Julian Lin outside Taiwan High Court of Criminal Appeals and Taiwan Civil Government supporters at earlier court proceeding. (credit: Julian Lin)
Julian Lin, widow of Taiwan Civil Government founder Roger Lin, was convicted of political fraud after the death of her husband. The Lin couple was charged with cheating their supporters with false claims about support from the United States and the benefits of the TCG identity card. Julian Lin has been out on bail while she appeals her conviction. Recently that bail has been increased by $5,000,000 NTD, about $150,000 USD.
Roger Lin died in November 2019 from a fall while battling prostate cancer during the course of a marathon trial that lasted several years. Both Roger and Julian Lin were imprisoned five months in pre-trial detention before being allowed out on a hefty bail, which was only granted after supporters bought a full page advertisement in the New York Times pleading for bail.
Then the Lins were required to appear at a local police station everyday to sign a logbook. The practice of daily sign-ins was ended after I accompanied Julian to the police station and witnessed the check-in, writing about the inconvenient burden placed on the couple. After filling pages in the police logbook Julian graduated to weekly sign-in visits, a schedule she remains on despite the large increase in bail.
When asked why the bail was increased Lin replied she did not know, nothing had changed that she was aware of. Lin explained the bail was within the discretion of the judge who offered no explanation. TCG members quickly donated the new bond money to keep Julian out of jail.
Seven decades of “strategic ambiguity” and occupation by the exiled Republic of China have left islanders confused about the correct path to sovereignty after Japan surrendered claim to Taiwan, then called Formosa, at the San Francisco Peace Treaty which ended World War II. Taiwan Civil Government was formed by Roger Lin to support litigation and lobbying efforts in the United States in an attempt to resolve Taiwan’s international status.
Julian Lin came to the attention of the ROC in 2015 with the filing of Roger & Julian Lin vs. Republic of China and the United States of America in the District of Columbia federal court challenging the ROC Nationality Act which stripped Formosans of their Japanese nationality. Soon Julian Lin became the public face of TCG in the United States, leading delegations to meet with news media, politicians, and an expensive campaign to gain favor with Donald Trump.
The TCG goal is to rid Taiwan of the ROC with the help of the United States to form a Taiwanese government under protection of the American military. The TCG overture to Trump and members of Congress came to a crashing halt at a Heritage Foundation event to honor Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross following a raid of TCG headquarters in Taiwan in May 2018.
During the long court proceedings, ROC prosecutors obtained a demolition order for a zoning violation and tore down the TCG headquarters, depriving the group of its base of operations where regular training sessions where conducted.
In addition to locking up its leaders and tearing down its headquarters, the ROC undertook a campaign of harassment of TCG members, including multiple interrogations and surveillance of group parades and events.
Following the November 2019 death of Roger Lin the advocacy group split with “Prime Minister” Tsai Tsai-yuan, a co-defendant, heading a faction called TCG 3.0 which accused the Lins of diverting money for their own use. Tsai was acquitted of fraud charges. The two factions, one loyal to Julian Lin and the other loyal to Tsai Tsai-yuan continue to feud and the ongoing rift has reduced the group’s numbers and resources.
Although his death in 2019 resulted in fraud charges being dismissed against him, a 609-page verdict in the three-year criminal trial left little doubt that Taiwan Civil Government founder Roger Lin duped some members of his organization with false claims of United States support.
The lengthy verdict contains summaries of victim testimonies which reveal a pattern of deception using Taiwan’s unsettled international status as the core element. Eager to free Taiwan from the exiled Republic of China, imposed on Taiwan at the end of World War II by the United States, TCG members freely donated money and paid fees to advance the organization as a shadow government.
Multiple victims told of Roger Lin’s repeated assurances that TCG was authorized by the United States Military Government. Hundreds of members regularly paid to attend classes when told by Lin that the US had asked TCG to train 4,000 people for civil service to replace ROC personnel. The new jobs were to be filled when the USMG ousted the ROC and installed TCG in its place, or so the story went.
While dozens of purported victims denied being tricked out of their money, dozens of others believed a variety of falsehoods including claims about TCG vanity license plates and benefits of the TCG identity card. Members of TCG delegations to the United States thought that they were going to meet with government officials but were instead carted around to tourist sites. One junketeer thought that TCG lobbyist Neil Hare was an US official. Few TCG members were fluent in English and relied on translated statements.
Many witnesses testified they were given no reciepts for their donations and payments. However, TCG made enough headway in Washington to fool followers, scoring meetings with Senators and Representatives, a reception at the Heritage Foundation for Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and a face-to-face session at a TCG-sponsored Polticio event with Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway. Had there been no fraud arrests in Taiwan, it is hard to say how far TCG might have gotten with the Trump administration.
Although the verdict paints an unfavorable picture of Roger Lin’s claims, Julian’s situation is somewhat different. Julian Lin was the face of TCG in the United States and Europe. An ambassador without portfolio, Lin lead delegations and never missed a photo shoot. Yet despite being Roger’s wife, and at the center of attention, Julian maintains that she did not know what was going on. Julian’s strongest defense is that she was duped like everyone else and deferred to Roger on official matters. In a twist of irony, Julian might end up being Roger’s biggest victim.
The London School of Economics is embroiled in an academic controversy over a PhD award to Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen. (credit: UK Postgrad)
UK Watchdog, an independent investigative team, has been reviewing the 1984 PhD award of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen. Using the Freedom of Information Act, the research team has penetrated the inner sanctum of the London School of Economics and Political Science and discovered a cache of internal emails that cast doubt on the academic integrity of the LSE. School administrators seemed less concerned about the validity of Tsai’s degree award, or learning what happened to Tsai’s thesis which was missing for thirty-five years, than protecting Tsai’s reputation as she ran for the ROC presidency.
