[ad_1]
Recently, the media reported that Weng Qihui, the former dean of the Sinica Academy, made a request to the Supervisory Institute. Weng Qihui issued a statement saying that he had indeed submitted a petition to the Oversight Institute, but denied that the impeachment should be overturned on the grounds of the Nobel Prize. (Data photo)
I have always insisted that the indictment, impeachment and public sanction commissions issued their reprimands for this reason, all of them based on false facts and that they had seriously damaged my reputation. To defend my innocence, I have in fact submitted my request to the Supervisory Board, hoping to use a reasonable and legal channel to further clarify the facts.
The reason for the reprimand of the Public Sanctions Commission is that “I falsely declare the property, which caused a conflict of interest.” However, the fact is that the funds invested by my adult children in Hao Ding come from a gift from my wife and I in the early years, so the investment is never my property.
The Oversight Court Property Declaration Office originally accused me of registering under the borrowed name, but after a detailed investigation by the Appeals Committee, it was confirmed that the donation process mentioned above was correct and I had no other actions of which I abstained, so the punishment of false declaration of ownership was revoked. Furthermore, in subsequent independent investigations by the Supervisory Court, it was also found that I did not violate the conflict of interest regulations, and the Central Court never found that I violated any regulations. All of the aforementioned facts demonstrated that I did not “falsely declare ownership, causing a conflict of interest.”
Subsequently, I collected the aforementioned information and submitted a new trial to the Public Sanctions Commission. However, in responding to the Public Sanctions Commission, I ignored the decisions of the Appeal Commission and the content of the Commission’s self-investigation report. and he continued to accuse me of violating the regulation based on false facts. These deviant responses prevented me from receiving fair treatment at the retrial.
And one of the main contents of my recent request to the Yuan Supervisor is to clarify this process. Of course, I also hope that the Supervisory Court can re-examine the indictment and transfer decisions of the year based on these new facts, and return my innocence in a feasible way.
However, there have recently been reports in the media that I requested the withdrawal of the indictment on the grounds of the Nobel Prize, which is completely false. It is the basic right of individuals to submit petitions to the Superintendency, but I have no way of predicting how the Supervisor will deal with it, much less requesting special treatment for unrelated reasons.
I am a public figure, and the Hao Ding case is also a high-profile incident. I have always accepted comments and suggestions from various parties with humility. However, some of the recent criticism about me is still based on misreporting and biased of the year.
The basic facts have not been verified, which is unfortunate. I do not intend to argue one by one, but I can only sincerely appeal and let the facts speak to the evidence so that no further harm is caused.
Finally, I want to reiterate that I have always followed the law and have never done anything illegal or immoral. Reputation is the second life of academic workers and I will defend it to the end.
I can subscribe to the free financial YouTube channel.
No need to draw, no need to grab, watch the news with the app now, make sure to win prizes every day, download the app and follow the activity
Friends already added, thanks
[ad_2]
