Singapore: Just 10 days after Vizzio Technologies founder and CEO was announced. john lee had in Computer Science from the University of Cambridge, an artificial intelligence startup Friday (January 26th) announced the appointment of an interim CEO.
The company expressed confidence that “this strengthening of leadership and our commitment to strong governance positions Vizzio for a strong future.”
Vizio’s statement was very vague to say the least. He never mentioned Lee’s name or explained why the company needed an interim CEO. He also did not explain whether any action was taken against Mr. Lee for falsifying his credentials or why the board initially supported him so adamantly. “We cannot and will not deprive him of his life’s work,” the board said in a statement signed by Vizio Chairman Abu Bakar Mohd Nor on January 16. .
Visitors who click on the LinkedIn icon on Vizzio’s website are directed to Lee’s profile. There, he is still identified as founder, CEO, and vice chairman.
Do we silently justify wrongdoing?
The news first broke when Lee, who founded Vizzio in 2019, admitted in an interview with online publication Tech In Asia that he had falsified his credentials.
The backlash was initially relatively mild. Lee Kai-fu, one of AI’s most prominent leaders, resigned from Vizzio’s board, but the remaining members supported the CEO.
In a statement released on January 17, John Lee apologized for lying about his educational background, but added that Vizio’s board and shareholders have decided that he will continue to serve as CEO.
This seems distasteful given that other people who falsified credentials in Singapore have faced even worse consequences. In December 2023, a woman who forged a bachelor’s degree to secure multiple jobs over a 16-year period was sentenced to eight months in prison. She was arrested when an employer fact-checked her credentials with Nanyang Technological University (NTU). I filed a complaint with the police.Mr. Lee’s case may not matter. If Vizzio’s stakeholders do not take legal action.
Why was punishment given in one case and not in another? Does this suggest a double standard? Between company leaders and employees, or between the technology industry and the rest of the business world.?