UK Watchdog has partnered with Richardson Reports to release its findings in periodic installments and to disclose the email cache it obtained by Freedom of Information requests. The LSE emails are available at Richardson Report.com. The latest Watchdog report is also available on the Richardson Report website.
President Tsai submitted her long missing thesis to the LSE Library in June 2019. The tardy submission sparked public interest in the matter including the question of who was the academic gatekeeper? Some argued it was the LSE where Tsai attended school. Others argued it was the University of London which issued Tsai her degree award. Even honchos at the two schools wondered who was responsible for the PhD degree.
On July 2, 2015, Simeon Underwood, Academic Registrar at the LSE, sent an email to the University of London.
“Whose issue is this? Given that the issues are around the examination and its aftermath, my instinct is that they come under your jurisdiction rather than ours: which means that if we get further enqueries, we should acknowledge and say we are passing them over to you. But if you want to disagree with this approach please say.”
A vice-chancellor at the UL responded the next day. “As for the actual copies of the thesis itself I am sorry I am unable to shed any light on this. Both examiners’ copies of the thesis were left at the LSE following examination. It seems the third copy of the thesis was sent to the IALS, and then the trail goes cold.” The Institute for Advanced Legal Studies in London is the national law library.
On November 26, 2021, the United Kingdom Information Commissioner found that as the degree awarding body the UL held the records of examination “as a matter of fact.”
However, this finding, based on jurisdiction, conflicted with Underwood’s July 2, 2015 letter validating Tsai’s degree award. “From what I have seen so far, there is no doubt that the degree award is valid. There may be features in the process which reflect the academic habits of the mid-1980s and would be frowned upon today.”
UK Watchdog notes that Underwood did not have access to the UL student file which would be the only source of validating information and could only base his validation on Tsai’s LSE student file which lacked examination information.
A UL vice-chancellor had already examined the UL student file of Tsai four days earlier in June 2015 according to a UL email. After Underwood went out on a limb and validated Tsai’s thesis on July 2nd the UL made an offer. “We have retrieved Dr Tsai’s file from our Archives and I can send you through a scanned copy if that would be useful..”
Underwood declined the offer and then retired on July 20, 2015, replaced by Mark Thompson.
Librarian Clive Wilson sent an internal LSE Library email to Sue Donnelly on June 17, 2019. “Simeon Underwood dealt with the official bits four years ago, but it looks like we need to have a more robust response this time around…..And is there a separate record at UL that should be requested?”
Donnelly reviewed a scan of the LSE student file on President Tsai. “The relevant pages are I think 43-46 which includes a certificate from the University of London confirming the award of the PhD on 14 March 1984—it looks like there was a problem with some of the paperwork from her supervisor.”
The LSE file contained several UL documents that had not been retained by the UL, including a copy of Tsai’s diploma, of which she would have been the sole source.
On June 20, 2019, Wilson wanted to amend the standard LSE public reply to add more information. Marcus Cerny, of the PhD Academy, disagreed. “I am not sure it is appropriate to enter into discussion about this other than to confirm the award and that LSE is satisfied with this.”
On June 24, 2019, Cerny was alerted by an external email that President Tsai had been bragging about her viva examination. “According to this the tale may be that it was such a piece of work it is worth two PhDs.”
Wilson reported on a high level meeting where it was decided Cerny would take over the LSE internal investigation of the matter. “Mark Thompson and Marcus Cerny have confirmed that it is Marcus who should take over what was Simeon’s role in investigating the award of the degree.”
Cerny corrected Wilson the same day. “Just to clarify that I am not carrying out a new investigation.”
However, Thompson was not done with the mystery of the missing thesis and sent an email to the retired Underwood. “A few weeks ago Ing-wen won the nomination process to lead her party in the upcoming Taiwanese elections. This has precipitated a deluge of enquiries from interested parties into the details of her thesis.”
“We are playing this one very much with a straight bat, and are replying consistently along the lines of “the award was made in accordance with UoL procedures at the time, neither LSE nor Senate House can locate a copy.”
Underwood replied the next day. “I got the student file from the archive, and then liaised with the Senate House. All the paperwork was in order—by contrast to some files I had seen, notably the senior New Zealand civil servant whose claim to have a PhD turned out to be unprovable and possibly fraudulent.”
UK Watchdog notes that if Underwood had liaised with the UL as he claimed, the UL should have informed him that a copy of Tsai’s viva notification letter had never been retained in the UL student file. No records of the LSE show that Underwood investigated further.
Thompson immediately responded. “I have no doubt that the award was made in line with UoL requirements at the time.”
“Lots of noise and heat around this one, re: influential LSE alumna, Taiwanese election, political opponents, etc.”
UK Watchdog reviewed the statements of the LSE academic registrars in 2015 and 2019 and was left with the question, which student file, LSE or UL, did they use? Marcus Cerny confirmed that the LSE file was used by Underwood in 2015.
Cerny reviewed Tsai’s LSE student file on June 26, 2019. “Just to note that I’ve read through the LSE file and it is, very disappointing given the huge interest in it, an incredibly boring read.” Cerny had previously recorded that the UL stored the examination paperwork.
On September 16, 2019, President Tsai’s office in Taiwan sent an email to Clive Wilson. “As you might have noticed, the smear campaign regarding President Tsai’s PhD degree has [sic] not yet over. On the contrary, the situation deteriorates since LSE has also become one of the targets of the campaign.”
“I would like to recommend the LSE consider issuing statements reconfirming that President Tsai had been awarded a PhD, or filing a lawsuit against such smear tactics.”
Wilson wrote back to Taipei the next day. “I’m told that LSE isn’t really interested in filing a lawsuit. The Comms team seem to be happy to reissue a statement confirming the correct award of the degree but what channel do you think it should go through?”
Tsai’s office responded they would like the statement to be posted on the LSE website. On October 7, 2019, the day before the LSE public statement was posted to the school website, Louise Nadal, secretary of the LSE board, asked Simon Hix, a LSE administrator, if there was any investigation. “Do you know if there is an internal investigation going on about this matter?”
