Regarding Human Rights Abuses at NCKU

2/13/2004 5:01 PM
Subject: Regarding human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan; a public call for the dismissal of Kao Chiang as president of that
university.To: moe , Control Yuan ,
Vice-President Lu , info@taipeitimes.com,
letters@taipeitimes.com, eyemail@eyemail.gio.gov.tw,
peu03@mail.gio.gov.tw, editor@it.chinatimes.com.tw,
edop@etaiwannews.com, editor@etaiwannews.com,
info@chinapost.com.tw

The Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

13 February 2004

I am writing your office to publicly request the removal from office of Kao
Chiang (06-2757575-5000), currently president of National Cheng Kung
University.
Professor Kao defied a legal Minstry of Education ruling in 2001 for
more than two years. Even after finally complying with that ruling, in May
2003, he has denied full enforcement of it, allowing revivals of accusations
rejected in that ruling, while denying full compensation, payments, and
official apology.
The president of Taiwan, President Chen, recently reminded a young boy
in a custody case that even the president of Taiwan had to obey the law.
Yet the president of a university is allowed to defy the law without penalty
and even remain as president of that university.
This is a moral issue as well as a legal issue. How can a national
university maintain academic credibility if its head administrator defies
legal and moral principles?
After the Ministry of Education Appeal Committee cancleed my dismissal,
the university used taxpayers' money to contest my employment in court,
claiming foreign faculty had no right to appeal, although the university
held countless appeal hearings in my case and never contested the Ministry
appeal process until it lost.
Such behavior cannot be condoned on legal principle. It is dishonest
trickery. Such trickery might be allowed a private salesman, but not a
public official, least of all a university head. Can a university that
insults legal and moral principles uphold its reputation as an academic
institution?
After delaying compliance with the Ministry ruling for more than two
years, the university spitefully revived accusations rejected in that
ruling, attempting to deny me annual increments and promotion as
punishment. In other words, at National Cheng Kung University a professor
is punished not because he lost a Ministry ruling, but because he won!
What kind of legal or moral logic is this? A ruling in an appellant's
favor is supposed to protect him from punishment not provoke punishment.
How can a legitimate academic institution, indeed one that is fourth-ranked
in the nation, behave like this if Taiwan is, as claimed, a beacon of
democracy among Asian nations?
Yet several years ago a conflict of interest case at a Hong Kong
university made headline news in all the Hong Kong media for days, while
students protested on campus. My case, involving serious rights violations,
has lasted more than four years and has aroused little interest in Taiwan.
One NCKU dean protested that the university must be following laws, since it
follows the advice of a lawyer! A gradeschool child would have more common
sense than that. We might expect excuses of noncompliance on the part of an
uncle, but not a university president. If a university does not obey laws
(not to mention moral and legal principles upheld in international human
rights charters, to which Taiwan subscribes) how can the university be
accredited? If the university can publicly defy the Ministry of Education
like this, one must assume there is no regulation of the university except
in a merely technical sense: laws and quorums are referred to, committees
vote, and minutes are produced. But this is the form of democracy with no
substance.
I am faced with a case that has lasted into its fifth year, with no end
in sight. The Ministry of Education has not punished these officials;
niether has the Control Yuan. Human rights organizations in Taiwan seem
more concerned about making Mainland China a human rights issue than
handling human rights issues in Taiwan. Other government agencies issue
robot replies affirming they have received my email. Meanwhile, Dean Ko
Huei-chen (06-2757575-50300), of the Office of Student Affairs, has refused
for more than two years to discipline a student who wrote a secret spiteful
letter used at my dismissal hearings in 1999.
Taiwan citizens and taxpayers have the right to demand the best from
their officials. They have the right to demand that officials not waste
their money. But when a university files a lawsuit to contest a legal
Ministry ruling, that is wasting taxpayers' money, which could be better
spent on scholarships for needy students. Administrative remedy that should
take days or weeks at most but continues for five years is a waste of
taxpayers' money. Officials who should be attending meetings to improve
university education but instead attend repeated hearings in a case on which
the Ministry has already ruled is, apart from my legal rights, a waste of
taxpayers' money. Officials who should be doing all in their power to
uphold or improve the reputation of their university but behave in a
reckless manner scornful of law are using taxpayers' money to discredit
their university.

