Shirley Mae and Robert ‘Junior’ Whitall, keeping the blues alive. (credit: Big City Rhythm & Blues)
Big City Rhythm & Blues magazine publisher Robert ‘Junior’ Whitall has died after a long battle with severe medical problems. Robert Junior may be gone from us but his circle of influence is huge and many, many people have fond memories of time with him. I count myself in that group.
I first met Junior at the Mississippi Valley Blues Festival in the late 1990s. I was part of the local blues society that put on the festival. One of our key out-of-town activist volunteers was Shirley Mae Owens from Kansas City. Shirley Mae had met Robert Junior in New Orleans and they had decided to see each other at the Mississippi Valley fest. I edited the society newspaper and fell into conversation with Junior, immediately charmed by his stories and warm, generous personality.
I next saw Robert Junior at the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival where he invited me to a photo shoot for his next magazine cover. I showed up early and in full fest costume. The happy result was a great picture of me having fun at Jazzfest. Junior then said he wanted to keep me on the cover and asked if I would write the feature articles for each issue, the cover stories.
Thus began a long and rewarding friendship that has inspired me by example. One thing Robert Junior taught me was how to better recognize special moments in life to appreciate them. For me one special moment was at the wedding of Robert and Shirley Mae, who would always be ‘Sugar’ to him. In a stunning, almost surreal, setting atop a Sleeping Bear dune overlooking Lake Michigan the assembled guests gathered. Just before the critical “I do” moment, Junior turned his head slightly, bowing it a bit and shed a single tear from one eye. It happened so quick and was only visible to us up close that I’m not sure anyone saw that tear but me. It was a teardrop of love and quite endearing.
Robert Junior was a true romantic who cherished his Sugar and all of life. Always upbeat with a good word to say, he would be one to stop and smell the flowers, and then take a photo. A rock and roll roadie before being captured by the blues, Junior kept up a busy and full travel schedule to festivals and cruises. Somehow he also managed to publish a magazine and issue several dozen compilation CDs.
Robert Junior was a superb editor. Providing contact information, updated bio information, and story ideas for each assignment. He allowed his writers full editorial control over their content, however he would keep things in line with gentle suggestions. You couldn’t turn him down. I did get him worked up once too close to a deadline but we got through that.
I was fortunate to be at two other cover photo shoots, one in New York, the other in New Orleans. Just the logistics of his group photos, and getting a bunch of musicians together at one spot on a bright sunny morning are daunting. However, the vibe was strong and could be felt by the musicians present. Robert Junior could create a quality moment. He once told that his photography was underappreciated by most people who saw him as a publisher only.
Illness periodically would stop him so Robert Junior took up art, portrait painting, to pass the time. I first thought it looked somewhat childish but he saw it as influenced by Frida. There was one big difference between his paintings and those of a juvenile. Somehow, Robert Junior’s primitive artwork captures the essence of its subject in an uncanny way. Over time I joined the many others recognizing a new artist late in life.
The best gift Robert Junior gave me was his own example of following his dream. He suggested I seriously consider ending my professional career and just do what I wanted to do. As Junior said, if he could do it, I could do it. I retired at fifty and started a new lifestyle and have Robert to be thankful for giving me the courage.
I, like many others, have been entertained by a regular dose of blues photos on Facebook. And also sunsets and flowers, but mostly blues musicians. In the past year or two the postings were interrupted by pictures or videos from hospital rooms. Although the hospitalizations continued, Robert Junior would keep up his hectic travel pace and minimize the visits as a “tune up” or “complications.” That was his understated way of saying how sick he was, but I wasn’t paying attention He kept such a light air to his messages, all the way to the end. Robert exited this world with grace.
Robert Junior and Shirley Mae have amassed a massive collection of blues music, art, photos and other memorabilia. Robert has had numerous accolades and won a number of prestigious awards However, the true dimensions of Junior’s contribution to the culture of our time will never be known or fully recognized. His influence is wide and deep. I will always miss his gentle grin.
Pro-Organic Belize and Earth Day logos. (credits: Pro-Organic Belize/Earth Reminder)
Charles Darwin’s last book, The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms, was about the importance of worms. Taking a page out of Darwin’s book, Pro-Organic Belize invited self-described worm farmer Graham Herbert to talk on Earth Day about his 100% organic fertilizer, made in Belize, worm castings. The ‘wormiculture’ expert explained that use of worms to build up soil is properly called vermiculture.
The Earth Day worm presentation was the highlight of the Pro-Organic Belize tenth anniversary annual meeting. POB Chair Mary Loan reminded the gathering of the organization goals. “The mission of Pro-Organic Belize is to educate, inspire and encourage farmers regarding the benefits and opportunities of a sustainable pro-organic system of agriculture that regenerates the soil and to educate consumers of the benefits of pesticide-free produce.”
Loan told of a shared vision to grow cleaner, healthier produce and to support climate adaptation techniques for horticulture while improving soil plant production. “Organic farming is better for plants and wildlife. It improves water quality and is safer for farmers and their families. Growing organic supports the economy, is more nutritious and protects the climate.”
Worm farmer Herbert talked the group through the process. “You can buy worms at Central Farm; however, be careful to watch the scale and buy only worms, not a bunch of worm medium” Herbert has lost count of his worms at 150,000, although that is only an estimate, an actual worm census is impossible.
Herbert delicately calls his organic fertilizer “worm castings” rather than worm excrement or some other descriptive phrase. He explained that juvenile worms do not produce much waste, they are too busy growing. At two to three months the earthworms are ready to go work, eating and discharging decayed fruit and vegetables around the clock. Harvest comes in about four months so each new worm generation takes about six months to deliver the goods. Herbert uses large worm bins (think 55-gallon barrels) to make his fertilizer. He starts with a layer of mulch on the bottom then adds a layer of worms followed by a layer of food (decaying fruits and vegetables mixed with biochar). The worms gobble up the rotting food and discharge their castings. After four months the worms are at the top of the bin and everything below is ready for the garden or field.
Herbert ships his worm castings all over Belize but says they are most popular on the islands, where there is a lot of sand but very little fertile soil.
Being Earth Day and the tenth anniversary, POB decided to add a second lecture to the annual meeting. Oscar Moralez, head of the Western Belize Coconut Association, took time from his farm to talk about his favorite tree, ramon. The ramon, or breadnut tree grows from central Mexico south to the Amazon basin.
Large stands of the tree, brosimum alicastrum, can be found in moist lowland, tropical forests. Described as a Mayan super food, the seed is rich in vitamins and minerals. The sap makes a delicious and nutritious beverage. Moralez believes the ramon tree is vastly under appreciated and under utilized by the modern world and that the demands of climate change call for renewed interest in the historic health food.
POB Secretary Dottie Feucht gave a Year in Review report that highlighted the group’s activities in 2023. Subscribers to the Facebook page now number over two thousand. Monthly canning instructions and tropical grow guides are published via the internet. Feucht also reviewed speakers who gave online presentations.
John Arana spoke about a revival of smallholder farms and home gardens. Dawn Dean, author of Gardening in Southern Belize talked about gardens and how to grow them. Dean also spoke of ongoing research on vanilla production in Belize. Philip Mai gave a talk on seed selection and saving and homemade fertilizers. Stephen Hochstetler spoke of organic farming in Spanish Lookout. Moralez, the ramon advocate, also spoke about organic coconut farming. Laurie Skinner, from the United States, took time from her vacation to Belize tell how to make growing boxes out of rain gutters.
The POB Tropical Grow Guides for 2023 featured: cabbage, cherry tomatoes, cocoyams, basil, cassava, red kidney beans, purslane, hibiscus, lentils, chives, lettuce, and plantains. Canning instructions, available on the POB website, covered: carrots, celery, beets, corn (cold pack) and corn (hot pack), mangoes, tomato juice, grapefruit juice, gumbo limbo tea, blackberry syrup, blackberry jam, and canning without a canner (Mayan style).
Long-time POB supporters Rick Smallwood and his wife Ana told of the demand for Ana’s artisan bread. The couple uses everything organic they can find in their specialty bread and are swamped with customers for their baked goods. Like worm farmer Herbert, much of their demand comes from the islands. Smallwood explained they take the bread straight from the oven to the airport where Tropic Air flies the fresh bread to upper crust eaters on the islands. Ana says she has little spare time these days but they thought it important to support POB’s efforts and took a day away from the oven.
Table talk centered around the problem of labeling food organic in the stores and marketplaces. Consensus of those in attendance was strong for the elimination of glyphosate in Belize. Although more and more countries are banning the popular poison each year, Belize keeps getting dumped with more glyphosate and is actually increasing its usage while is being phased out elsewhere.
A September special event at Central Farm was a combination lecture and cooking class called “Sourcing and Eating Healthy Foods” that was well received by the three-dozen registrants.
The Earth Day celebration ended with door prizes. POB Treasurer Karin Westdyk donated a copy of her new children’s ecology book Flidgywumper Saves the Seas. Gardening tools, other books, several trees and a bag of worm castings went home with happy attendees.
University of London false speculation about examination responsibilities to the Information Commissioner’s Office and missing UL exam regulations found in 1983 bound PhD thesis. (credit: Document scans)
A complaint has been made to the University of London Academic Board seeking correction of a UL false speculation to the Information Commissioner’s Office about missing viva examination regulations. The convoluted story arises out of an academic fraud investigation concerning Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen over her 1984 UL award of a PhD degree. Tsai submitted her PhD thesis, entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions,to the library at the London School of Economics and Political Science in June 2019, thirty-five years late.