Hix replied to Nadal that he didn’t think there was any ongoing LSE investigation and that the degree award was the business of the UL. Cerny confirmed the view of Hix that the degree award was not within the jurisdiction of the LSE. “As noted it is a UofL award so is really their jurisdiction.”
UK Watchdog observes that even though Tsai’s degree came from the UL only, the LSE followed the request of President Tsai’s office and released a public statement on the degree on the LSE website. “We can be clear the records of LSE and of the University of London—the degree awarding body at the time—confirm that Dr Tsai was correctly awarded a PhD in Law in 1984.”
The LSE website statement came despite no internal investigation and a lack of award jurisdiction. UK Watchdog identifies three UL documents that support the PhD validity. First, a September 30, 1987 certification letter that says the award was based on the submission of a thesis title. Second, a February 8, 1984 viva notification letter not retained in Tsai’s student file. Third, a copy of Tsai’s March 14, 1984 diploma, also not retained in the UL student file of which Tsai was the sole source.
Missing from the LSE website statement was the actual verification of qualification information. Clive Wilson earlier explained the absence of verifying documentation. “It was also decided that all information relating to supervisor, thesis committee and the oral defense committee, etc. could not be released without Dr Tsai’s permission.”
UK Watchdog concludes the LSE website statement raises questions about the academic integrity of the LSE, the integrity of Tsai’s LSE student file, and the integrity of the LSE archives.
Absent from the public record, and kept secret by Tsai Ing-wen is the one thing that could answer many of the questions swirling around Tsai’s degree award, the oral examination viva report itself. What did the viva examiners say, and why is it a secret?
London School of Economics & Political Science official statement on Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s PhD thesis issued October 8, 2019. (credit: LSE screenshot)
UK Watchdog is an independent Freedom of Information research team that has spent a year examining the long-standing controversy over Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s 1984 PhD award by the University of London. Tsai raised the question of academic fraud when she submitted her thesis to the London School of Economics Library in June 2019, thirty-five years late. The latest chapter of the UK Watchdog Report examines the 2019 LSE media statement about the thesis controversy. All documents obtained by UK Watchdog from FOI requests are available on the Richardson Report website.
Librarians at the LSE Library had known since 2011 that the school library did not hold President Tsai’s thesis in its collection. Tsai’s 2015 campaign for the ROC presidency triggered a flood of questions to the school about Tsai’s degree validity to the extent that Clive Wilson, a head librarian, drafted a standard response in 2016 when questions about the thesis were asked of the research support team.
UK Watchdog sleuths dug out Wilson’s 2016 standard response and compared it to the LSE media statement made in June 2019 when the thesis controversy was at full boil.
In 2016: “We have been in correspondence with the University of London about it and extensive checks have been made. Unfortunately Senate House are unable to find their copy. I am sorry we cannot help further.”
In 2019: “The Senate House Library records confirm that a copy was received and sent by them to the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies (IALS). There is a listing of Dr Tsai’s thesis “Unfair trade practices and safeguard actions” in the IALS Index document “Legal Research in the United Kingdom 1905-1984”, which was published in 1985.”
Scholar Hwan Lin made the first Freedom of Information request about the thesis to the LSE Library in May 2019 which was answered by Ruth Orson, a member of Wilson’s research support team. Orson explained the LSE library never had the thesis .
“Dr Tsai’s thesis is unavailable I’m afraid. LSE Library has never had a copy of this thesis.”
“We had to make extensive searches when Dr Tsai stood for election and I am sorry to disappoint.”
Hwan Lin’s request initiated a high-level inquiry about Tsai’s missing thesis. The LSE investigators were named in an October 7, 2019 email entitled “Suspending Ing Wen Tsai;s PhD degree?” The LSE panel was made up of Sue Donnelly at student records, Danny O’Connor at media relations, Clive Wilson from the library, Kevin Haynes with the legal team, Mark Thompson as academic registrar, and Marcus Cerny at the doctoral academy. Fiona Metcalfe with communications and Nancy Graham at the library were also involved in the inquiry.
Fang-Long Shih, who acted as President Tsai’s personal representative, also played a role in the inquiry panel. Shih put Wilson in the know about wishes from Taipei. Wilson related his conversation with Shih in an email to the inquiry committee. “Just had a chat with Dr. Fang-Long Shih in the Taiwan Research Programme who is a supporter of Dr Tsai.”
Meanwhile, Hwan Lin was turning up the heat and asked the LSE Library if Tsai’s thesis ever existed at all. Lin’s request got Marcus Cerny’s attention who expressed his frustration to Fiona Metcalfe. “I am unable to answer why the thesis is unavailable and if the thesis is not held in either Senate House or LSE Libraries I cannot see any chance of there being any other version of it elsewhere.”
UK Watchdog notes that Cerny’s email to Metcalfe showed the school was not treating the missing thesis as an academic issue but rather as a media issue. Cerny then notified two members of the PhD Academy about the missing thesis problem. “Not sure if you feel this should be flagged up to Pro-Directors from our end but I am working on the assumption that Fiona would do this if she feels there is a reputational concern.”
Rita Astuti, a member of the Academy responded to Cerny. “I think this should be flagged higher up. But before doing so we need to know if we have a record of the PhD at all, “ Astuti wanted to alert Simon Hix, an academic administrator of the LSE.
Hix replied promptly, “Oy vey! Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Does the PhD supervisor have a copy?”
Cerny updated Rachael Maguire on the LSE legal team. “There have been requests for the thesis since her election but none of the three libraries who may be expected to have a copy appear to have one (Senate House and LSE appear to have not received one and IALS are unable to find their copy).”
