UK Watchdog, an independent research team, has been investigating the University of London PhD degree controversy over Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s 1983 thesis. Tsai critics say that Tsai never passed the viva examination and that she got credit for an uncompleted thesis in the handover from the London School of Economics and Political Science, where Tsai attended school, and the University of London, which gave her the PhD award. President Tsai keeps the controversy alive by refusing to disclose the viva examination report that purportedly approved the thesis.
UK Watchdog, dedicated to the principles of truth and accuracy, has been giving the whole story a close examination and issues periodic reports on various aspects of the thesis controversy. The research team has now turned its attention to Tsai’s three diplomas, an original and two replacements, which some have claimed are faked documents. The ongoing inquiry is still underway as the team sifts through the voluminous collection of internal email traffic that has been made public via the Freedom of Information Act. UK Watchdog wants to keep interested persons updated and has issued an interim report of its findings on the award certificates.
President Tsai started the whole rumble in June 2019, when Tsai submitted her PhD thesis to the LSE Library, thirty-five years late. The thesis, entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions, appears to be a draft version with pagination problems, footnote issues, and hand-written notations including a question mark. Charges of academic fraud and ROC presidential politics have spawned a movement of truth seekers to find out the story behind the story. The UL and the LSE were both deluged with hundreds of FOI requests. The British Library has also jumped into the maelstrom over its EThOS collection of PhD theses. The Information Commissioner’s Office has been overwhelmed with complaints and now refuses to accept cases involving Tsai’s thesis with a blanket policy against “vexatious” FOI requests. The Information Review Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal were next in line as multiple cases worked through the legal system. Two “vexatious” cases are currently pending.
UK Watchdog opens the report on September 2, 2019, when President Tsai decided to take legal action to defend her academic integrity. The ROC Presidential Office emailed Clive Wilson, Enquiry Services Manager at the LSE Library, requesting Tsai’s student records, including the beginning and ending dates of Tsai’s study and the names of Tsai’s supervisor and viva examiners. Wilson promised to provide a copy and sent the request to Sue Donnelly, LSE Archivist at the time.
The Presidential Office also expected to receive the records of Tsai’s viva exam date, the viva result notification date, the date of PhD award, and the dates of Tsai’s applications for two PhD diplomas reissued in 2010 and 2015. Curiously, Tsai knew that the UL was the degree-awarding body in the early 1980s. In order to prove her 1984 PhD, she needed to rely on the records of her viva exam and PhD award from the UL and not the LSE.
On September 3, 2019, Donnelly emailed a copy of Tsai’s LSE student file to Tsai’s Presidential Office. Less than an hour later, Wilson reminded Tsai’s office that they should also contact the UL for Tsai’s student records. The next day Tsai filed a criminal defamation complaint with the Taiwan Taipei District Prosecutors Office.
Though Tsai’s Office received Tsai’s LSE student file the day before, Tsai’s attorneys knew they could not rely on them to prove Tsai’s PhD degree. They submitted two UL documents not in Tsai’s LSE student file to the Prosecutors Office to prove Tsai’s 1984 PhD.
One UL document was Tsai’s PhD diploma, reissued in 2015 when Tsai ran for president and academic fraud was alleged against her. The other was a letter certifying the re-issuance of the PhD diploma dated September 22, 2015, and issued by Craig O’Callaghan, Chief Operating Officer According to the fine print at the bottom, O’Callaghan’s letter is not official because it does not bear his embossed seal.
One email on September 11, 2019, indicates that Tsai’s Office contacted the UL, but the school did not respond. In other words, the UL did not provide the dates of Tsai’s applications for those two PhD diplomas reissued in 2010 and 2015 for Tsai to prove the authenticity of these two reissued PhD diplomas and Tsai’s PhD degree.
On September 19, 2019, Tsai’s attorneys began submitting the records found in Tsai’s LSE student file to the Prosecutors Office as evidence to prove Tsai’s 1984 PhD degree, including Tsai’s viva result notification letter issued on February 8, 1984, and Tsai’s original PhD diploma issued on March 14, 1984.
On March 10, 2020, Tsai’s attorneys prepared a list of twelve documents to be sent to the LSE for the UL authentication. According to Tsai’s attorneys, these 12 documents were copied from Tsai’s LSE student file, and they specifically requested the LSE to verify whether or not these twelve documents matched the records in Tsai’s LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives.
