a meal because there is no "NT$" on the menu? Any judge
in the world will tell the diner to use common
sense and pay in local currency.
Based on the history of this case and the brazen disregard for basic
laws shown by faculty and committee members at
our university, there is no reason for me to trust in due process of law
here. Therefore, until this case is resolved according
to acknowledged principles of remedy and compensation, I will use whatever
channels I can outside the university to effect
complete remedy in this case.

Sincerely,


Professor Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626