Cerny continued to be worried about “reputational issues” for the LSE and noted Hwan Lin had raised the prospect that the thesis never existed. Cerny wrote to Metcalfe at the public relations office. “In terms of award, this was dealt with by Senate House (as a U of L award) and they would have been responsible for the deposit of the thesis and the paperwork” Metcalfe responded immediately and volunteered to help formulate a public response.
The LSE legal department gave Cerny some bad news. “No idea who the examiners were I’m afraid, we have no paperwork on this.”
UK Watchdog went back in time and discovered the problem of the missing thesis had been discussed by LSE administrators four years earlier in 2015 but never was resolved. Susan Underwood, then academic registrar, opined that the University of London and the LSE needed to agree on an approach to the problem of Tsai’s thesis.
“There have been five or six requests for copies of the thesis. The interest arises because Dr Tsai is the Democratic Progressive Party’s candidate for the Taiwan presidential elections 2016.”
“There may be features of the process which reflect the academic habits of the mid-1980s and would be frowned upon today.”
“The main mystery is why the copies of the thesis cannot be found. It is clear that people at your end [UL] and at the LSE end have looked in all the obvious places and in some which aren’t obvious, but cannot find them. My understanding is that the position seems to be that two copies were left with the LSE from the supervisor and the internal examiner but that these were never passed on to SHL and that one copy went from Senate House Library to IALS but can no longer be found.”
Cerny informed LSE publicist Dan O’Connor that the UL dealt with the problem in 2015. “It appears that the query from 2015 was dealt with by the Pro-Vice Chancellor’s office at the University of London.”
Cerny followed up with an email to the UL Pro-Vice Chancellor. “A query has been forwarded to me regarding Ing-Wen Tsai’s thesis, awarded in 1984. Having looked into this it appears that you responded to a similar query on this in 2015 on behalf of the University.”
A quick response from the UL confirmed the university was aware of the missing thesis. “As explained in 2015 we do not have a copy of the PhD thesis in the Senate House Library and so are unable to help. I can confirm that we would have a copy of the thesis at the examination stage however.”
Cerny informed his colleagues that the LSE should let the UL handle the problem. “It appears that the University dealt with this the last time so I am looking to simply refer back to them.”
Following Cerny’s advice, Clive Wilson sent out a memo with the LSE Library’s standard response to requests for the thesis. Danny O’Connor cautioned Cerny that Wilson’s memo may not be enough. “I think we may need to be clear that all our official records indicate she did pass her PhD, but this won’t help with the array of conspiracy theories which will arise.”
O’Connor elaborated in another email to Cerny. “I think we can use the text from Clive and add a line about official LSE and UoL records confirm she was awarded a PhD in law in 1984.”
“We may need to dig out a copy of the 1985/86 calendar and scan the relevant page as some “proof”.”
On June 11, 2019, the same day the flood of emails about the missing thesis were sent, a proposed draft of a media statement was circulated within the LSE. “Unfortunately, the LSE Library has never held a copy of Tsai Ing-wen’s thesis. All PhD’s from that period were awarded via the University of London and would have been sent first to the Senate House Library.”
Fiona Metcalfe had an objection. “You could lose LSE from the first line putting the ownership firmly in UoL court but is that overkill?”
Cerny had an answer for Metcalfe. “My opinion is we should leave it in. We should look like we’re pretending to have had nothing to do with this and she is an LSE alumnus (we trumpeted as much ourselves when she got elected).”
Cerny also had a message for the LSE librarians. “The theses that were said to be left at the LSE were presumably just never processed and there would not have been felt a need to do this. Examiners copies were sporadically returned to institutions post viva and were probably simply left in an office, either centrally or in the department, unless specifically requested. I would not have expected examiner copies used in the viva to be lodged in a library or retained formally at LSE.”
UK Watchdog concludes that it took three days from the time Hwan Lin asked about the existence of the missing thesis until the LSE administrators crafted a public response for the news media.
Cerny explained to the LSE Library staff, “The examination went through the University of London procedures and we had the award confirmed from them with a March1984 award date.” The award confirmation was supposedly in a June 29, 2015 letter from the UL, however a close reading of the letter reveals there was no such confirmation. Instead, the letter addressed the UL’s inability to acquire a copy of Tsai’s missing thesis.
Dan O’Connor joined in the June 11, 2019 email frenzy and suggested obtaining a scan of the LSE Calendar that named Tsai Ing-wen as a graduate. “Separately, we will also retrieve a scan of the relevant 1985/86 calendar page. It’s not exactly a smoking gun but might be useful if we start getting more hassle for proof.”
Clive Wilson heard from Taipei the next day. Alex Huang, of the ROC President’s Office, followed up on Fang-Long Shih’s overture to Wilson. Huang offered to provide both hardbound and electronic versions of Tsai’s thesis to the LSE Library.
UK Watchdog notes that the LSE prepared a public statement verifying Tsai’s degree award without a copy of the thesis and even before Tsai offered to provide a copy to the LSE. Meanwhile, Cerny was busy trying to keep everyone following the same script. “My main aim is to try to avoid people doing anything outside the discussed and agreed communications.”
The agreed communication was amended to add a verification statement. “We have checked our records and both the London School of Economics and Political Science and the University of London confirm that Tsai Ing-wen was awarded a PhD in Law 1984.”
Dan O’Connor rushed to distribute the new media statement and sent the first copy to People News in Taiwan confirming the validity of President Tsai’s degree, even though the UL was the degree awarding body and had not said anything about the matter to the media. At the same time, members of the PhD Academy at the LSE were continuing to ask questions about the missing thesis, including the identity of the thesis examiners. LSE Vice President Simon Hix was still asking questions too. “Are we able to confirm that she was awarded the PhD according to all the correct procedures, but we just can’t locate a physical copy of the thesis. Is that right?”
On June 13, 2019, the day after the LSE confirmed Tsai’s degree award to the Taiwanese news media, the University of London was informed of the verification announcement. “I’m emailing from the press office at LSE as we have received a number of media enquiries about the President of Taiwan’s PhD thesis.”