UK Watchdog says it is worth noting that Tsai’s attorneys never submitted Tsai’s PhD diploma, reissued in 2010 by the UL, to the Prosecutors Office. Furthermore, the documents issued by the UL, including Tsai’s PhD diploma reissued in 2015, O’Callaghan’s letter, and Tsai’s original PhD diploma, were not on the list of those twelve documents sent to the LSE for authentication. These documents are UL documents that could only be authenticated by the UL, not the LSE.
However, on March 10, 2020, when requesting the list of twelve documents to be sent to the LSE for authentication, Tsai’s attorney submitted one UL document to support Tsai’s 1984 PhD degree, and included this UL document, which was identified as Document 2, in the list of twelve documents to be sent to the LSE for authentication
Document 2 consisted of three records: a letter from the Free Chinese Centre on September 23, 1987, a letter from P. C. Kennedy at the UL on September 30, 1987, and a copy of Tsai’s original PhD diploma issued on March 14, 1984.
Tsai’s attorneys included Document 2 in the list of twelve documents sent to LSE for authentication because they could find it in Tsai’s LSE student file. Furthermore, in the last paragraph, Kennedy stated:”I have passed your letter to the London School of Economics and Political Science in the hope they may be able to help you further.”
By including Document 2 in the list, Tsai’s attorneys were able to send Tsai’s original PhD diploma issued by the UL to the LSE for authentication. On June 18, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK emailed the list of records to Donnelly for authentication, but Donnelly never responded to the email.
Four days later, on June 22, Kevin Haynes, Head of the LSE Legal team, responded instead.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Haynes asked the Taipei Representative Office to provide a description, or ideally scanned, copies of the documents that the Taipei Representative Office was seeking to authenticate.
On June 24, 2020, Haynes received a list of thirteen documents and scanned copies instead of a list of twelve documents. Document 1 was added to the list of twelve documents prepared by Tsai’s attorneys on March 10, 2020, making it a total of thirteen documents to be authenticated by the LSE.
Document 1 consisted of two records. One was Tsai’s original PhD diploma issued on March 14, 1984, and the other was Tsai’s PhD diploma reissued in 2015.
Documents 1, 3, and 5 were UL documents that could only be authenticated by the UL, not the LSE.
On July 7, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office followed up, and Haynes responded. For Documents 1, 3, and 5, Haynes suspected the ULwas best placed to verify them.
The next day, on July 8, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK contacted Binda Rai, Head of Communications at the UL to authenticate Documents 1, 3, and 5. The subject of the email was a request to authenticate copies of certificates and letters – from the Education Division.
On July 22, 2020, Rai was contacted again but never responded. The message from Taipei was “the situation concerning President Tsai’s degree certificate is proving to be very complicated, but my colleagues in Taiwan have asked for an update regarding our enquiry.”
On July 28, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK forwarded the request to Craig O’Callaghan to authenticate Tsai’s PhD diploma reissued in 2015. O’Callaghan never responded.
Instead, Jackson Mbilinyi, Head of Transcripts and Student Records, responded the next day. He declined to authenticate the documents without Tsai’s written consent, invoking the Data Protection Act.
Rachael Maguire is the Information and Records Manager at the LSE. According to her email on June 27, 2019, fairness is the main data protection principle. “Regarding the degree, this is fair to release as it is usually in the student’s interest to confirm they received the degree they are saying they received. There will be negative consequences for them if we don’t.”
Tsai’s attorneys requested that the evidence be authenticated to prove Tsai’s 1984 PhD degree. It is in Tsai’s best interest, but the UL refused to authenticate the evidence without Tsai’s consent. No records show Tsai’s PhD diplomas, Kennedy’s letter, and Tsai’s viva result notification letter have ever been authenticated by the UL with or without Tsai’s consent.
For authenticating the evidence, Haynes’ email on July 7, 2020, is puzzling for two reasons.
First, Haynes and Donnelly worked together under the School Secretary Division at the time. Haynes could have quickly learned that Donnelly sent Tsai’s LSE student file to Tsai’s Office on September 3, 2019.
Second, as Head of the LSE Legal Team, Haynes knows how to authenticate evidence. But in the email, Haynes stated that: “I have contacted a number of colleagues to try to find out whether we might have copies of the information you have kindly provided, or indeed any other way of verifying it.”
The Taipei Representative Office immediately advised Haynes to contact Donnelly for the documents.
On July 23, 2020, except for Document 1, Haynes verified all twelve documents as authentic, including Kennedy’s letter contained in Document 1 and verified Tsai’s original PhD diploma contained in Document 3 as authentic. Tsai’s original diploma is contained in Document 3. In other words, Haynes refused to authenticate Tsai’s original diploma sent to LSE as Document 1 because “we are unable to verify” the document.