Sincerely,

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

Letter to Taiwan Ministry of Education

±H¥ó¥Á²³: "vertigo@ms22.hinet.net"
±H¥ó¤é´Á: WED, 18 FEB 2004 11:58:11
¥D¡@¡@¦®: Concerning human rights violations at National
Cheng Kung University
ªþÀɼƶq: 0 ­ÓÀÉ®×

The Ministry of Education

Department of Higher Education

18 February 2004

Dear Ministry and Higher Education Officials,

You cannot have an official who defies the law head a
national university
in Taiwan. It's impossible, without discrediting not only
the university
but the Ministry that regulates these universities.

The facts are plain. Professor Kao Chiang,
currently president of National Cheng Kung University
(06-2757575-50000)
defied a legal Ministry ruling for more than two years. No
amount
of denial or defense can whitewash these facts, assuming
there is law and
moral principle in Taiwan.

No claim to "interpreting" the Ministry ruling
is acceptable, if there is law in Taiwan. No citizen or
official
has the right to defy a law by claiming to "interpret" it,
especially when
that interpretation goes against universal common sense.
To "interpret"
menu prices to mean "play money" is absurd and no court
would accept that
interpretation. For a bank robber to expect a court to
accept that
his holdup note for money was a mere request for money is
absurd.
To interpret a No Parking sign to mean no parking of
bicycles when it clearly
intends to mean motor vehicles is absurd.

In the same way, to "interpret" a final Ministry
appeal ruling to mean the appellant should be reviewed
again is absurd.
A government that allows such officials should seriously
question the consequences
of doing so.

A person or official can legally contest a
ruling after compliance. Even then, a judge would chastise
a laywer who brought a case without merit (there must be
legal substance
to a challenge).

Even when it is the right of a citizen or
institution to contest a ruling, this must follow
compliance not obstruct
or delay it. The university should have first complied
with the
Ministry ruling, issued the contracts, and then contested
it, however absurdly.
But to defy and then litigate a ruling instead of
compliance is obstruction
of justice, at least in the law system I know.

Here we're talking about law. But moral
principles are no less important, especially when it
concerns the head
of a university, whose reputation is equally based on moral
standing and
academic standing..

Here the facts are also plain.

A university with sister universities in democracies
such as England and the USA publicly declares itself to
have discriminatory
policies against foreign faculty. It is more insulting
when that
foreign faculty belongs to a country that has insured the
survival of Taiwan.

Our university holds appeal hearings for foreigners.
After the foreigner wins, the university claims that
foreigners are subject
to further review of the same accusations!

This is plain trickery. No legitimate
academic institution can uphold its reputation based on
this kind of trickery.

After losing a Ministry of Education appeal
process, a process it never contested at the time, the
university defied
that ruling for more than two years, claiming, only after
it lost the
ruling, that foreign faculty had no right to appeal, even
using taxpayers'
money to litigate this issue in court. This money could
have been
used to fund dozens of scholarships for poor students.

Even after the court advised the university
to settle, Professor Kao appointed two officials, including
the Vice-Dean
of Academic Affairs, Professor Fang, and a personnel
official, to warn
me that if I did not quit the university with half pay the
university would
contest the Ministry ruling for as long as possible. What
a fine
moral standard for our fourth-ranked university!

Only following pressure from outside channels
did Professor Kao finally comply with the Ministry ruling,
and then partly,
issuing back and current contracts, but still contesting
compensation and
apology.

Then, only days following this partial compliance
with a legal Ministry ruling, a university review committee
approved accusations
against me already rejected in that ruling, as if to show
contempt for
that ruling as well as the law behind it. As if to say, at
this university,
officials are law. This would be called abuse of power,
at
least in my country and I would think any lawful country.
In any
case, it's abuse of legal and moral principles recognized
all over the
world and accepted in international human rights charters.

Since when can officials use tax-paid resources
to repeat accusations decided on appeal? A final appeal
ruling is
final or it's not a final appeal.