“Tsai Ing-wen studied at LSE in the 1980s and was awarded a PhD in Law in 1984, However, a copy of her thesis can’t be found and this has led to some media outlets and commentators in Taiwan speculating that the PhD doesn’t exist or was ghost written.”
“We have explained that the LSE Library never held a copy of the thesis and as all PhDs from that period were awarded via the University of London, a copy would have been sent first to the Senate House Library but we understand they are presently unable to find their copy.”
The London School of Economics confirmed Tsai Ing-wen’s degree without a copy of the thesis and without knowing who the examiners were, but with the knowledge the thesis had never been in the LSE Library collection. The LSE media statement in June 2019 jumped the University of London, the degree awarding body, and was made while members of the PhD Academy at the LSE were still asking verification questions. President Tsai’s student file at the LSE lacks a copy of the oral examination viva report which purportedly approved the thesis leaving very little evidence of qualification while Tsai herself refuses to release the viva report for public inspection.
Susan Underwood recognized that the academic habits of the LSE in the 1980s would be frowned upon today. Underwood could also have said the same thing about the LSE’s June 2019 verification of Tsai Ing-wen’s degree award. Because public curiosity continued to grow about Tsai’s missing thesis, the LSE was forced to go further and the June media statement became the core of an October 8, 2019 public statement which would go on to be accepted as an official verification that academic fraud had not been committed. As LSE administrator Simon Hix said, “Oy vey!”
Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen visited London in June 2011. Tsai critics have suggested her missing PhD thesis was in her briefcase in a failed attempt to get the dissertation into library theses collections. (credit: Chen Chi-mai)
UK Watchdog, an independent team of Freedom of Information researchers exploring the controversy around the 1984 University of London PhD degree award to Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen, has issued another installment in its ongoing report on the matter. The role of the Senate House Library at the UL in the controversy is explored using internal email correspondence in the latest report segment.
UK Watchdog has partnered with Richardson Reports to share its findings with the public and has added several translators to its team to produce reports in Chinese as well as English. The addition of the translators is in response to strong public interest in Taiwan about Tsai’s PhD degree legitimacy. Tsai triggered allegations of academic fraud in June 2019 when she filed her PhD thesis entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions with the London School of Economics Library, thirty-five years late.
President Tsai attended the London School of Economics and Political Science but received her degree from the UL because the LSE was then unable to award advanced degrees. Because the tardy thesis was submitted to the LSE, the bulk of public curiosity was initially focused on the school, forcing the LSE to issue a public statement on the matter on October 8, 2019.
UK Watchdog begins by quoting the LSE statement: “The Senate House Library records confirm that a copy was received and sent by them to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS).” The investigative team notes that on September 3, 2021, the Information Commissioner’s Office officially accepted the statement as factually correct in a Decision Notice.
UK Watchdog then mentions a July 13, 2011 email sent from Senate House Library to the LSE. “I looked at the national (formerly ASLIB) Index to Theses which indicates that we did have a SH copy once, but I still can’t find a catalogue entry (it should be online catalogue, with a note added to indicate if it’s been withdrawn to send to LSE, which should have happened.)”
A follow-up email from Senate House to the LSE five days later also drew the attention of the Watchdog team. “I can add to the email below that I tracked down the 1984 card output from the computer system, so I know we once had a a copy on the shelf and on our online catalogue, and that we sent the College copy to IALS, but they don’t have it either, so I’m wondering if the award was queried and the copies removed from the catalogue?”
UK Watchdog declares the two emails as bogus facts and cites as proof a January 11, 2022 Freedom of Information response from UL Information Manager Suzie Meriweather which denied the UL ever had President Tsai’s thesis. “The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University from the examiners.”
According to UK Watchdog, the LSE official statement on the thesis that cites the Senate House Library should be corrected to say the College copy was received and sent on to IALS. However, the College copy should have been kept at the LSE Library and not sent to IALS. Further, according to UK Watchdog, there was no hard-bound College copy at the LSE thus casting doubt on the veracity of the official LSE statement.
Some of the UL thesis examination regulations from 1983-1984 are missing and now the subject of an upcoming Tribunal hearing. However, the 1998-1999 UL regulations stipulate that the College copy be kept at the student’s home school library, in Tsai’s case it would be the LSE Library. “The College copy shall be the archival copy and shall be in hard-bound form.” Unfortunately, the LSE has no record of ever possessing a hard-bound copy of the thesis back in the 1980s.
The Senate House email referring to a purported thesis copy was contradicted on July 19, 2011, by the Research Degrees Examination office at UL “We still appear to have on file the green “record form” and the “reproductions of thesis form” that we would usually have sent to you with the theses.”
The Research Degrees Examination office email also refuted the “College copy” speculation. “So it may be that only one copy of the thesis (the spare 3rd examination copy, in those days) was sent to you some time after the close of the examination, once it was apparent to us that no headway was being made obtaining the examiners copies for you, we cannot be sure.”
The 1983-1984 UL regulations required students to submit three copies of the thesis, either typewritten or printed, with two hard-bound and one adequately bound to the Academic Registrar for examination. The spare third examination copy was the one to be adequately bound in the event a third examiner was assigned to the oral examination viva panel.
UK Watchdog notes that all three copies of the thesis which should have been submitted for examination vanished after the October 1983 viva examination and have never been seen since. Further confusing the chronology, scholar Hwan Lin has disclosed two emails he obtained October 12, 2019, that claim the third thesis copy was only sent to Senate House in 2011, not in the 1980s. A Senate House email states: “Later records indicate that a third copy was sent to Senate House Library in 2011and this was then sent on to IALS. However, it would appear that since then IALS have confirmed that they no longer have this copy.”
Hwan Lin also released an IALS email which states, “We have been asked many times for this thesis, but we do not have the copy that was sent to us, I’m afraid.”