The request to authenticate evidence submitted by Tsai’s attorneys to the Prosecutors Office was to verify whether or not the list of twelve documents matched the records in Tsai’s LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives.
Haynes was and still is Head of the LSE Legal Team. He verified not only LSE documents but also UL documents as authentic simply because he was able to find them in Tsai’s LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives. Haynes’ unique way of authenticating evidence was consistent with Tsai’s attorneys’ request to authenticate the evidence.
Haynes found Document 3 on pages 42 and 43 of Tsai’s LSE student file. His finding is consistent with Donnelly’s email dated June 17, 2019, showing that Tsai’s PhD diploma issued on March 14, 1984, was found between page 43 and page 46 of Tsai’s LSE student file. Haynes most likely excluded the Free Chinese Centre’s letter sent to the UL on September 23, 1987.
Kennedy’s letter is also a document from the UL but Haynes verified it as authentic simply because he found a copy of the letter on page 42 or 43 in Tsai’s LSE student file. By verifying Kennedy’s letter as authentic, the LSE confirmed that Tsai’s PhD was awarded after submitting a thesis title as certified by Kennedy’s letter. The Information Commissioner’s Office has noted that the UL did not retain copies of degree award certificates.
A copy of Tsai’s original PhD diploma was found by Haynes in Tsai’s LSE student file and provided to the Taipei Representative Office in the UK on December 18, 2020. It was blurry and barely legible.
Haynes described it as an albeit poor-quality copy of President Tsai’s certificate that is contained in her student file.
On June 3, 2021, the Ministry of Education provided a copy of Tsai’s original PhD diploma submitted to the Ministry of Education in 1984. It was also blurry and barely legible.
It indicates that the copy of Tsai’s original PhD diploma sent to the Academic Registrar at the UL by the Free Chinese Centre on September 23, 1987, and kept in Tsai’s LSE student file was most likely a copy of the one submitted to the Ministry of Education in 1984. It was a copy that was blurry and barely legible.
Sue Donnelly emailed a copy of Tsai’s LSE student file to Tsai’s Office on September 3, 2019. The next day, September 4, 2019, Tsai’s office disclosed Tsai’s original PhD diploma on Facebook.
It was clear and legible.
On September 19, 2019, Tsai’s attorney proffered a copy of Tsai’s original PhD diploma to the Prosecutors Office. It was also clear and legible.
On June 24, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK sent a copy of Tsai’s original PhD diploma to Haynes for authenticating the evidence. It was also clear and legible.
UK Watchdog says it defies logic that Tsai was able to make a clear and legible copy out of a blurry and barely legible copy, and indicates that Tsai had a clear and legible copy of her original diploma, which differed from the one in her LSE student file.
Tsai’s attorneys submitted Document 3 to the Prosecutors Office and requested authentication of evidence on the same day, March 10, 2020. UK Watchdog asks did Tsai’s attorney know in advance that Haynes would authenticate Tsai’s original PhD diploma when it was submitted as part of Document 3 on March 10, 2010?
Furthermore, Haynes verified the clear and legible copy of Tsai’s original PhD diploma as authentic based on the blurry and barely legible copy he found in Tsai’s LSE student file. Haynes verified Tsai’s original PhD diploma as authentic on July 23, 2020.
Five days later, on July 28, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK sent an official letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Taipei reporting that Tsai’s original PhD diploma, of Document 3, was consistent with Tsai’s LSE student file stored in the LSE Archives.
UK Watchdog states Haynes knew that the request for authenticating evidence was made for Tsai’s criminal defamation complaint by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office.
“His conduct raised ethical issues and suspicions about his qualifications as a legal professional and Head of the LSE Legal Team. Michael Richardson submitted a FOI request to verify Haynes’ qualifications. Haynes is not licensed to practice law in the UK.”
Thus Haynes is not bound by the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct nor the Bar Standards Board Handbook Code of Conduct for barristers. The LSE Legal Team is headed by someone outside of the regulatory structure of UK law.
Attention is given to the first reissue of Tsai’s degree certificate. Tsai had a PhD diploma reissued in 2010 when she ran for the New Taipei City mayor. She was required to submit an official document to prove her 1984 PhD.
On December 16, 2020, the Taipei Representative Office in the UK presented it to Haynes. Haynes advised to contact the Senate House at the UL. No record shows that the UL has ever authenticated Tsai’s PhD diploma reissued in 2010.
Tsai had three PhD diplomas. The UL did not authenticate any of them. Instead, Haynes, as Head of the LSE Legal Team, authenticated Tsai’s original PhD diploma, a document from the UL where he had no authority to act.
Richardson Reports 