Public scrutiny has mounted around an Oxford University executive education initiative marketed to Chinese entrepreneurs, with accusations ranging from deceptive recruitment practices to allegations of financial exploitation involving roughly 68 million yuan. The programme, known as the Oxford Global CEO Programme, was developed by the Oxford Digital Health Institute under the university's Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences. Spanning three years, the initiative carries a tuition fee of 1.08 million yuan per participant, yet recent complaints have cast doubt on its advertised standards, including claims that enrolment was available to virtually anyone willing to pay, despite promises of rigorous selection for listed company leaders.

Now, Lan Shili, the former Hubei province's richest person and class monitor of the programme, has stepped forward to counter what he describes as widespread misinformation. In a public response on August 26, he firmly rejected narratives that sixty participants were defrauded or that affluent Chinese business leaders fell victim to a so-called 'pig-butchering scheme'. He addressed concerns regarding tuition composition, faculty qualifications, student attrition, and the nature of the certificate awarded upon completion.

One of the primary points of contention involved the separation of fees. Reports indicated that some of the twenty-plus dissatisfied students sought refunds, with a few recovering approximately 80% of their tuition through negotiation, while others received only half of their 48,000 yuan accommodation and travel fee. Lan Shili clarified that the 108万元 payment was exclusively tuition collected by Oxford University, whereas the additional 48,000 yuan was a travel service fee managed by an independent third-party agency, thus keeping the two financial streams entirely distinct.

Regarding the selection process, Lan Shili provided insight into the cohort's composition, noting that over thirty of the sixty participants were chairpersons or controlling shareholders of listed companies, with their enterprises valued between ten billion and one hundred billion yuan. He asserted that the screening criteria surpassed the typical one billion yuan asset threshold used by domestic business schools, incorporating a comprehensive review of corporate scale, revenue performance, educational background, and professional history, alongside formal interviews conducted by the university. This, he argued, contradicted suggestions that admission was contingent solely on payment.

Accusations surrounding faculty credibility and course delivery were also addressed. Reports had alleged that Richard Hobbs, the programme's core academic leader, delivered the same presentation four times within three days, resulting in a mere one and a half days of actual instruction. Additionally, promotional materials described him as 'Executive President of Oxford University', a position the university's press office confirmed does not exist. Lan Shili countered that Hobbs was indeed serving as Vice-Chancellor during his teaching session, and his subsequent departure was a routine term change. He emphasised that Hobbs only presented the opening lecture, refuting claims of repetitive teaching, and highlighted that the programme also featured contributions from other university professors and political figures, including a former UK Deputy Prime Minister.

Criticism extended to the corporate visit arrangements, with some students describing outsourced tours that merely circled factory premises by bus with basic introductions. Lan Shili explained that leading global enterprises typically adhere to standardised open-day procedures, involving showroom presentations, factory tours by vehicle, and executive exchanges. Restricted access to production areas, he noted, is a universal policy driven by commercial confidentiality and safety regulations, rather than a diminished programme offering. He also mentioned that the programme, originally slated for three years, is now past its halfway point, having visited prestigious institutions like Oxford, Peking University, and the University of Hong Kong, with resources exceeding initial projections.

Addressing rumours of mass withdrawals, Lan Shili stated that only two students were expelled by Oxford University for verbally assaulting staff, with most of their tuition refunded after deducting costs. He dismissed claims of a dozen departures, asserting that all other participants continued their studies normally. He clarified that he was not a 'leader of rights protection' as suggested, but rather an elected class monitor chosen through secret ballot. His earlier negotiations pertained solely to a dispute with the third-party travel agency over the 48,000 yuan service fee, which was resolved by refunding 24,000 yuan to each of the sixty participants, a sum entirely unrelated to the tuition costs.

The case of Zhang Yu, chairman of Paloch Technology, who fell ill suddenly in Germany, was also revisited. Lan Shili explained that the incident occurred after all coursework had concluded, meaning the university and programme organisers were not obligated to provide follow-up care. Nevertheless, staff accompanied him for three to four days and covered medical expenses until his family arrived, countering claims of inadequate assistance as unfounded.

Finally, regarding the certificate's value, Lan Shili defended its merits. While the Oxford website indicates that completers receive a 'Certificate of Completion' signifying participation in executive education rather than academic accreditation, he asserted that finishing the three-year curriculum to the required standard would earn participants a 'Visiting Scholar Certificate'. This designation, he explained, offers lifelong honours, including library borrowing privileges and access to academic events and exchanges with university scholars. He also attributed his delayed response to the initial limited reach of isolated online posts, noting that he chose to address the matter publicly only after the controversy expanded and began to name students and their companies.

As of the time of writing, students who previously voiced concerns to the media have not publicly responded to Lan Shili's detailed clarifications regarding the Oxford Global CEO Programme.