-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Regarding human rights abuses at a Taiwan university |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:12:23 +0800 |
| From: | rdca25@gmail.com |
| To: | info@ap.org |
| References: | <4A5E870C.1080001@gmail.com> <001c01ca05de$34a5f350$6822748c@pjP> |
15 July 2010
To The Associated Press,
I have had long-standing problems regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. In 2001, Taiwan's Ministry of Education canceled my illegal dismissal (1999-2000), highlighting human rights violations. Instead of reinstating me, NCKU argued foreigners had no right to appeal, even though the university held appeal hearings and attended Ministry hearings.
After defying Ministry of Education directives for nearly two and a half years, the university finally reinstated me in 2003, but without formal redress. NCKU currently has many academic exchanges with US universities. But I do not believe disregard for human rights is a basis for academic exchanges with universities that observe human rights.
Currently several high-ranking NCKU officials are American citizens or have benefited from American democratic values. They have ignored my petitions to formally resolve this case with apologies, penalties, and compensation according to internationally recognized principles of law.
Our universities should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles.
If, as was stated on the Purdue University news page, NCKU "is one of the most outstanding universities in Asia, if not the world," one must question if human rights are relevant in this assessment, or if human rights are relevant at all.
The current president, Dr. Michael M. C. Lai, has ignored several requests to discuss this issue with me. Apart from not honoring an appeal the university itself participated in, the fact that NCKU would try to enforce discriminatory practices against foreign faculty should concern Americans and the American press in the US, especially since media and juridical options in Taiwan are almost nonexistent.
Taiwan's courts seem to take away with one hand the rights they give with the other. It reminds me of a line from a Shakespeare play, "I can call the dead, but will they come?" You can sue officials in Taiwan, but will you win?
The courts imposed no penalties on university officials, though the violations were egregious, willful, defiant and lasted several years. Other court cases were a waste of time and money.
In my suit against a student who wrote a secret libelous letter, the court ruled it was not libel since no one outside the university read it. Yet the student's letter was secretly circulated at appeal and review hearings. According to most law dictionaries, a third party is sufficient to constitute libel.
Similarly, my suit against Review Committee members who made unproved accusations was dismissed on the basis the accusations were not circulated outside the department.
Another court ruled against compensatory damages (travel costs to renew my visas), insisting there was no need for me to have stayed in Taiwan. But when an American left Taiwan during a child custody dispute, the court ruled that by leaving Taiwan the father proved he had no interest in the child and awarded custody to the mother.
In other words, "Heads I win, tails you lose." I won the contract case presumably because the court had to uphold a Ministry ruling. The wonder is it accepted the university's case at all, based on no acceptable legal principle. Still, the court imposed no punitive damages on the university and awarded no compensatory damages to me. Such rulings increase the risk among foreign faculty in Taiwan, who are less likely to fight for their rights knowing even if they win they nonetheless lose in terms of the cost and years to fight the case.
Taiwan English-language newspapers, which espouse democracy daily, have ignored my letters as have Taiwan human rights groups. Yet Taiwan is almost always represented as an established democracy.
We should not maintain academic exchanges with a university that flagrantly violates human rights and scorns human rights principles. Academic exchanges should not be based on economic exchanges but on human rights principles.
I write not only as an American victim of human rights abuses in Taiwan but on behalf of all foreigners who teach here who may have been, or will be, subject to similar abuses without redress.
I appreciate whatever exposure or editorial assistance available. My main goal is to effect just closure in this case, based on principles of international human rights laws and to obtain for Americans the same protections in Taiwan guaranteed to citizens of Taiwan in America.
Sincerely,
Richard de Canio
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Letters from Taiwan's Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University's President
Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling
These are English translations of eight letters from the Ministry of Education to National Cheng Kung University concerning my illegal dismissal and the university's refusal to abide by a legal Ministry ruling, even though the university participated in appeal hearings and only challenged my right to appeal after the ruling favored me. It even filed a lawsuit to challenge the Ministry's ruling, then used the court case to try to further delay issuing the contracts!Regarding Enforcement of an Appeal Ruling
(The translations are by a member of the NCKU Faculty Union. Chinese copies are attached in JPEG and PDF formats. Below are paraphrases. In any version, the unprincipled conduct of National Cheng Kung University is evident.)
1. April 6, 2001: "The university should make lawful remedy within a month."
2. May 11, 2001 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio, which is the proper remedy."
3. June 14, 2001 "If there is no practical revival of the contract, the decision of the MOE Appeals Committee is equivalent to vain words. Procedural justice should be upheld first. The university should not use the results of its previous improper procedures as an excuse to delay reinstating the professor."
4. August 7, 2001 "If the university willfully delays so as to damage the teacher’s rights, the university must bear complete responsibility."
5. May 3, 2002 "The university should first revive the contract with Mr. De Canio starting from August 1, 1999, and compensate his salary. There is no need to wait for the court verdict."
6. October 15, 2002 "The university should immediately process the application of contract extension permit."
7. December 2, 2002 "The university’s request to wait for the court verdict is denied. Revive the contract with Mr. De Canio and compensate his salary as soon as possible."
8. January 17, 2003 "Do as described in the letter of December 2, 2002."
