Ke Jianming claims PhD revoked; Gao Hong'an team vows legal action

Political controversy in Hsinchu City has escalated once again as Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus whip Ker Chien-ming recently launched an offensive targeting Hsinchu City Mayor Kao Hung-an's educational background, publicly claiming that Kao's doctoral degree has been revoked primarily due to academic plagiarism in her dissertation. This accusation immediately drew intense political attention, not only fueling debates over the integrity and legitimacy of a local leader, but also once again touching raw nerves regarding academic ethics and political sparring. Faced with public questioning from the rival camp, Kao's team did not remain silent, instead issuing a strong counterattack through her campaign office. Aside from promptly and sternly denying rumors that her degree had been revoked, the team emphasized that it has already begun gathering evidence concerning the remarks and handed the matter over to a professional legal team to study subsequent legal remedies, demonstrating a firm stance in defending her innocence.

Reviewing the background of this incident, during Kao's previous campaign for Hsinchu City mayor, her doctoral dissertation from the University of Cincinnati in the United States was subjected to intense scrutiny by opponents and public opinion. At the time, outside suspicions regarding whether her thesis involved plagiarizing Institute for Information Industry (III) patents and self-plagiarism became focal points of the election. The attitudes of the university and alumni association, as well as the III's copyright claims, were all central topics. However, Kao maintained from the beginning to end that the acquisition of her degree complied with the academic standards of American universities, and official responses from the University of Cincinnati during and after the election confirmed the validity of her degree. Ker's recent revival of the claim that her degree was revoked effectively brings a previously heavily debated old battlefield back to the surface, attempting to stir up new waves in the current political landscape and further elevating antagonistic sentiments in local politics.

In response to Ker's accusations, Kao's campaign team issued a swift and stern rebuttal, pointing out that the allegations are completely untruthful. Kao's camp emphasized that not only has Kao's doctoral degree from the University of Cincinnati never been revoked by the university, but it remains fully valid to this day. Any unverified rumors and smearing are driven by specific political objectives, the camp stated. They pointed out that certain politicians, in order to suppress political dissidents, do not hesitate to repeatedly confuse the public and spread misinformation, which is undoubtedly a major blow to Taiwan's democratic politics and the quality of public discourse. To curb this vicious electoral culture and the spread of false statements, Kao's side has begun comprehensively gathering evidence of relevant public remarks and reports, officially handing them over to a legal team for evaluation, and not ruling out taking further legal action to stop the slander through litigation.

This battle over educational credentials between a senior parliamentary leader and a local chief executive reflects the long-standing crisis of trust and highly antagonistic political ecosystem in Taiwan's politics. For the DPP camp, continuously examining and questioning Kao's integrity and academic ethics is an important strategy to maintain oversight momentum and consolidate its political base. For Kao and her supporters, defending her doctoral degree is not only a battle for personal reputation, but also a core defense line concerning the legitimacy of her administration and her political career. The continuous clashes between both sides in the legal and public opinion battlefields have not only consumed massive social resources, but have also frequently derailed the advancement of Hsinchu City's municipal administration and public policy discussions, plunging them into endless political squabbling. Local voters and the general public are also gradually showing fatigue and impatience toward this exhaustive partisan confrontation.

In the long run, this incident once again highlights the critical role that academic ethics plays in the careers of Taiwanese politicians, as well as the destructive power when academic controversies are transformed into political weapons. Whether it is the public accusations made by the DPP legislator or the countermeasures prepared by Kao's team to resort to legal procedures, both will serve as important reference cases for similar political sparring in the future. Once judicial and legal procedures intervene, the matter may gain a more credible clarification, but before that, the verification responsibilities of politicians when making statements, as well as the boundaries between freedom of speech and the right to reputation, will once again be subjected to strict scrutiny by society and the law. How this controversy ultimately ends will not only test the wisdom and legal defense lines of those involved, but will also continue to affect the sensitive nerves of Taiwan's political arena and the trust scale of voters.