UK Watchdog explains that Marcus Cerny, the Deputy Director of the LSE PhD Academy, confirmed the 2011 thesis submission in an internal LSE email. “If I recall, the thesis was actually sent to IALS in 2011. This makes sense to me because it will have been around the time that the Research Degrees office shut at UofL and remaining responsibilities were devolved to individual institutions.”
“I would keep the date out of it and just say the Senate House Library confirmed they sent it to IALS. If anybody wants to ask them for details as to what happened and when, then that is for UoL to respond to (or not) as they see fit.”
However, Cerny’s speculation about the third copy that purportedly was sent to IALS is inconsistent with the Research Degree office speculation that the thesis was sent to IALS at the close of the examination, not in 2011. Cerny’s speculation is also inconsistent with the 2011 Senate House email about the 1984 computer card output.
UK Watchdog notes other speculations about the 2011 thesis copy. One suggests that President Tsai was the source of the 2011 thesis and on a June 8, 2011 visit to the LSE may have delivered the dissertation to persons unknown in London in a failed bid to enter it into a library thesis collection. However, there is no documented proof there actually was a 2011 thesis copy.
By 2011, the UL no longer had theses from LSE students in its collection but had instead returned the theses to the LSE which conflicts with the notion the third copy was sent by Senate House to IALS.
UK Watchdog asks: “Why did the Senate House Library claim that it sent the copy of Tsai’s thesis to IALS Library in 2011?”
If the Senate House Library did actually send the thesis to the IALS Library in 2011 then both libraries should have records of the transaction, although neither do. The lack of acquisition records for the thesis was confirmed by the UL in a 2019 email to Hwan Lin from Kit Good, the Data Protection and Information Compliance Officer.
UK Watchdog returns to the LSE official statement and notes that the 2011 date for submission to IALS was deliberately left out of the statement creating confusion over what really happened and when.
The missing thesis remains unlisted in the UL online catalogue in 2023. The UL can produce no record it ever had the thesis and still does not despite a degree award and two replacement diploma certificates. Meanwhile, the LSE official statement on the thesis continues to omit reference to the College copy and the purported 2011 date of submission to IALS. The three examination copies have vanished and no approved hard-bound copies were ever provided by anyone to any library.
No thesis in any library prior to 2019, misleading omissions in the LSE official statement, conflicting emails, and erroneous speculations by the UL do not provide a convincing paper trail that no academic fraud has occurred.
Skin bleach advertisements paid the printing bill at Negro World despite undermining black pride (credits: Negro World)
Marcus Garvey, a famous figure in the black nationalist movement a hundred years ago and a fervent advocate of black pride denounced “racial hygiene” products such as skin bleaches and hair straighteners. Garvey criticized the Chicago Defender newspaper for accepting advertising revenue for such products and was critical of those that used the bleaches and straighteners. However, Garvey’s arrest for mail fraud over worthless stock sales in the Black Star Line shipping company changed all that. The arrest had a hefty impact on Garvey’s fundraising for the Universal Negro Improvement Association and his newspaper, Negro World.
As the mail fraud trial date approached it became harder and harder to pay the weekly printing bill for the Negro World as donations dried up and U.N.I.A. membership dues income shrank. Legal costs presented a new financial burden on the cash-strapped Garvey. Fred Palmer’s Skin Whitener preparation was one of the first skin bleaches to advertise in the Negro World, offering beauty by lightening the skin to make a “Marvelous Transformation.”
(credit: Negro World)
Desperate for money, the Negro World took on a major skin lightening advertiser, the Golden Brown Chemical Company. “Don’t be fooled any longer—we don’t want to be white, we want to be light, bright and attractive.”
A skin treatment which boasted a “wonderful change in your looks” consisted of steaming the face at night and then applying Golden Brown Beauty Ointment and leaving it on all night. In the morning lathering up with with Golden Brown Beauty Soap followed by a layer of Golden Brown Face Powder. “You won’t recognize yourself,” promised a nearly full page ad.
Golden Brown was owned by Mamie Hightower who became one of Garvey’s major patrons and provided Negro World readers with beauty tips plus discounts on her products. Hightower was no fan of the Afro hair style and constantly promoted a lighter look. Golden Brown’s display ads kept Garvey’s newspaper going when there was no other money to pay the printer.
Hightower offered beauty tips on the best way to straighten hair using hot combs or irons. “Hair straight as an arrow, or with a real wave, glossy and thick…that is the wish of many Race women and girls.”
(credit: Negro World)
Advertising revenue from Zura Kinkout hair straightener was an early addition to the Negro World bank account. The weekly display ad was updated for readers during Garvey’s fraud trial. “How about the fellow or girl who would be beautiful except for their ugly, nappy hair?”
“By a great natural process it releases the “kink” from the hair….then you have a head of hair in all its natural beauty and glory….Learn to feel what it is like to be admired!”
“Everywhere people will tell you that this is the greatest boon for the race which has appeared in generations.”
With more than a little irony, Negro World editor William Ferris had an editorial on the preceding page from a Zura ad about the seven ideas of Garveyism which included “the idea of stopping the bleaching of the complexion and the hair with chemicals.”
(credit: Negro World)
Hypocrisy describes the newspaper page preceding the editorial which carried a verbatim account of a Liberty Hall speech by Ferris where he condemned the Chicago Defender for carrying “advertisements about beautifying the face and taking the kinks out of the hair.”
“But the New Negro feels that his destiny does not rest in making himself over physically in the likeness of the white man, but that he must be satisfied with the color and hair that God gave him.”
The Negro World continued to advertise Zura’s Kinkout throughout the trial. “Why go through life with ugly, nappy hair?”
“Perhaps you have beautiful eyes, a fine skin and wonderful figure. Only your hair—ugly, crinkly and nappy!….It spoils it all.”