President Tsai refuses to release her oral examination viva report which purportedly passed her thesis, while the UL refuses to even name the thesis examiners. The LSE, where Tsai attended school, says it does not know who the viva examiners were. The combination of secrecy and a tardy thesis raised significant public interest in Tsai’s viva examination, said to have been held on a Sunday, October 16, 1983. Allegations of academic fraud still dog Tsai four years after the thesis was finally submitted to a library.
Since there are questions about President Tsai’s viva panel, interest in the viva regulations came to a head when the UL reported the viva rules were missing. Unable to explain what happened to the viva regulations, the UL concocted a false statement, one that Information Review Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy has called a “paradoxical speculation.”
The UL told the ICO that subordinate affiliated schools, like the LSE, were most likely to have promulgated viva regulations instead. The false claim arose from a speculation of the Transcripts and Student Records office at the UL and then was adopted by Information Manager Suzie Mereweather and Director of Compliance Matthew Grigson and passed on to the ICO which accepted the speculation as fact.
Both Mereweather and Grigson have refused to correct the erroneous statement to the ICO, leaving the regulatory agency misinformed about whose responsibility it was to test PhD candidates in the 1980s.
The UL Academic Board is tasked with oversight of the UL responses to regulatory agencies and is chaired by Vice-Chancellor Wendy Thomson, who actually is in charge of the UL. Princess Anne has been the Chancellor since 1981, although she limits herself to ceremonial activity. If a UL event doesn’t require fancy clothes or funny hats, Her Royal Highness is not likely to be there. As if to prove she sticks to ceremonial duties only, Anne has ignored two registered letters from Yungtai Hsu, an Oxford-educated PhD, who has urged Anne to get involved in the Tsai Ing-wen controversy to avoid damage to the UL’s reputation.
The complaint explains the UL told the ICO: “We can find no evidence that the University of London produced guidance relating to the nomination of examiners 1982-1984. We now believe that the individual colleges may have been responsible for assigning the examiners and so any Regulations or guidance relating to this would have been issued by those individual colleges.”
However, the “paradoxical speculation” misinformed the ICO and contradicts a considerable body of evidence that the UL, and not schools like the LSE, conducted the thesis viva exams in the 1980s.
The false speculation that the University did not develop viva regulations has been definitively disproved by the discovery I reported of the missing viva regulations found in a 1983 bound PhD thesis. I provided the University with the missing viva regulations on December 22, 2023.
The false speculation is also contradicted by the LSE minutes of the Graduate School Committee in October 1980, an undated LSE publication entitled Thesis Titles and University Boards of Study from that era, and LSE Graduate School correspondence of February 1983.
The false speculation contradicts the UL 1982-83 Calendar “Boards of Studies” section and the “Examinations” section.
The false speculation contradicts the UL General Instructions for Appointment of Examiners, dated January 1982, and the UL General Regulations concerning PhD examination fee schedules and provisions for examinations.
The false speculation contradicts UL Examination Division correspondence to the Board of Studies in Law, dated May 1983.
The false speculation contradicts UL Academic Registrar correspondence to an examiner, dated June 1983.
The complaint to the Academic Board concludes: “Therefore, I hereby complain to the Academic Board seeking a remedial communication to the ICO informing the regulatory agency of the falsity of the University speculation about the missing viva regulations and accepting responsibility for the conduct of PhD viva examinations, rather than individual colleges as was asserted.”
The “paradoxical speculation” is not the first time the UL has made a false statement to the ICO. In an ICO case involving President Tsai’s missing PhD thesis, the UL made an incorrect statement blaming Senate House librarians for losing the thesis during library reconstruction. Information Manager Suzie Mereweather finally corrected that falsehood on the What Do They Know website explaining the library never received Tsai’s thesis, however the UL did not bother to correct their error with the ICO, keeping the false lost-by-librarian claim part of the official ICO record.
If the University of London is interested in keeping its credibility intact, the Academic Board should tell the ICO that both stories, one about the missing thesis and the other about missing regulations, were false. The University insists that no bad faith was involved in the mistakes. If so, now is the time for the Academic Board to own up to the incorrect statements and tell the ICO the truth.
A Decision Notice by the Information Commissioner’s Office contains a false speculation from the University of London that it did not conduct its own examinations. (credit: Information Commissioner’s Office)
Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy has dismissed an appeal against the University of London over missing examination regulations despite a false assertion by the UL to the Information Commissioner’s Office that subordinate affiliated schools made the exam rules. Judge Kennedy said he had no authority over the truth or falsity of statements made by public bodies.
The Freedom of Information request that ended up at the Information Review Tribunal was part of an investigation into alleged academic fraud by Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen. The tardy submission of Tsai’s PhD thesis to the London School of Economics and Political Science in June 2019, thirty-five years late, triggered allegations of academic fraud that have dogged Tsai since. President Tsai keeps the controversy alive by her refusal to disclose her oral examination viva report which purportedly passed the thesis.
The thesis controversy has been clouded by false statements from the UL about the thesis. To explain the thesis absence from the UL collection of theses, a story was concocted to blame Senate House librarians for an inquiry from the ICO. The “restructuring” of the library over a thirty-year period was to blame. Later, on the What Do They Know website, the UL admitted that the thesis was never received; however, the UL failed to correct its erroneous statement to the ICO.
Now, since the discovery of the missing viva regulations in a 1983 bound PhD thesis, the UL persists in its false speculation that the LSE, not the UL, was responsible for the viva examination rules.
The viva examination itself is the subject of dispute and question. President Tsai says she had three examiners, The UL says there were only two examiners. The LSE says it doesn’t know who the examiners were or how many, although the school states the viva was held on a Sunday.
Judge Kennedy opens his decision quoting a principle of law. “The issue for the Tribunal is not what should have been recorded and retained but what was recorded and retained.”
Judge Kennedy tells the story of the case: “On 10 June 2021 the Appellant submitted a revised request to the University….. The University did not respond to the Appellant’s revised request, despite several chaser e-mails, until 31 March 2022.”
“On 1 April 2022 the Appellant requested an internal review of the University’s response stating that he had not received the information requested in parts 1 and 2 of the request. The information provided was not the regulations requested. However, the Appellant did note that there were missing pages in the regulations they had been sent and therefore the information he required may have been contained within the missing pages.”
“Following an internal review the University wrote to the Appellant on 10 May 2022. It enclosed the pages which had been missing from the regulations and stated that it did not hold any further information regarding the nomination of examiners for the time and the composition of examination boards. It enclosed its current guidelines for this information.”
“On 12 July 2022 the Appellant complained to the Commissioner about the way the request for information had been handled as he considered he had not been provided with the information he had requested.”
“The Commissioner accepted that, in the circumstances of this case, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the University.”
“The Appellant submits that the Commissioner’s decision in this case is based upon speculation. He asserts that this speculation is contrary to the robust and tightly controlled thesis examination protocol that governed viva examiners in the early 1980s and he considers the requested information should be held by the University.”
“The Appellant submits that whilst the University searched for the missing regulations in the Archives and an unnamed storeroom, it has made no indication of a search of the files and records of the Boards of Studies which assigned thesis examiners.”
“The Appellant submits that the University’s assertion that there is no business purpose for which the regulations from 1982 or guidance for examiners in 1982-1984 should be held is contrary to primary and customary business duties of the University to award degrees upon successful completion of examinations and provide subsequent verifications of qualification.”
“The Appellant has provided evidence as to why he considers the requested information should be held by the University. However, the Second Respondent [UL] has made clear that: “We can find no evidence that the University of London produced guidance relating to the nomination of examiners 1982-1984. We now believe that the individual colleges may have been responsible for assigning the examiners and so any Regulations or guidance relating to this would have been issued by those individual colleges.”
“The Appellant has provided various procedures, minutes and documents dating back to the 1980s to explain why the regulations he has requested would have existed. This information was not provided by the Appellant to the Commissioner in support of his section 50 FOIA complaint. The Commissioner indicated that if the Tribunal would be assisted in its decision-making on this matter by input from the University in relation to this supporting evidence or the extent of searches conducted, the Commissioner respectfully invited the Tribunal to consider requesting written submissions or requiring the University to join proceedings. This was done by the Tribunal with appropriate Case Management Directions in a decision dated 8 August 2023 resulting in the comprehensive witness statements produced by the Second Respondent and now before the Tribunal.”
“Regarding whether there is a business purpose for the University to hold the requested information, the University has said that regulations or guidance relating to this would have been issued by individual colleges. As such it would be unlikely the University would have had a business purpose to have held this information even at the time. However, even if it could be established that there was a business purpose to hold the requested information in the 1980’s it is highly unlikely there would remain a business purpose to hold this information at the time of the FOIA request.”
“The Appellant argued that the University’s statement to the First Respondent [ICO] upon which the balance of probabilities was based is contrary to the University of London 1982-1983 Calendar statutes governing Boards of Studies. The Calendar contains the contemporaneous University statutes governing Boards of Studies which the Appellant states in part says: “The Senate shall assign to each Board and each standing committee of a Board of Studies such powers and duties as in the opinion of the Senate are necessary to secure effective consideration of the provision for teaching, research and examinations for degrees and other awards of the University in the field of study with which the Board is concerned.”
