As an education reporter, I have some small observations about the presidency removal case over the past month. Please bear with me.
On 4/27, newly appointed Education Minister Wu Mao-hsiung "removed" the president just 9 days into his term, and the official document didn't reach NTU until 10 days later.
Upon reviewing the document, the "independent director timeline" that the inter-agency task force had been aggressively pushing was barely the focus. Instead, they dwelled on "independent director conflict of interest avoidance." Looking carefully at the legal sources, there are actually many contradictions!
[Contradiction One: Applying Civil Service Regulations to Distinguished Professors]
The Ministry of Education used the fact that "national universities" are administrative agencies to apply the Administrative Procedure Act to the university presidency selection case's defects, using Articles 32 and 33 regarding "recusal provisions" to bind "civil servants" to avoid conflicts of interest in administrative proceedings.
However, Education Ministry Deputy Minister Lin Teng-chao said in an interview on May 3rd that "the presidency selection is not an administrative disposition and is not subject to administrative litigation," which is self-contradictory.
Moreover, Kuan Chung-ming is a "distinguished professor" at NTU's Department of Finance. The claim that professors have civil service status refers only to those in administrative positions, such as "dean" or "director" who would be classified as civil servants (Constitutional Interpretation No. 308). Professor Kuan does not meet either of these criteria and therefore is not subject to administrative litigation law at all.
[Contradiction Two: The Ministry of Justice's Directive States That When University Presidency Selection Cases Are Disputed, the University Act (Special Law) Should Be Applied First]
The Ministry of Education invoked the "Administrative Procedure Act" to override the University Act. However, based on official documents from NTU dating to 2011, the Ministry of Justice interpreted that "although the Administrative Procedure Act contains provisions regarding relevant administrative procedures, when other laws contain special provisions, according to the principle that special laws supersede general laws, the special provisions should apply." In plain language, when disputes arise, the special law should take precedence over the Administrative Procedure Act, and that special law is the University Act.
Moreover, Article 9 of the University Act stipulates that "the appointment of a new president of a public university shall be determined through a public nomination process by a university-established presidential search committee formed within two months before the incumbent president's term ends or within two months of a vacancy, and shall be appointed by the Ministry of Education or the relevant local government."
Additionally, the university presidency selection rules clearly state that a member may be removed only after the search committee confirms one of the following circumstances:
One: Unable to participate in the selection process due to circumstances beyond control
Two: Has a spouse, blood relative within the third degree, relative by marriage, or had such a relationship with a candidate
Three: Has a thesis advisor-student relationship with a candidate.
However, in the case of NTU's elected president Kuan Chung-ming and search committee member Tsai Ming-hsing, neither of them meets the above circumstances, and during the selection process, no candidate presented concrete facts suggesting that Tsai had reasonable grounds for bias. The Ministry of Education's contradictions are glaring.
Building on the previous point, the University Act states that a national university president shall be "appointed by the Ministry of Education or the relevant local government." Does this also mean that Taipei City Government has the authority to appoint the NTU president?
Since Kuan Chung-ming was elected on January 5th, the Ministry of Education has been blocking his path through various means. Based on "professional opinions" from an inter-agency task force of unknown composition, they sent a notice to NTU requesting a restart of the selection process. Yet throughout this process, Yao Li-te, the Ministry's political deputy minister, was a member of the presidential search committee. Starting on 11/28 last year, he had the opportunity to meet individually with candidates. Why didn't he raise these issues at the time instead of revealing them after the selection was complete? Who bears the greatest responsibility?
In summary, the NTU presidency selection should never have been framed as "removing Kuan" or "supporting Kuan." The more the Ministry of Education tries to rely on legal provisions to justify its stance, the more unlawful and unreasonable it appears. By applying legal provisions to conclusions arrived at through sheer imagination, the inconsistencies are everywhere. Even someone like me who doesn't understand law can spot numerous contradictions in the official documents. I believe this controversy will eventually receive a fair and just response.
Of course, independent directors and board members have conflicting interests, but the special law contains no provisions specifying what conflicts of interest should be avoided. If Kuan and Tsai must recuse themselves, then shouldn't the president of the Academia Sinica, serving as a search committee member, also recuse himself when his deputy is a candidate?
The above represents personal views and does not represent the company's position.