A university that defies this principle should
be held in contempt of law. If a Ministry allows this
behavior on
the part of a university official, this is as good as
saying there is no
law in Taiwan, or at least no government regulation of
national universities.
In which case, they are not national universities, but only
private businesses,
subject to litigation, but not law.

Professor Kao still argues that, although
I won the appeal, I'm only entitled to half pay, since I
wasn't teaching.
What kind of legal or moral logic is this? This is even
more tricky
logic since Professor Kao's defiance of the Ministry ruling
is the reason
I wasn't teaching here during those years! Is this the
kind of logic
we expect of the head of a university, especially one
reaching out to the
international community?

I urge the Ministry of Education to act according
to moral principle and law. In all lawful societies, a
final appeal
ruling is final, not subject to further review and insuring
the full legal
benefits of that ruling, including full compensation,
apology, and remedy,
such as punishing officials or faculty involved in
misconduct. In
all lawful societies, an official who defies the law is
promptly removed
from office.

Regardless, I promise all parties concerned
that no American professor will be denied human rights in
Taiwan.
I am committed to this, not only for my sake but for the
sake of all foreign
faculty here. I will do whatever it takes to uphold those
rights
until I receive full legal benefits of the Ministry ruling.

Sincerely

Professor Richard de Canio

Department of Foreign Languages and Literature

Tainan, Taiwan

(06 237 8626

Letter to Taiwan Ministry of Education

From:
9/1/2003 1:06 PM
Subject: Regarding Failure to Call a Student into the Office of Student
Affairs, at National Cheng Kung University, as well as other
abusesTo: moe
CC: Kao Chiang
BCC: Ray Dah-tong

Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

cc: Professor Kao Chiang, President of National Cheng Kung University

1 September 2003

Dear Officials at the Ministry of Education and the Department of Higher
Education,

I wish to inform you that for more than two years I have tried to get
the Office of Student Affairs to call a student in to inquire about a secret
letter she wrote against me. Despite repeated requests, to both Professor
Ko Huei-chen, Dean of the Office of Student Affairs and the president of the
university, Professor Kao Chiang, I have been denied this simple request.
To justify this denial, I have been given countless reasons, such as
the student does not want to come, the student's mother does not want her to
come, they do not have her phone number, they are "investigating" or
"gathering evidence," or a university lawyer advised against it.
These delays at National Cheng Kung University must stop. When it
takes more than two years for a dean to arrange a meeting with a student in
the Office of Student Affairs, then there are serious problems in terms of
university administration.
First, a professor has a right to request the Dean of Student Affairs
to arrange a meeting with a student, for whatever reason related to
university affairs.
Second, an Office of Student Affairs is established for the purpose of
student affairs, including teacher-student mediation. Therefore this office
is authorized to take any action against a student, based on ethical codes,
without the consent of courts or lawyers.
Third, a professor has a right to expect that officials at a
university, including a president and a dean, will act competently to
respond to such requests. Officials who do not respond promptly to the
needs of faculty should be dismissed. University officials represent the
needs of faculty, not the other way around.
Fourth, a university is governed by laws, not by lawyers or officials.
Officials at National Cheng Kung University must execute laws and
responsibilities, not "interpret" them or rely on lawyers to interpret
them. A lawyer is not authorized to be a Dean of Student Affairs or to be a
president of a university unless appointed to this office.
Therefore ultimate responsibility for execution of university and
national laws rests on individual officials. In some countries, lawyers who
advise obstructing justice can be subject to legal penalties as well as
disciplinary action by boards controlling legal ethics. A lawyer who
advised noncompliance with the law may be subject to penalties, including
disbarment. But this would not protect an official from individual
responsibility as well. An official can transfer duties, but not final
responsibility. Final responsibility rests with the official, as the
tragic case at Ho Ping Hospital showed.
We have laws in a democratic society. But those laws are useless if
lawyers or officials believe they can "interpret" laws themselves.
It seems that some faculty at our university are surrendering their
rights and responsibilities to officials. Officials, in turn, are abiding
by "interpretations" of what may be a single lawyer, undermining the whole
purpose of democratic governance of a university administration. Instead of
representing laws, many decisions seem to represent the interests of a few
officials and a lawyer.
Faculty should be in control of a university, not a lawyer. Laws
should be in control of a university, not "interpretations" of laws by a
lawyer.
In a democratic society, laws do not require interpretation. A law
that needs to be "interpreted" is not a constitutional law, which requires
transparency. If a law needs to be "interpreted," it removes power from the
law and places it in the hands of individual officials or their legal
counsel. But democracy is rule by laws, not lawyers. The alternative opens
the door wide to countless human rights abuses. Consider the following:
The university administration "interpreted" a final university appeal
to mean it wasn't final.
The university administration "interpreted" a final Ministry appeal to
mean it wasn't final.
The university administration "interpreted" the law to mean that
foreign teachers are not protected by rights of native teachers.
The university administration "interpreted" a Ministry of Education
Appeal ruling and eight warning letters in such as a way as to delay
compliance for more than two years.
The university administration "interpreted" a final appeal ruling to
mean accusations already rejected in that ruling can be revived.
The university administration "interpreted" a final appeal ruling to
mean the appellant is entitled to only half pay, even though he won the
appeal.
The university administration "interpreted" a final appeal ruling to
mean the appellant is not entitled to compensation, even though he won the
appeal.
With or without legal counsel, the university administration has failed
to punish a single official for misconduct, including circulating secret
letters at official hearings and ignoring countless Ministry regulations and
protections.
Either the university president is acting on the advice of a university
lawyer or he is acting alone. Regardless, as an elected or appointed
official, he should be held responsible.
I remind you once again that I am fully committed to upholding my
rights at National Cheng Kung University. I am fully committed to seeing
disciplinary action taken against this student, to receiving full salary and
compensation for my illegal dismissal, and to receiving a formal apology
from the university for official misconduct that resulted in my dismissal.
Moreover, until this case is resolved according to principles of justice, I
will continue to pursue all avenues and channels of remedy that are open to
me within the law.