“The Appellant further suggested that the University of London statement to the Commissioner also conflicted with the 1982-1983 Calendar’s statutes governing Examinations which state in part: “The Examiners for all prescribed examinations shall be appointed by the Senate.” The 1982-1983 Calendar provisions are corroborated by the Thesis Titles and University Boards of Studies protocol adopted by the London School of Economics and Political Science [LSE] for students seeking degrees from the UL. The protocol explains the role of the University Boards of Studies and states in part: “It is this Board which will be asked by Senate House to appoint the examiners when the student enters for examination – “
“The LSE Graduate School Committee minutes explain the University has differing requirements for viva examination panels and states: “It was noted that some Boards of Studies required three examiners rather than two and there might be differences in thesis specifications which could cause difficulties”.
“The Appellant argued that the paradoxical speculation; “We now believe that the individual colleges may have been responsible for assigning the examiners and so any Regulations or guidance relating to this would have been issued by those individual colleges.”; is contrary to the University’s promulgated statutes for examinations and the LSE protocol and is so manifestly in error that it raises a question about good faith by the University.”
“The Appellant also suggested that the assertion by the Director of Student Registry Services that, “I believe the individual colleges were responsible for assigning the examiners” and maintains this was an erroneous speculative statement.”
“The Appellant noted that the missing viva examination regulations for the 1983-84 school year prevent the University from being able to now verify with certainty that individual viva panels were properly constituted.”
“The Appellant cannot accept that the University of London has acted in good faith in conducting its search for the missing regulations as the Second Respondents submission he suggests does not explain how or why the false statement about the assignment of examiners was made to the Information Commissioner.”
“The Appellant argues that the said false statement has been refuted by the London School of Economics several times, is not borne out by the Second Respondent’s search for the missing regulations, and contradicts evidence submitted by Appellant.”
“[T]he Second Respondent does not accept the Appellant’s characterisation of the assertion by the Director of Student Registry Services as constituting an “erroneous speculative statement.” This assertion by the Director of Student Registry Services was, they argue an informed assessment based on the evidence available at the time and gathered under the constraints of the timescales laid down by the Commissioner for dealing with the FOIA request in question.”
“On the basis of the evidence now before us, we accept that reasonable searches have been carried out by the Second Respondent and we therefor accept that on the balance of probabilities the University does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. Accordingly, we find no error of Law in the DN, and we must dismiss this appeal.”
“In the course of our own investigations and deliberations we make the following observations; The request was for information relating to the academic year 1982/1983 The bundle and the two witness statements demonstrate that there were repeated searches for the information requested. The two witness statements make clear that considerable effort was made by the University in terms of the extent of the searches, the number of people approached, and the questions raised.”
“It seems likely that some information relevant to the request for example about appointment of Examiners would have existed at some time, but it is the Second Respondent’s case that that whatever relevant information they might have held is no longer held, easily accessible or available.”
“There have been reorganisations within the University….There is nothing to suggest that the information might have been disposed of for any reason relating to this, or any other FOIA request.”
“The Tribunal’s remit is simply related to the handing of information Request made by the Appellant and the investigation of that by the Commissioner. It is not for the Tribunal to consider nor comment on the underlying reason for the request concerning as it does appear to the Appellant…to relate to the award of a degree by the University.”
“He stated…that he had now received copies of the requested information from another source,…However, he insists that the Second Respondent, were guilty of misrepresentation and bad faith. The Tribunal are not in a position to take evidence from abroad in such circumstances as have occurred at this hearing and as we have already established there is no credible evidence before us to consider such allegations. If the Appellant wishes to pursue any such allegations, then this Tribunal is not the forum for that investigation. We have dismissed this Appeal on the credible evidence before us and there the matter ends with us.”
While Judge Kennedy may be correct that there is no remedy in the Freedom of Information Act for false statements by public bodies, the ability of the University of London to tell the Information Commissioner a “paradoxical speculation” as a practice and procedure and then refuse to authenticate its own regulation which disproves the speculation does not pass the smell test. Something stinks.
Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen, Tsai’s viva notification letter, and Soochow University emblem illustrate Tsai’s teaching promotion after her PhD award. (credits: UK Watchdog)
UK Watchdog, an independent research team, has been studying the long-running controversy over Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s 1984 PhD award from the University of London. The controversy began in June 2019 when Tsai submitted her PhD thesis to the library at the London School of Economics and Political Science, thirty-five years late. The tardy thesis led to accusations of academic fraud that have continued to dog Tsai, four years later. President Tsai keeps the issue alive by her refusal to release her oral examination viva report which purportedly approved the thesis.
UK Watchdog has partnered with Richardson Reports to release periodic chapters of its ongoing study. The latest chapter concerns the viva result notification sent to Tsai to inform her of the outcome of her viva examination. The report begins with the issuance of the letter.
Tsai Ing-wen’s viva result notification letter was issued on February 8, 1984, which was disclosed by Tsai’s Presidential Office for the first time on September 4, 2019, when Tsai filed criminal defamation complaints against Professor Emeritus Ho De-fen, Professor Hwan Lin, and talk-show host Dennis Peng. Ho and Lin have had Tsai’s charge against them dropped while ROC prosecutors continue to pursue Peng for remarks he made about Tsai and her thesis on his internet talk show True Voice of Taiwan.
According to the LSE, where Tsai attended school, her viva exam was held on October 16, 1983, a Sunday. Tsai says she had three viva examiners although the University of London, which arranged the viva session, says there were two examiners. The discrepancy in the number of viva examiners is one of a number of unanswered questions that cloud Tsai’s PhD story.
According to Chang Dun-han, one of Tsai’s spokespersons, Tsai’s thesis passed the examination on the day of her viva exam without content correction. Only misspellings and missing words were required to be corrected. Despite such minor corrections, Tsai’s viva result notification letter was not issued until February 8, 1984, almost four months after Tsai’s viva exam. Was it extraordinarily long?
To answer the question about Tsai’s long wait, UK Watchdog turned to the VV file to learn what the practice was in 1983. The VV file is the LSE student file of a deceased classmate of Tsai’s who was operating on a similar schedule. The Data Protection Act that keeps Tsai’s student file off-limits to public inspection does not apply after someone’s death. The research team painstakingly searched obituary records to acquire the VV file from the LSE for use as a control file.
Attorney Max Chiang, one of Dennis Peng’s lawyers, doesn’t buy UK Watchdog’s explanation and offered his analysis on Peng’s talk show. Chiang speculated, falsely, that the LSE gave Tsai the VV file to make her own counterfeit student file. UK Watchdog notified Peng of Chiang’s error and offered a short video correcting the gaffe. Peng, instead of thanking UK Watchdog for the correction, stands by his lawyer’s fabrication and continues to refuse to broadcast the correction video leaving his viewers confused about the VV file’s purpose and origin. Despite Chiang’s fantasy, the VV file has proven itself to be a reliable window into the protocols of the past and how things worked in the hand-off between the LSE and the UL for examination in 1983-84.
VV’s viva result notification letter from the UL was issued on October 5, 1983. The exact date of VV’s viva is unknown as the LSE files do not have examination records. However, when submitting the examination entry form, VV planned to submit the doctoral thesis in July 1983. In the early 1980s, the examiners needed at least six to eight weeks to read the thesis before the exam could take place. Therefore, VV’s viva exam was most likely held between mid-August and mid-September 1983.
Compared to VV’s PhD journey, it was extraordinarily long for the Academic Registrar at the UL to issue Tsai’s viva result notification letter almost four months after the viva exam.
Tsai’s Soochow University faculty employment certificate revealed that Tsai began her tenure at Soochow University on September 1, 1983, before she took her viva examination. At a public hearing in Taipei held in the Executive Yuan on April 30, 2021, the Head of the Higher Education Division of the Ministry of Education admitted that Tsai’s tenure at Soochow University began in September 1983, as an adjunct lecturer, a fact omitted from Tsai’s official biography posting.
Tsai’s Soochow University faculty employment certificate confirms that Tsai was promoted to Adjunct Associate Professor on February 16, 1984, only eight days after Tsai’s viva result notification letter was issued in London. At the time, Tsai’s original PhD diploma had not yet been issued. Tsai relied on her viva result notification letter to prove her PhD in February 1984 for her teaching position at Soochow University,
UK Watchdog notes that there are two versions of the viva result notification letter. The version disclosed by Tsai’s Presidential Office on September 4, 2019, was not signed, and Tsai’s address in Taipei was provided in the lower left-hand corner. The version subpoenaed from Soochow University by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office was signed by the Academic Registrar at the UL, G. F. Roberts. Tsai’s Taipei mailing address in the lower left-hand corner was erased.
UK Watchdog says it is worth noting that Tsai’s viva result notification letter is a document of the UL not the LSE. The LSE has no power to authenticate either version of Tsai’s viva result notification letters. However, on March 10, 2020, Tsai’s attorneys requested the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office to send Tsai’s viva result notification to the LSE for authentication. It was the one not signed by Roberts and had Tsai’s Taipei address in the lower left-hand corner.
On July 23, 2020, Kevin Haynes, Head of the LSE Legal Team, found it on page 69 of Tsai’s LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives and verified it as authentic. Rachael Maguire, the LSE Information Manager, says Tsai’s student file may not be accurate and some information is in it by accident. UK Watchdog asks was the viva result notification letter not signed by Roberts, another document that accidentally landed in Tsai’s LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives?
