An article originally titled “Today you are proud of NTU, tomorrow NTU is proud of you” was published on January 21. When The News Lens republished it on the 23rd, they altered the title to: “The NTU I was proud of blocked the Garrison Command back then, yet today it welcomes Kuan Chung-ming.”
While it is common for content aggregators to negotiate “clickbait” titles with authors, The News Lens’s modification crossed a line of integrity. Even the original author didn’t dare to smear Kuan so directly. By using grammatical sleight of hand, the site linked the Garrison Command—the face of Martial Law-era suppression—with Kuan Chung-ming.
Who today can definitively prove Kuan has done anything wrong? Even the DPP only dares to resort to administrative maneuvers to delay the process, yet The News Lens has conducted a “private judicial trial” against the president-elect of the R.O.C.’s most prestigious university. The question is: are you even qualified?
Furthermore, the site didn’t even dare to open the comment section for public discussion. I find that quite telling.
📉 90% Fluff, 10% Flawed Logic
Upon closer inspection, 90% of the article’s content discusses NTU’s history and the author’s personal academic CV. It reads like a job application and has absolutely nothing to do with the Kuan Chung-ming controversy. It seems designed to induce fatigue so the reader is more susceptible to the narrative spin.
The remaining 10% relies on a “suspicion” regarding whether Kuan disclosed his role as an Independent Director at Taiwan Mobile to the NTU search committee. From this mere doubt, the author concludes Kuan is unfit to lead the university.
This logic can be summarized as: “I am not sure if A added B, but I am certain the answer is C.” It is nonsensical.
🔍 Understanding the “Independent Director” Role
In reality, the NTU Presidential Search Regulations regarding conflict of interest do not mandate that candidates disclose independent directorships. Many pro-Green supporters are inventing excuses simply for the sake of opposition. If one had rigorous scientific training, would they believe such flimsy pretexts?
Unless there is “smoking gun” evidence, these are just personal suspicions. The R.O.C. has no shortage of such unproductive skeptics.
I understand that the term “Independent Director” (Indie) sounds corporate, which triggers the usual “Awakened Youth” (Jue-qing) outrage. However, independent directors are specifically designed as overseers who do not participate in day-to-day business operations. Since there is no direct business conflict, there is no issue of interest avoidance.
If we are talking about transparency, Tsai Ing-wen, as the “Little Princess” of the Tsai family, should have her siblings and extended relatives disclose all their assets first. If Kuan is disqualified for a non-conflicting directorship, then I truly don’t know what qualifications Tsai has to be the President of the Republic of China (R.O.C.).
🤝 Conclusion: You Can’t Wake Those Pretending to Sleep
Every critique circulating in pro-Green media regarding Kuan’s legality uses “question marks.” They only dare to “suspect.” Interestingly, when NTU re-examined the case and issued a formal statement clarifying that these suspicions were baseless and fabricated, the opposition completely ignored it. They cling to a “faith” that has already become dirty and foolish.
There is a saying that you cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. To that, I would add: when you throw mud, you have to get your own hands dirty first. Those who enjoy spreading rumors and smearing others have no concern for the truth; they just want everyone else to look as filthy as they do.