Dr. Fred Palmer’s Skin Whitener Preparations also bought large display advertising. “Dr. Fred Palmer’s Skin Whitener Ointment—pronounced by thousands of men and women as the most delightful, most remarkable and most satisfactory of all skin whitener preparations—it quickly bleaches and is perfectly safe.”
(credit: Negro World)
A new hair straightener advertisement in the Negro World offered the look of leadership. Pluko White Hair Dressing “makes the hair long, straight, silky and glossy.” The ad explained, “Pluko Hair Dressing is made especially for men and women who know that to be leaders, they must look like leaders.”
Hair straightening advertisements continued to keep the Negro World in print with regular weekly paid displays. Some of the products reprinted the same ad each time while others, like Pluko Hair Dressing, updated each sales pitch. “Women you like to look at are almost invariably those who have long, straight hair, which always looks smooth, soft and glossy. You simply can’t afford to neglect your hair nowdays, because too many other women of our group are learning how more attractive they can make themselves, by giving their hair the right kind of attention.”
(credit: Negro World)
Pluko asked readers, “Are YOU proud or ashamed of YOUR HAIR? There is no longer need for you to have a scanty growth of short, harsh, wiry hair, which you must be ashamed of.”
Amy Jacques Garvey had to give up her weekly editorial in order to make room for a hair straightener advertisement. “GOLDEN BROWN HAIR DRESSING is a dainty, exquisite toilet preparation, highly perfumed. It is very easy to have soft, silky and smooth hair, free from kinks, with GOLDEN BROWN HAIR DRESSING. You don’t even need to use straightening combs or messy pressing oils.”
Meanwhile, an advertising competition between Pluko and Golden Brown hair straighteners boosted the income at Negro World. Pluko urged readers to look at their hair in the mirror. “Is it as long, straight, silky and glossy as you want it to be? You can easily increase the beauty of your hair. Just get a can of Pluko Hair Dressing.”
(credit: Negro World)
For years the Negro World continued to publish ads for hair straighteners. Pluko Hair Dressing snagged a testimonial from showgirl Valada Snow. “I have not always had long, straight hair. I used to have just as much trouble with my hair and scalp as any one of our group; but I don’t any more. I find that by using Pluko Hair Dressing regularly my hair is always long, smooth, straight and easy to dress any way I wish.”
Pluko Hair Dressing kept up its advertisements in Negro World. “There is no longer need for you to have a scanty growth of short, harsh, wiry hair, which you must be ashamed of, when thousands of our leading and successful men and women…are making their hair long, straight, glossy and beautiful.”
Golden Brown featured a new skin treatment called Beautibloom. The Peroxide Vanishing Cream was a product that would enable “our Group to come into its own!” The Negro World ad assured that every “Race Beauty” needed Beautibloom on her dressing table to end “skin repugnance” and end snickers and “whispers about your deplorable complexion.”
(credit: Negro World)
Amy Jacques Garvey was unable to convince Marcus to drop the degrading advertisements so she used her editorial on the “Our Women and What They Think” page to denounce skin bleach and hair straighteners. “The average Negro is willing to marry into any other race, some only too glad so that their children may be able “to pass” as white.”
“Negroes have fallen short of the glory of God, and instead of being proud of their black skins and curly hair, they despise them rather than build up a great nation….Negroes use the laboratories not to discover serums to prevent diseases…but to place on the market grease that stiffens curly hair, irons that press the hair to look like a horse’s mane, and face cream that bleaches the skin overnight.”
However, sharing the page with Amy’s editorial, three columns over, was an advertisement for Society Face Beautifier. “Instantly the skin becomes clearer, the face and complexion become good-looking. As the skin begins to brighten up you will be happy about the remarkable change.”
At the bottom of the page a display advertisement promoted the Madam C. J. Walker Company and a contest to sell “various preparations” including vanishing cream and complexion soap. Assistant Secretary General Percival Burrows was competing to win a free trip around the world. Garvey sanctioned the contest with a published letter. “I see no reason why you may not enter the contest for trip around the world.”
The winner would be determined by who turned in the most product coupons. Accordingly, Burrows appealed to Negro World readers to send all their coupons for beauty preparations they had purchased.
Ignoring racial hygiene products advertised in the Negro World, William Sherrill turned to the successes of the U.N.I.A. in restoring racial pride in an editorial noting “the Negro has learned to love himself.”
“He no longer believes that he must have white in order to be somebody. He loves his own black skin and woolly hair.”
(credit: Negro World)
A new advertiser appeared in the Negro World for a hair straightener. Nelson’s Hair Dressing, promised readers they could make their hair beautiful. “It will make it long, smooth and lustrous.”
Amy Garvey finally had her fill of hair straightening advertisements and dropped Nelson’s Hair Dressing from her women’s page. Amy’s editorial devoted itself to the divine nature of black skin.
“Negro women thought they were reaching the height of their ambition by pealing their skins and straightening their hair. But Marcus Garvey launched a campaign against such ignorance, and made his race to understand that the difference in the texture of the hair and pigmentation of mankind, was the purpose of the Divine Creator in fitting us to inhabit the four corners of the earth.”
”Lord has so planned it that paleskins cannot endure the heat of tropical Africa, and their straight silken hair keeps their heads too hot, which causes them to fall from the direct rays of the sun, while Negroes are immune, thanks to their kinky hair, which admits air to their brains, and the extra thickness of their skulls to protect them.”
(credit: Negro World)
However, advertisements for three new hair straighteners competed for attention with the regular Pluko display ads in the Negro World. Kinko and its skin cream, Glossoff, entered the market. “KINKO will straighten your hair without discoloring or hurting it.”
Herolin Pomade Hair Dressing “makes short, ugly hair grow long, soft and pretty.” The advertisement targeted people with “wiry, course, stubborn, ugly hair.”
Pello Hair Dressing proclaimed it would make “kinky and unruly” hair become “beautiful” upon use. “All the good looking girls” use Pello boasted the ad.