The Information Commissioner’s Office. in a Decision Notice issued on September 3, 2021 stated the letter had not been retained in the UL student file.
In the early 1980s, the UL routinely issued viva result notification letters and sent them to the LSE, confirming particular students had been awarded a PhD degree. UK Watchdog asks who signed Tsai’s viva result notification letter subpoenaed from Soochow University, questioning whether it was Roberts.
UK Watchdog wonders who erased Tsai’s Taipei mailing address in the lower left-hand corner? And why?
Even if Tsai received her viva result notification letter subpoenaed from Soochow University at her Taipei address on February 16, 1984, and delivered it to Soochow University on the same day, and Soochow University completed the administrative procedure also on the same day, there is still a potential problem with mail time from the UL in London to Tsai’s address in Taipei.
In 2023, it would at least 5 to 7 working days for Royal Mail, the British postal service and courier, to deliver Tsai’s viva result notification letter signed by Roberts from the UL. in London to Tsai’s address in Taipei. The time line is very tight.
Forty years ago, in 1984, how long did it take for Royal Mail to deliver it to Tsai’s address in Taipei? Possibly longer than now.
How and when did Tsai deliver it to Soochow University before February 16, 1984?
How long did it take for Soochow University to complete the administrative procedure for promoting Tsai to Adjunct Associate Professor?
Was Tsai’s viva result notification letter subpoenaed from Soochow University with the signature, issued in London? or Taipei? By whom?
Although President Tsai doesn’t like to talk about her thesis anymore, there is one possible explanation for the two versions of the viva result letter. Through some logistical miracle the letter might have made it to Taipei by February 16th. Tsai may have had the Soochow officials ready to act on her promotion as soon as she provided some proof she was approved. Regularly checking her mailbox, Tsai may have rushed the letter to Soochow the day the letter arrived where friendly help was waiting to expedite the same-day promotion. In her haste, Tsai failed to keep a copy of the signed letter for herself. Decades later, in the summer of 2019, Tsai obtained a copy of her student file from the LSE and she used the LSE copy to give to ROC prosecutors. It is easy to believe the LSE copy may not have been signed which would explain how Tsai came to possess an unsigned letter addressed to her. That still leaves a question about the missing Taipei address on the Soochow version of the viva letter. Perhaps Tsai decided the letter looked better without the address? Of course this innocent explanation scenario is only speculation since Tsai refuses to provide answers or release her viva exam report.
Questions, questions, and more questions pile up as the mystery of Tsai Ing-wen’s thesis deepens.
Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs and Tribunal Judge Stephen Cragg. Jacobs granted appeal against Cragg over four errors of law in a Freedom of Information decision involving the British Library. (credits: Judiciary UK/LinkedIn)
Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs has issued a significant decision in a long-running legal controversy over the 1984 PhD award by the University of London to Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen for a missing thesis. The phantom thesis finally surfaced in June 2019 when Tsai submitted it to the library at the London School of Economics and Political Science, thirty-five years late.
This is not Judge Jacobs first encounter with President Tsai’s thesis. Judge Jacobs ruled on October 18, 2022, “[REDACTED]’s concerns and worries about the proper form of the President’s degree cannot be resolved within the FOIA scheme.” Jacobs had decided that personal data exclusions prevented the University of London from revealing whether Tsai’s viva exam was about her thesis or merely a transfer viva from the Masters to PhD program.
President Tsai has battled allegations of academic fraud for four years because of the tardy thesis and her refusal to disclose her oral examination viva report on the thesis. Strong public interest flooded both the UL and the LSE with Freedom of Information requests. Both schools have issued public statements defending President Tsai’s PhD award and fended off the FOI requests, claiming personal data exemptions in the law prevented disclosure of Tsai’s student records.
In the face of stonewalling by President Tsai and the two London schools, members of the public shifted their FOI requests to topics not protected by personal data restrictions. The next barrier thrown up against researchers was allegations of vexatiousness. FOI requests were routinely refused as vexatious under blanket policies. Then the Information Commissioner, John Edwards, joined the game and protected the two schools by his refusal to consider complaints deemed vexatious. Edwards went a step further and even refused to issue decision notices thus depriving FOI requesters the right to use the Information Review Tribunal to hear their complaints. Litigation has followed the thesis controversy and kept both schools busy dealing with the matter. Now the British Library will be getting a taste of the legal action.
Professor Hwan Lin was the first to realize the role of the British Library in the Tsai thesis controversy. Lin noted the British Library had a catalog entry for the thesis in its online theses collection called EThOS but no copy of the thesis. The library brushed off Lin but eventually other researchers realized there were problems with the British Library version of events.
A TIME magazine cover story on Tsai Ing-wen’s candidacy for ROC president, published in June 2015, triggered a flurry of activity in the United Kingdom. International media attention on Tsai’s PhD award prompted an internal investigation on the whereabouts of Tsai’s thesis entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions.
On the same day of the LSE internal investigation, June 24, 2015, the UL made a search for the missing thesis. When Senate House librarians at the UL could not find Tsai’s thesis they made a trip to the storage room and examined the old card catalog where they found a notation that the thesis was never received.
The same day, June 24, 2015, that both schools came up empty-handed, the British Library entered Tsai’s thesis into its online data base, despite lacking a copy of the thesis. Curiously, the catalog entry was in violation of the EThOS protocol against academic fraud that required the British Library to limit its data harvest only from official library channels. On June 24, 2015, neither the LSE nor the UL libraries had anything to harvest, no thesis and no metadata to share with the British Library.
A member of the public requested information from the British Library on April 4, 2022, about how the British Library was able to catalog a thesis in 2015 when no library had a copy. The library, following the LSE, the UL, and the ICO strategy turned down the FOI request as vexatious. An Internal Review was requested. British Library CEO Roly Keating conducted the review and upheld the finding of vexatiousness. Keating explained the LSE published the thesis in 2015 and that the British Library had a copy from then. Both of Keating’s claims were false.
When I learned of Keating’s falsehoods, I pressed the British Library for proof of Keating’s claims. Instead, I got an explanation that Keating made a mistake. I offered my letter of explanation for submission to the Information Review Tribunal. However, Judge Stephen Cragg ignored the false internal review claims and branded the FOI requester as vexatious and intransigent. Outraged at Keating’s falsehoods ignored by Cragg and the insults about the requester, I volunteered my services for an Upper Tribunal hearing.
Judge Jacobs sets out the British Library story in his decision starting with the FOI request: “It concerned its records relating to the PhD degree of the then President of Taiwan, Dr Tsai. The Library refused the request on the ground that it was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It maintained this position on internal review. [REDACTED] complained to the Information Commissioner under section 50 of the Act, but the Commissioner decided that the Library had been correct to rely on section 14(1).”
“[REDACTED]” appealed against the Commissioner’s decision to the First-tier Tribunal. The Commissioner applied for the appeal to be struck out, but the tribunal refused and proceeded to hear the case. After considering the papers, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.”
“[REDACTED] applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. I directed a hearing, which took place by CVP on 20 March 2024. [REDACTED] attended, as did his representative Mr. Richardson, who is acting pro bono. I am grateful to him for his arguments. The Information Commissioner was not required to attend and did not do so.”
“An appeal Iies to the Upper Tribunal on ‘any point of law arising from a decision’ (section 11(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007). The test is whether there is a realistic prospect of an appeal succeeding (Lord Woolf MR in Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 1538). I consider that the test is satisfied.”
“Mr Richardson’s first ground referred to exhibits AA and BB. They are attached. Unless I have misunderstood them, they are from the British Library to Mr Richardson and admit that the records were inaccurate. They referred to actions relating to a copy of the thesis in 2015, when it was not available physically until 2019. As Mr Richardson pointed out, the request related to the records in 2015. These emails appear to be a belated admission that those records were incorrect. I give permission on this ground.”
“Mr Richardson’s second ground was that the tribunal had not relied on the burden on the Library without quantifying it. He noted that the Library had not relied on the section 12 exemption. I give permission on this ground, although it is possible that the tribunal was referring to the burden in the general sense of having to undertake a search for which there was no good purpose.”
“Mr Richardson’s third ground was that the purpose of the request related to the Library’s records, not to the thesis itself. The subsequent discovery of the error in the records tends to show that there was some purpose in the request. I give permission on this ground also. The tribunal found (paragraph 28 of its written reasons) that [REDACTED]’s purpose was to show that the thesis did not exist. It identified the submission on which it relied in paragraph 7 of the refusal of permission to appeal. The meaning of that submission takes on a different meaning once it is understood that the documentation could not be correct if there was no physical copy of the thesis available in 2015.”
“Mr Richardson’s fourth ground was that the tribunal had shown bias. He did not allege the classic grounds for bias – race, class, religion or gender. Rather, he used this as a convenient heading to include: (a) assuming that [REDACTED] knew what had been in other requests relating to the thesis; (b) misconstruing the request, which was not about whether the PhD had been properly awarded – a matter for the University of London, not the Library; and (c) finding persistence and intransigence without evidence. If this were an allegation of bias in its traditional sense, I would refuse permission on this ground. I prefer to read it as a label to bring together the individual points made that I have itemised above. On that basis, I give permission on this ground.”