Sincerely,


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

Letter to Taiwan Ministry of Education

From:
8/30/2003 10:43 PM
Subject: Fwd: Ongoing Human Rights Violations at National Cheng Kung
UniversityTo: tahr@seed.net.tw

Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education

30 August 2003

Dear Ministry of Education and Department of Higher Education Officials:

I appeal to you in the strongest terms to effect the dismissal from
office of Professor Kao Chiang, currently acting as president of
National Cheng Kung University.
Professor Kao defied a legal Ministry of Education ruling for more
than two years. This alone should be enough to subject him to removal.
Apart from issues of academic ethics, a public official who defies a
Ministry ruling and who remains in office undermines confidence in law
among all citizens.
Moreover, despite the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001, Professor
Kao allowed a so-called university "review" of accusations already
rejected in the Ministry ruling, which undermines the legal effect of
that ruling, against the legal rights protections of a final appeal.
In addition, Professor Kao, either with the indifference or
encouragement of his legal counsel, continues to delay and obstruct the
full resolution of the Ministry of Education appeal ruling of 8 January
2001. The International Charter of Human Rights requires full
compensation for human rights violations. There are laws insuring such
compensation in democratic countries.
Yet Kao Chiang's administration continues to obstruct compensation
and effect final resolution of the Ministry ruling of 8 January 2001.
Recently, I received a notice from the university that I was not
entitled to such compensation, citing the Employment Law, even though
both the Ministry of Education and a Tainan court ruled that all
teachers were protected by the Teachers Law.
An official who continues to act in violation of laws, despite
numerous warnings, is obstructing justice. This is a serious offense
and, in a lawful society, should not be tolerated.
Yesterday, I filed still another lawsuit against the university,
for full compensation. Yet a lawful society governs its institutions by
laws, not by litigation. Continued litigation of these issues,
replacing automatic execution by law, will only undermine the reputation
of National Cheng Kung University as well as of Taiwan as a nation of
laws.
Therefore I urge the Ministry of Education to take prompt action as
requested.

Sincerely,

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