Judge Jacobs ordered the Information Commissioner to respond within one month. If Jacobs is not satisfied with the ICO response he signaled his intention to either return the case to the Information Review Tribunal for a new hearing or conduct a second hearing himself. Judge Jacobs did not order the removal Judge Cragg, so if the case gets returned for a new hearing Cragg will have to be mindful that Jacobs earmarked the criticisms of misconstruing the FOI request and making assumptions about the requester without evidence and take care to not repeat his mistakes.
Mystery surrounds the PhD thesis examiners of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen. (credit: UK Watchdog)
UK Watchdog, an independent research team, has been studying a long-running controversy at the University of London over Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’ 1983 PhD thesis. Tsai opened the controversy in June 2019, when she submitted her PhD thesis, entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions, to the London School of Economics Library, 35 years late. The tardy thesis kicked off allegations of academic fraud that have continued to dog Tsai four years later. Several months after Tsai turned in what appears to be a draft document with pagination problems, footnote issues, and handwritten notations including a question mark, I made a Freedom of Information request to the London School of Economics and Political Science for the names of Tsai’s examiners. UK Watchdog’s latest report on the controversy opens with my FOI inquiry.
On October 3, 2019, Rachel Maguire, LSE Information Manager, forwarded my information request to several LSE administrators with her opinion on how to respond. “We normally do not release examiner names under any circumstances. However, considering the situation, its whether there would be any harm to the examiners from releasing this information. If they are deceased, its the same situation as for the supervisor. If they are retired, there is unlikely to be any harm to their careers, but intense media interest could come their way. If they are still working, there could be potential harm to their careers due to intense media interest.”
UK Watchdog says Maguire was wrong and records of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the public record contradict her assertion. IALS routinely discloses thesis examiner identities on its website.
Simon Hix, an internationally recognized scholar, was the LSE’s Vice-President between 2018 and 2021. Hix’s official resume lists, by name, twenty-five students he has personally examined. Eight of the identified PhD candidates were LSE students.
Maguire responded to my FOI request for examiner names on October 21, 2019. “The School believes that this information is held in full by the University of London.”
A week after Maguire’s reply, I made a request to the UL for the names of President Tsai’s examiners.
Ignoring IALS’s routine practice, on December 2, 2019, the UL refused to disclose the names of Tsai’s viva examiners invoking the Data Protection Act.
UK Watchdog notes that while I was fighting for the names, on December 18, 2020, Kevin Haynes, Head of the LSE Legal Team, disclosed the names of Tsai’s viva examiners to the Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom at the request of ROC prosecutors investigating a defamation complaint made by Tsai against internet talk show host Dennis Peng.
According to Haynes, Michael Elliott and Leonard Leigh examined Tsai’s thesis in October 1983.
Haynes found the information on pages 74 and 75 of Tsai’s LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives.
Unable to obtain the examiner identities from the UL, on May 2, 2021, I filed second FOI request to the LSE for the names of Tsai’s viva examiners. The LSE refused the request, claiming that it did not hold the information.
I unsuccessfully complained to the Information Commissioner and was unsatisfied with the decision to uphold the LSE denial so I appealed to the Information Review Tribunal. The Decision Notice stated: “The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the LSE does not hold the requested information.”
To convince the Tribunal that the LSE did not hold Tsai’s viva examiners’ names, the LSE admitted that “the information we hold on file is only there accidentally…we cannot be certain that this information is accurate”.
The LSE admission raises suspicions on the integrity of Tsai’s LSE student file and the LSE Archives in which Tsai’s LSE student file was stored. However, the tribunal said nothing.
Kevin Haynes’ legal team, which included Rachael Maguire, reported to the Secretary’s Division at the Board of Trustees level. The “accidentally” email dated March 31, 2021, was most likely authored by Louise Nadal, LSE School Secretary, who manages all legal compliance and governance activities on behalf of the LSE. Nadal authored most, if not all, of the internal reviews of LSE’s responses to FOI requests relating to Tsai’s missing doctoral thesis and her 1984 PhD degree.
On February 6, 2020, in an internal review, Nadal revealed she had been swamped with requests and correspondence about Tsai’s thesis. “This includes dealing with more than one thousand emails on the subject in recent months.”
Uncertainty about the accuracy of Tsai’s LSE student file includes the mystery of who examined Tsai. The March 31, 2021 email mentions three possible examiners.
“Looking at it again, I was wondering where in the student file you [Haynes] got the information that she had two internal examiners–(XX) and (YY)–and one external examiner–(ZZ).”
“As far as I can see the only examiners referred to in the file are: (ZZ), named as an external examiner in a letter from President Tsai…to Sec of Graduate School at LSE, 5 December 1983. (XX), who refers to ‘my co-examiner and myself’ in a memo dated 16/1/1983. This also suggests there were only two examiners, (XX) and one other. I see (YY) is mentioned in the file but couldn’t find him named specifically as an examiner.”
Based on Haynes’ confirmation on December 18, 2020, XX was Michael Elliott, and YY was Leonard Leigh. According to the court file of the Taiwan Taipei District Court, Z.Z. was Richard Dale.
Though the internal email questioned the accuracy of the information about Tsai’s three viva examiners, the questioned information is consistent with Tsai’s description of her viva examiners.
In September 2021, Tsai’s attorneys submitted Haynes’ email dated December 18, 2020, to the Taiwan Taipei District Court as evidence to prove that Elliott and Leigh were Tsai’s viva examiners. Tsai’s thesis was about international trade law or international economic law, but Leigh was a criminal law professor at LSE in the early 1980s. UK Watchdog concludes Leigh “was not qualified as an internal examiner.”
Dennis Peng, living in self-exile in Caslifornia to avoid imprisonment in Taiwan, challenged the qualification of Tsai’s internal viva examiners and a lack of external examiner. In response to Peng’s challenge, in 2022, Tsai’s attorneys reported to the Taipei Court that the external viva examiner was Richard Dale, a scholar and attorney specializing in antidumping laws. The evidence was Tsai’s memory, not Tsai’s letter to the Secretary of the Graduate School at the LSE on December 5, 1983, mentioned in the internal email dated March 31, 2021.
In February 2022, the UL released a public statement confirming that Tsai was awarded a PhD in March 1984 following the submission and examination of her thesis by two examiners. The confirmation of two viva examiners in the UL’s statement is inconsistent with Tsai’s own account.
The UL public statement is also inconsistent with the court file of the Taipei District Court, according to which Tsai had three viva examiners.
According to the LSE internal email, at least three documents containing the information about Tsai’s viva examiners accidentally landed in Tsai’s LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives.
The first accidental document found in Tsai’s LSE student file was a letter written by Tsai to Ian Stephenson, Secretary of the LSE Graduate School, on December 5, 1983. The second accidental document in Tsai’s student file was a memo written by Michael Elliott. The third document contained the name of YY “mentioned in the file.”
The LSE failed to provide and the Tribunal failed to ask the reason why Tsai wrote the letter to Stephenson, informing him the identity of Tsai’s external examiner.
UK Watchdog says there are good reasons to question the Elliott memo. According to the 1983-1984 UL Regulations, the thesis title had to be approved by the LSE before PhD candidates were permitted to submit an examination entry form to enter the examination stage at the UL. Tsai’s thesis title was approved by the LSE on January 19, 1983, three days after the memo was written on January 16, 1983.
In the letter notifying Tsai’s thesis title approval, Tsai was reminded that the next thing she should do was to complete an examination entry form. Then the UL had to appoint examiners when it received an entry form. When the memo was written on January 16, 1983, the LSE had not approved Tsai’s thesis title.
Tsai was not permitted to submit an examination entry form, and no viva examiners were appointed by the UL. Elliott could not possibly refer himself as one of Tsai’s viva examiners on January 16, 1983.
Furthermore, the memo was written only one month before Elliott wrote the letter on February 17, 1983, certifying Tsai’s PhD exam to be held in the Spring 1983, not October 1983.
The third accidental document is one in Tsai’s LSE student file that mentioned Leonard Leigh.
Curiously, none of the three documents were submitted to the Taipei District Court to prove Tsai’s viva examiners. UK Watchdog says the three documents were not the only ones that accidentally landed in Tsai’s LSE student file or raise significant questions.
Haynes also found Tsai’s LSE student record on page 4 of Tsai’s LSE student file. It contains information after Tsai withdrew from course on November 10, 1982, and a Date of Entry for which no viva examiners could be appointed for Tsai’s PhD exam to be held in October 1983.
Ian Stephenson’s letter dated February 11, 1982, on page 120 of Tsai’s LSE student file, indicates that Tsai’s registration transfer was not approved by the LSE Graduate School Committee.
Stephenson’s letter dated January 19, 1983, on page 95 of Tsai’s LSE student file indicates that the LSE informed Tsai about her approved final thesis title on the same date the LSE Graduate School Committee met to approve her final thesis title.
Stephenson’s letters on page 89 and page 101 of Tsai’s LSE student file were issued for Tsai to extend her student visas but these two letters were inconsistent with the United Kingdom Immigration Act.
At least one document contains Tsai’s PhD exam date, based on which Rachel Maguire was able to confirm Tsai’s PhD exam date, October 16, 1983, but who wrote it and when?
UK Watchdog says that these documents raise suspicions on the integrity of Tsai’s LSE student file and the integrity of the LSE Archives in which Tsai’s LSE student file is stored.
Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s memoir book cover (credit: Tsai Ing-wen)
UK Watchdog is an independent research team investigating a long-running controversy at the University of London over Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s 1983 PhD thesis. Tsai submitted her thesis to the London School of Economics Library in June 2019, thirty-five years late, triggering allegations of academic fraud. The UK Watchdog team has been exploring the controversy in great detail in a series of periodic reports. The latest UK Watchdog report can be found at my website.
On June 29, 2015, based on her interview with ROC presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen, TIME’s Beijing correspondent, Emily Rauhala, released her cover story reporting that Tsai earned her PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science in less than three years..
Coincidentally, or not, the TIME cover story ran just four days after a flurry of activity in London over candidate’s Tsai’s PhD thesis. On June 24, 2015, at the LSE, an internal investigation for Tsai’s missing thesis was launched by Louise Nadal, the Secretary of the LSE Board of Trustees. That same day, in response to news media inquiries from Taiwan, the University of London realized it also lacked Tsai’s doctoral thesis from its theses collection. A Senate House librarian was sent into the storage room to examine the old card catalog only to discover a handwritten entry that Tsai’s thesis was never received. In London, at the British Library a catalog entry was made for the phantom thesis and entered into EThOS, an online theses collection. The British Library action was contrary to its own policy to guard against academic fraud, by obtaining thesis metadata only from university libraries
Within three days of the TIME story, the LSE had received “five or six” requests for copies of the thesis that no one could locate. The growing public interest in her thesis, entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions, forced Tsai to adjust her timeline and she changed her degree award date from 1983 to 1984 on her new official website.
UK Watchdog says that the new date of award caused a shifting of other dates in Tsai’s doctoral journey. The viva examination date was shifted from Spring of 1983, as anticipated by Tsai’s advisor, Michael Elliott, to October 1983. Although Elliott was Tsai’s PhD advisor he lacked the advanced degree himself, instead having two bachelor degrees. Elliott ceased being Tsai’s advisor when she dropped out of the LSE in November 1982. It is unknown, because of personal data restrictions in United Kingdom law, whether or not Elliot signed needed authorization forms for Tsai before his departure from the LSE in 1983.
On October 2, 2019, I submitted my first Freedom of Information request to the LSE. One of my four questions was the date of Tsai’s PhD oral viva examination. My request went to Rachael Maguire, the LSE Information and Records Manager. Maguire forwarded my FOI request the next day to two LSE administrators with her views on the requested information.
About the thesis examiners’ identity, Maguire said: “ To summarize, assuming we hold this info and not UoL, if the examiners are dead—release the names. If they are not—don’t release the names as this could bring them under media interest that would be all out of proportion to the role they played.”
Maguire had a different idea about answering the viva date question. “Could be released, it is personal data but it is in Ms. Tsai’s interests that we confirm the review.”
Maguire sent me off to the University of London for the examiners’ names, but did answer my question about the viva date as October 16, 1983, a Sunday.
However, things don’t add up. A document was uncovered in Taiwan about Tsai returning to Taiwan in June 1983 with a PhD in International Economic Law and began teaching at Soochow University in September 1983.
According to Tsai’s own account, after withdrawing from course on November 10,1982, and before returning to Taiwan on June 30, 1983, Tsai was traveling around and ready to go to Singapore to teach at the University of Singapore. Preparing for a viva examination was not mentioned. Besides, Tsai has claimed she was busy preparing for two bar examinations, one in New York and one in Taiwan.
Tsai filed criminal defamation complaints with the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office against attorney Ho De-fen, Professor Hwan Lin, and talk show host Dennis Peng on September 4, 2019.
On September 19, 2019, Tsai’s attorneys did not expect the disclosure of Tsai’s 1983 ROC Entry and Exit Record. They submitted the student visa extension certificate issued by the LSE on June 10, 1983, to the Prosecutors Office to prove Tsai’s viva exam in London.
The description of the certificate provided by Tsai’s attorneys to the Prosecutors Office was: “The Complainant completed and submitted the doctoral thesis in June 1983 and waited for the oral exam; the LSE issued a certificate on June 10 for the Complainant to apply for a visa extension so as to stay until October to complete the oral exam.”
According to Tsai’s lawyers, she submitted her thesis on June 15, 1983 and then decided to wait around in London for the viva examination.
At an educational forum of high school students on June 21, 2020, President Tsai, four months before her ROC Entry and Exit Record was disclosed, told a similar story.
“After I finished my PhD program and submitted my doctoral thesis, there was a period of time when I was waiting for my viva. A British fellow student of mine was also writing her thesis. I did one thing for her. I proofread her thesis and corrected her English. Think about this. A student from Taiwan helped a British student correct her English. What had happened? Her verbal English was good, better than mine. She could express herself well, but my grammar was better than hers.”
UK Watchdog says that according to Tsai’s story on that day, she never left London after submitting her thesis in June and before her viva examination in October. During that time she was busy proofreading and correcting the English of her friend.
When disclosing Tsai’s return date, the National Immigration Agency also disclosed that Tsai again left Taiwan on October 15, 1983, and returned to Taiwan on October 30, 1983. It suggests Tsai flew from Taipei to London on October 15, 1983, only one day before her viva exam.
In a public speech on March 11, 2011, Tsai told the audience that her sister was with her for the viva examination.
To prove Tsai’s viva exam in London, the Entry and Exit Record of Tsai’s sister was also disclosed. According to the Record, Tsai’s sister also left Taiwan on October 15, 1983, and returned to Taiwan on October 30, 1983, suggesting that Tsai flew with her sister from Taipei to London for her PhD exam on October 15, 1983.
However, Tsai could not change her autobiography which was published in 2011. The memoir talks about the viva exam. “On the day of the PhD examination my sister flew from Taiwan so as to be with me.” UK Watchdog says this narrative was to show that Tsai was already in London and joined by her sister.
To corroborate her story, Tsai included one photo of her and the sister taken outside a cathedral. The picture caption stated: “PhD examination; my sister flew to the UK so as to be with me.” Once again the inference was made that Tsai’s sister traveled alone to visit Tsai.
The photo was a sort of proof of the viva examination. However, the cathedral was not in London. The photo of the two sisters and the examination caption was actually taken in Boston. The Cathedral Church of St. Paul is the setting in downtown Boston. Both women are wearing light, summer clothing rather than the heavier garments required of an October afternoon in London.
Somewhat confusing things was an OpEd article in the United Daily News in Taipei written by Tsai and published on October 20, 1983, suggesting her presence in Taiwan during October.
Tsai’s Entry and Exit Record shows that she was in Taiwan from June 30, 1983 until October 15, 1983, the day before her viva examination in London. Tsai stayed in London for two weeks. UK Watchdog questions why she would have traveled so close to her viva date and not allowed some time to prepare and adjust from the long international flight.
Taipei District Prosecutors dropped criminal defamation charges against Ho De-fen and Hwan Lin but kept Dennis Peng on the hook. Peng fought back and suggested that Tsai could not have made the trip and also taken the test in such a short span of time. Peng’s criticism of the travel schedule yielded yet one more timeline change. Peng produced a court document showing Tsai’s lawyers changed the viva date to October 17, 1983.
To try and sort it all out UK Watchdog turned to the VV file. The investigative team obtained the LSE student file of a deceased classmate of Tsai’s, designated VV, as a control file to better understand what should have happened. In the VV file, the viva date is never identified. The viva examiners were appointed by the UL and the LSE was out of the loop. So where, asks UK Watchdog, did Rachael Maguire get the October 16, 1983 date that she gave to me? What document contained the date? When and how did that document get into Tsai’s student file?
The VV file relied upon by UK Watchdog has been analyzed by Peng’s lawyer, Max Chiang, who questions the investigators. Chiang, rather than listening to the team that obtained the VV file, invented his own scenario to explain the file. In Chiang’s fertile imagination, the VV file was provided to Tsai to create a counterfeit student file for herself. The independent team quickly informed Peng that Chiang was all wrong and prepared a video correction for Peng to use on his talk show True Voice of Taiwan . Peng refused to broadcast the correction and stands by his lawyer. Peng may be too embarrassed to tell the truth but he should think twice before advancing Chiang’s fantasy in a courtroom.
Meanwhile, an Information Review Tribunal hearing is scheduled to review the actions and statements of the University of London in a missing regulations case. For two years now the UL has been claiming it could not find the 1983 thesis examination regulations and has even advanced the theory they never existed and the LSE should have had the regulations. A researcher located the missing regulations in a bound 1983 PhD thesis providing authenticity and contradicting the UL’s claim of no regulations. The Tribunal judge will be asked to find the University of London is incorrectly denying its examination responsibilities.
Did Tsai Ing-wen graduate in 1983 or 1984? Was Tsai’s viva in Spring 1983 or October 1983? Why have the examiners’ identities been kept secret? Why was the thesis missing? Why were the examination regulations missing? The 2015 TIME magazine cover story opened up a quagmire of questions, contradictions, and confusion. It is time to drain the swamp.
United Kingdom Immigration Rules prohibiting unregistered study by international students. (credit: UK Watchdog)
UK Watchdog, an independent research group, has been exploring the University of London controversy over the 1984 PhD award to Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai triggered allegations of academic fraud when she submitted her PhD thesis entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions to the London School of Economics and Political Science, 35 years late. Tsai refuses to release her oral examination viva report keeping the controversy alive.
UK Watchdog begins its latest report chapter on September 23, 2019, when Dun-Han Chang, one of President Tsai’s spokespersons, responded to the controversy arising from Tsai’s LSE student record which disclosed that Tsai was not re-registered for 1982-1983 and withdrew from course on November 10, 1982, due to financial difficulties. Tsai had already met the PhD requirement, so no registration was required for any courses. Subsequently, the London School of Economics issued certificates to Tsai for her to apply for student visa extensions, allowing Tsai to complete her doctoral thesis.
Chang disclosed two certificates issued by LSE for Tsai to extend her student visa after Tsai withdrew from course on November 10, 1982.
In response to a Freedom of Information request, the UK Home Office provided the “Immigration Rules of 1982 and 1983 promulgated under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.” The Rules, when Tsai was a student, prohibited international students from extending student visas without formal registration.
Immigration Rule 107 states an extension for an appropriate period might be granted if the student produced evidence that he was enrolled for a full-time course of daytime study which meets the requirements for admission as a student, and was able to maintain and accommodate himself without working and without recourse to public funds.
Immigration Rule 21 states that a passenger seeking entry to study in the UK should be admitted if he had been accepted for a course of study at a university, granted an entry clearance, and was able to meet the cost of the course and his own maintenance and accommodation without working and without recourse to public funds.
Thus, according to these rules, for Tsai to extend her student visa, she had to be registered for a full-time course of daytime study with the LSE and be able to support herself financially.
UK Watchdog compared the Immigration Act with a LSE student file, designated the VV file, and discovered the law was enforced for LSE students. The research team obtained the VV file as a control file to learn what Tsai Ing-wen’s file should have looked like. VV is a now deceased classmate of Tsai’s and her file is no longer protected by the personal data exclusion that keeps Tsai’s file secret.
Despite its value and UK Watchdog’s continued use of the VV file as a control, the file is not without some controversy. Max Chiang, who is talk show host Dennis Peng’s lawyer, appeared on the True Voice of Taiwan program and fabricated an imaginary scenario that had the LSE supply Tsai with the VV file to construct a counterfeit student file. UK Watchdog prepared a correction for Peng to broadcast correcting the errant attorney, but Peng refused allowing Chiang’s false analysis to go uncorrected for the show viewers.
VV’s PhD was in the field of International Relations. For VV’s research in a foreign country, VV submitted her first application form for a certificate of registration on February 23, 1981.
Eight different types of certificates or standard statements were listed in the application form. Two were certificates to be submitted to the UK Home Office or immigration authorities of foreign countries. They were issued either for confirming registration or stating that the student was expected to re-register for the next session if the certificate was issued towards the end of the session. They indicate that the application form was designed to satisfy the registration requirements of immigration laws in general and the UK Immigration Act 1971 in particular.
A certificate was issued to VV on February 23, 1981, confirming that VV had been registered with the LSE since October 1980 and was expected to remain registered at least until June 1982. On August 27, 1981, VV submitted another application form. “Date of registration, title, and length of course” was the information to be given by the LSE in the certificate.
The second certificate was issued to VV on August 27, 1981, certifying the registration information and stating that VV was expected to remain registered until at least June 1982. Both certificates were reproduced from a template confirming the registration or expected re-registration to satisfy the registration requirements provided in immigration laws in general or the UK Immigration Rules in particular.
The LSE issued two certificates to Tsai. The first was on November 22, 1982, less than two weeks after Tsai withdrew from course on November 10, 1982. It was not reproduced from the template confirming the registration or expected re-registration. On the contrary, it certified that Tsai was only registered with the LSE from October 1980 until September 1982. It is inconsistent with Tsai’s LSE student record which ended registration in June 1982.
An email from the LSE on July 13, 2011, confirms that Tsai’s registration only lasted until June 1982. The certificate further certified that Tsai had completed the minimum period of registration required for PhD degree.
UK Watchdog states the “minimum period of registration” was a term made up by Kevin Haynes, Head of the LSE Legal Team, on December 18, 2020, to justify Tsai’s period of unregistered student status. In addition, the minimum period of registration made up by Haynes was two academic years. The term “minimum period of registration” or something to that effect cannot be found in the LSE Calendars in the early 1980s.
PhD students were required to be registered all the time; the difference was the required fees, a sessional fee for the first three years, or a continuation fee thereafter if continued registration was permitted.
According to Tsai’s LSE student record, registration was from October 1980 to June 1982 Not two calendar years from October 1980 to September 1982.
Coincidentally or not, a letter written by P. C. Kennedy at the University of London’s Central Registry Academic Division, made the same mistake. Kennedy confirmed that the minimum period of study for the PhD degree was two calendar years. Furthermore, it stated that Tsai wishes to continue to prepare her thesis for examination on a full-time basis without further formal registration at the School, as it is permitted by the Regulations of the University of London.
However, there were no such provisions in the UL Regulations. Even if there were, the Immigration Rules promulgated under the United Kingdom Immigration Act trumped the Regulations of the UL, not vice versa.
Tsai needed to extend her student visa twice. The second certificate was issued on June 10, 1983, five days before Tsai submitted her doctoral thesis. This time around, Tsai’s registration was from October 1980 to November 1982. It certified that Tsai was about to submit her thesis for examination and needed to be in the UK for her PhD exam in about early October for the oral viva examination to be completed.
Tsai’s PhD exam was arranged by the UL, not the LSE. Furthermore, since examiners needed at least six to eight weeks to read the thesis, Tsai’s PhD exam could not be arranged until she submitted her doctoral thesis for the viva exam.
Based on the LSE application form found in the VV file, it was unlikely that the LSE disregarded the UK Immigration Act 1971 and issued those two certificates tailored to Tsai’s special condition.
UK Watchdog concludes that since Tsai was required to support herself financially in order to extend her student visa it was unlikely that the LSE issued these two certificates knowing that Tsai terminated her registration early due to financial difficulties.
It is unknown when Tsai left London. According to Tsai’s game plan in her Overseas Student Job Application Registration Form, before March 1983, Tsai had already prepared to leave and planned to return to Taiwan to teach in May 1983.
However, Tsai did not return to Taiwan in May 1983 as planned. Based on Tsai’s Entry and Exit Record released by the National Immigration Agency, her return date was June 30, 1983.
In October 2011, Tsai published her autobiographical memoir, From Scrambled Eggs with Onions to Her Bento Box: Ing-wen Tsai’s Taste of Life. According to her memoir, in addition to applying for a teaching position in Taiwan, Tsai was traveling around and thinking about teaching at the University of Singapore before she returned to Taiwan on June 30, 1983.
“After getting my PhD, I had a crazy idea: I wanted to burn my doctoral thesis and never read law books again because I had had enough. I traveled around and thought about teaching at the University of Singapore. I don’t know how long it took before my father finally found me in a corner of the world; he called me and told me to return to Taiwan.”
Tsai in fact traveled around before returning to Taiwan. She flew with China Airlines not from London, but from San Francisco on June 30, 1983. This indicates that Tsai left London much earlier than her planned return date, May 1983, and her actual return date, June 30, 1983, allowed her to travel around until her father finally found her in a corner of the world.
According to Tsai’s story in a public speech on March 17, 2011, she did not just think about teaching at the University of Singapore; she was ready to go before returning to Taiwan on June 30, 1983.
“What would be my next step? I was already a doctor. My father said it was time to go home, but I didn’t feel like to. I began applying for schools. At that time, a lecturer’s pay at a university in the U.K. was about £5,000, but a heavy tax would be levied, about one-third. You could only afford a living in the slums for £3,000 a month. I asked myself if I wanted to continue my poor student life. At that time, the University of Singapore began interviewing teachers. I prepared to apply for the University of Singapore, which offered £10,000 and free housing loan. Would you like to go? I really wanted to go. Years after I was the Minister of the Mainland Affairs Council, I met Lee Kuan Yew and told him I really wanted to teach at the University of Singapore back then. He said it was a pity I didn’t go; if I did, I would hold a post in Singapore instead of the Minister of the Mainland Affairs Council. Singapore, I was ready to go, but my father called and told me to go home. So, I went home. After I went home, I began teaching.”
These records show that between November 10, 1982, and June 30, 1983, Tsai was too busy to prepare her thesis for examination on a full-time basis as certified by the first certificate for extending her student visa.
As she had planned, Tsai began teaching at Soochow University on September 1, 1983. Tsai claimed that in addition to teaching she passed two law exams obtaining licenses in Taiwan and the United States.
“After for one month, the moment you turned your thesis in, the feeling was you never wanted to take an exam again, and you wanted to burn your thesis. But my father said: “After all, you major in law and should get a license.” I began my exam career again. I sat the New York bar exam and got my license. After that, I felt that something was unaccomplished. So, I took an exam to get my license in Taiwan. Those two licenses are hung on the wall in my house. My exam career was finally put to an end, and my teaching career began.”
UK Watchdog says this statement indicates that Tsai did not need to be in the UK for her PhD exam in about early October for the examination to be completed, as certified by the second certificate for extending her student visa. According to Tsai’s own account, between June 30 and September 1, 1983, Tsai was busy preparing and taking her bar exams in New York and Taiwan, not her PhD exam in London.
On March 10, 2020, these two certificates issued for Tsai to extend her student visa on November 22, 1982, and June 10, 1983, respectively, were sent to the LSE for authentication. On July 23, 2020, Kevin Haynes found both certificates in Tsai’s LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives, pages 101 and 89, respectively, and verified them as authentic.
UK Watchdog asks who wrote these two certificates that were inconsistent with the UK Immigration Act 1971?
The research team asks one more question. How and when did these two certificates end up in Tsai’s LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives?
Tsai’s account of beginning her teaching career raises its own questions. The timeline as told by Tsai doesn’t match up with the facts. Tsai began her teaching career years before obtaining a New York law license (since suspended). According to the New York State Unified Court System, Tsai was admitted to the New York Bar four years later on July 28, 1987.
After thorough research, Winifred Tung reported that Tsai never took a bar exam in Taiwan.
Tsai’s law license in Taiwan was received through a special route in reliance on her teaching experiences at Chengchi University and Soochow University and reported to the Examination Yuan on June 1996.
A bar examination that doesn’t exist ratchets up concerns about the thesis viva exam and its undisclosed examination report. Tsai’s apparent violation of the UK Immigration Rules opens up serious questions about the possibility of academic fraud.
No thesis on file until June 2019. No examination fee paid. Not registered for school. No supervisor. Secret viva examination report. Unregistered study prohibited by law. The negatives are adding up or as some like to say, the optics don’t look good.
Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s academic timelines do not match University of London public announcement about her PhD degree. (credit: UK Watchdog)
UK Watchdog, an independent research team, has been studying the University of London controversy over the 1984 PhD award to Republic of China in-esile President Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai triggered allegations of academc fraud in June 2019, when she submitter her PhD thesis to the library at the London School of Economics and Poltiical Science, thirty-five years late. The controversy has dogged Tsai throughout her second term as ROC President. Tsai has kept the controversy alive with her stubborn refusal to release her oral examination viva report which she claims she passed with flying colorss. Neither the LSE where Tsai attened school, nor the UL which awarded her degree, will name the examiners citing Tsai’s right to privacy.
UK Watchdog begins its latest report on November 10, 1982, when Tsai withdrew from course at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “Her PhD journey at LSE was terminated, and she was required to leave the United Kingdom.”
However, according to the cover story authored by Emily Rauhala, TIME’s Beijing correspondent, on June 29, 2015, the withdrawal did not terminate Tsai’s PhD journey at LSE but shortened it.
“She earned her PhD also in law, in less than three years. “That pleased my father,” she says. When he called her home, she obliged, returning to Taiwan to teach.”
UK Watchdos says Rauhala’s report is inconsistent with the timeline of Tsai’s PhD journey disclosed on September 23, 2019, which was prepared based on the records found in Tsai’s LSE student file sent to Tsai’s Presidential Office.
Tsai was registered with the LSE in October 1980. Tsai’s viva exam was held in October 1983, and the UL sent her viva result notification letter in February 1984. Based on the timeline, it took 41 months for Tsai to earn her PhD, more than three years.
Rauhala’s report is inconsistent with the timeline disclosed on September 23, 2019, but consistent with four documents subpoenaed from the National Chengchi University.
UK Watchdog says the most critical one of the four documents is Tsai’s Overseas Student Job Application Registration Form. It was the game plan after Tsai withdrew from her course at LSE on November 10, 1982.
Tsai submitted the Form to the ROC Ministry of Education for assistance in finding a position to teach law in Taiwan.
In order to apply for a teaching position in Taiwan, Tsai managed to obtain an official transcript of her LLM from Cornell University on December 10, 1982, only one month after she withdrew from course at the LSE on November 10, 1982.
In Tsai’s Overseas Student Job Application Registration Form, Tsai wrote that her PhD program spanned from October 1980 to May 1983, and she planned to return to Taiwan in May 1983.
Tsai managed to obtain a letter from her supervisor Michael Elliott in February 1982, certifying that Tsai was about to complete her PhD work and Tsai’s PhD exam would be held in the Spring of 1983, not October 1983.
The official letter sent from the National Youth Commission to Chengchi University on May 23, 1983, stated that Tsai was scheduled to return to Taiwan after receiving her PhD in May 1983.
These documents show that Tsai followed the game plan earning a PhD degree in less than three years, as reported by Rauhala in the TIME magazine article.
On September 30, 1987, P C Kennedy at the UL Central Registry Academic Division certified that Tsai earned a PhD degree after submitting a thesis title.
President Tsai’s PhD journey at LSE was a unique one. She earned a PhD degree after withdrawing from her course at LSE due to financial difficulties and after submitting a thesis title.
On August 10, 2021, the National Immigration Agency released Tsai’s Entry and Exit Record, certifying that Tsai returned to Taiwan on June 30, 1983. Tsai again followed her game plan returning to Taiwan after she withdrew from her course at LSE on November 10, 1982.
In Tsai’s Overseas Student Job Application Registration Form, Tsai also wrote that her PhD thesis was Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions. Under Publication Date and Location, Tsai wrote that her doctoral thesis would soon be published ,not by the UL or the LSE in the United Kingdom, but by law journals in Taiwan and the United States.
On September 27, 2019, Tsai’s personal copy of her doctoral thesis became downloadable at the National Central Library in Taipei, its first pulication available to the public.
Winifred Tung is an attorney in Taiwan and a member of the New York Bar.Association. After carefully comparing all journal articles published by Tsai in Taiwan to Tsai’s personal copy of her doctoral thesis, Tung released a list showing that at least seven published journal articles were from Tsai’s personal copy of her doctoral thesis. The journal articles culled from Tsai’s PhD thesis were published in two different publications, the National Chengchi University Law Review and the National Taiwan University Law Review.
The National Chengchi University Law Review published Tsai’s first journal article in June 1983, Volume 27, entitled “Safeguarding Domestic Markets in International Trade.” According to Tung’s research, it was a duplicate of Tsai’s personal copy of her doctoral thesis from pages 252 to 298.
According to the timeline of Tsai’s PhD journey in the United Kingdom, it was published in Taiwan in the same month that Tsai submitted her doctoral thesis for her PhD exam to the Univerity of London.
This journal article was Tsai’s debut as a legal scholar supposedly having a PhD in International Economic Law from the LSE.
An official letter dated May 30, 1983, sent to the National Youth Commission, indicates that Chengchi University declined to offer a teaching position to Tsai in May 1983.
Tsai was determined to teach in 1983. A Soochow University Faculty Employment certificate indicates that Tsai landed at Soochow University and began her teaching career on September 1, 1983.
As reported in TIME, when Tsai’s father called her home, she obliged, returning to Taiwan on June 30, 1983, and beginning to teach on September 1, 1983.
On October 20, 1983, the United Daily News in Taipei published on op-ed and the author was Tsai who had a PhD degree in international economic law from LSE. The article was published four days after her purported PhD viva oral examination in London.
During an interview on October 4, 2012, Tsai talked about that op-ed. Since her father never expected she would earn a PhD, after completing the study and returning to Taiwan, she contributed an article to the newspapers and got published. Her mother read it and told her father: “Look at this, the money we invested in our daughter is all in the newspapers.”
The interview confirms that when the op-ed was published, Tsai had earned her PhD and returned to Taiwan.
UK Watchdog says based on these documents, a new timeline can be established. Tsai requested her transcript from Cornell University on or before December 10, 1982, asked Elliott to certify her thesis submission and viva exam date in the Spring to prove her 1983 PhD on February 17, 1983; her Job Application Registration Form was accepted on March 11, 1983, she sat her viva exam in the Spring, was awarded a PhD in May 1983, returned to Taiwan on June 30, 1983, and began teaching at Soochow University in Taipei on September 1, 1983.
The new timeline shows Tsai’s activities after she withdrew from her course at the LSE on November 10, 1982, and it is significantly different from the timeline disclosed on September 23, 2019.
In 2015, while Tsai Ing-wen was campaigning for the 14th term President of the ROC, the LSE received a number of inquiries regarding Tsai’s missing doctoral thesis and the authenticity of Tsai’s PhD degree.
On May 20, 2016, Tsai was inaugurated as the President of the Republic of China in-exile. According to her official bio published on the Presidential Office official website, Tsai earned a PhD from LSE not in 1983, but in 1984.
It was less than one year after the cover story authored by Emily Rauhala in TIME was released, reporting that Tsai earned a PhD degree from LSE in less than three years.
According to UK Watchdog, with a PhD degree in 1984, Tsai had no choice but to conceal her tenure at Soochow University began on September 1, 1983.
After finishing her studies and returning to Taiwan, Tsai served as an associate professor and then a professor in the Department of Law at National Chengchi University, from 1984 to 1990, a professor at the Soochow University School of Law from 1991 to 1993.
On May 20, 2020, Tsai was inaugurated as the fifteenth term President of the Republic of China in-exile and she released the same official bio, claiming a PhD in 1984 and again concealing her tenure at Soochow University began on September 1, 1983.
After the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office indicted talk show host Dennis Peng on March 31, 2021, Peng’s attorney had access to the court file and discovered that Tsai began teaching at Soochow University on September 1, 1983.
On April 30, 2021, a public hearing was held in the Legislative Yuan and the Director of the Human Resources at Soochow University confirmed that Tsai began teaching at Soochow University as an adjunct lecturer on September 1, 1983.
No matter how you look at the various dates on Tsai’s academic timelines, the dates simply do not add up. UK Watchdog promises to dig deeper into the mystery of President Tsai’s PhD degree.
Richardson Reports 