Mamie Hightower’s Golden Brown Beauty Preparations continued to promote skin lighteners. One product was face powder which was available in different shades of “flesh, white, pink, high brown, extra high brown.”
Nelson’s Hair Dressing became a regular competitor with Pluko and Golden Brown in the Negro World. Nelson’s urged a “smart appearance.” “No girl can be smart with unlovely hair. Particularly is this true when most people know that hair can be made soft and silky, straight, and easy to arrange in the newer styles.”
(credit: Negro World)
Queen Hair Dressing began advertising in the Negro World promoting its brand of hair straightener as the “one way to treat short, tough, kinky hair.”
“Thousands of women have suffered for their unpopularity through short, ugly hair, and their first treatment of QUEEN showed a big improvement which gave them happiness and popularity.”
A new hair straightener joined the competing advertisements in the Negro World. Moorish Strate-Black offered to correct red or white streaks in the hair “no matter how kinky it is” with just one application. The ad promised “beautiful, lustrous, straight black hair.”
“And still more wonderful, it smoothens out, becoming straighter with each application.”
(credit: Negro World)
Queen Skin Whitener added its pitch for a new look. “Nothing can make your skin white. But it can be made lighter. Science has found a true way, a natural way to give you a lighter, brighter and more rosy complexion.”
“You can now take a dark sallow, rough, muddy, pimply, complexion and transform it into one with a bright, fresh, lovely, rosy hue, which will be envied by all women and admired by all men.”
Creole Beauty somehow missed the black is beautiful message and pronounced that a lighter look is better. By the time Marcus Garvey was imprisoned, following the unsuccessful appeal of his mail fraud conviction, skin bleaches and hair straighteners were the primary advertisers in the Negro World, The constant barrage of insulting advertisements contributed to factionalism which ripped the U.N.I.A. apart, Although Marcus Garvey is often credited with being a champion for black identity and black pride, few today realize his embrace and eager acceptance of demeaning advertisements was a source of much controversy in his own time.
(credit: Negro World)
Excerpted from GARVEY: The Case Against the Provisional President of Africa is available in print fromAmazonand also available in ebook.
British Library CEO Roly Keating, Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s controversial PhD thesis, and Tribunal Judge Sophie Buckley (credits: British Library/Hwan Lin/Dere Street Barristers)
The British Library has decided its reputation is more important than maintaining two false statements about the PhD thesis of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen. CEO Roly Keating has now been corrected by a spokesman for the library over his false claims the London School of Economics and Political Science published Tsai’s PhD thesis in 2015 and that the British Library has had a copy of the thesis in its EThOS collection of theses since 2015.
Jonathan Fryer, head of the Corporate Management Information Unit at the British Library, walked back Keating’s 2022 claims made during an Internal Review conducted as part of a Freedom of Information request. President Tsai’s 1983 thesis had been missing from any library collection for 35 years until Tsai submitted a copy to the LSE Library in June 2019. Despite a phantom thesis, the British Library made a catalog entry for the thesis on June 24, 2015. The FOI request asked the library how it made a catalog entry without a thesis. Roly Keating refused to answer the question calling it vexatious and made the two false claims about Tsai’s missing thesis to support his refusal.
Fryer now states: “After investigation I can confirm that we made an error in asserting that the thesis in question was uploaded to our EThOS system in 2015. A metadata record for the thesis in question was created in the EthOS system in 2015, but a copy of the thesis itself was not uploaded and attached to the record until 2019….the sentence in question in our internal review should have read 2019 for both dates.”
While the library was dragging its feet to correct the false statements made by Keating, the FOI refusal went to court. John Edwards, the United Kingdom Information Commissioner, went to bat for Keating and agreed the request was vexatious and asked Judge Sophie Buckley to strike out the case. However, Judge Buckley found there was disputed facts that required a hearing and the matter is headed for a decision. Although the false statements were brought to the Tribunal’s attention, Judge Buckley is unaware that the British Library has now recanted Keating’s false statements.
Fryer’s correction of Keating is not the first time a subordinate has corrected a supervisor during the ongoing thesis controversy. Rachael Maguire, Information Manager at the LSE, has contradicted her boss, Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team, over the identity of the thesis examiners. Haynes told Republic of China in-exile prosecutors seeking to imprison talk show host Dennis Peng, that Tsai’s thesis was examined by her academic supervisor, Michael Elliott, and a LSE professor named Leonared Leigh. Maguire said Haynes didn’t know what he was talking about as the school does not know who the examiners were. Maguire said Haynes was wrong because of a “hasty view” of Tsai’s student record.
At the University of London, which awarded President Tsai her degree, the missing thesis has also been the subject of a flip-flop. Despite knowing since 2011 that the UL did not have Tsai’s thesis, the school told the Information Commissioner the thesis was lost by librarians during library reconstruction.
In 2020, the Information Commissioner accepted the UL’s new claim that Senate House had Tsai Ing-wen’s thesis but that librarians lost the thesis. “The original copy held by the University library was lost or mis-shelved sometime between mid-1980s and 2010s over which period there were numerous structural changes to the library.”
However, the UL false allegation against the librarians made to the Information Commissioner was put rest by Information Review Tribunal Judge Hazel Oliver on December 2, 2021. “We accept that the explanation originally provided that the thesis had been lost or mis-shelved may not have been correct, as there is no catalogue or microfilm record of the original thesis.”
Subsequently, on January 11, 2022, UL Information Manager Suzie Meriweather removed all blame from the librarians and put it on the examiners. “The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University from the examiners.” As the UL knew since 2011 that the thesis was not part of the UL collection the claim blaming librarians for the missing thesis was more than an inadvertent mistake according to UK Watchdog, an independent research group investigating the thesis controversy.
UK Watchdog’s attention is now focused on the British Library as the library persists in labeling the FOI request about the thesis catalog entry as vexatious and refuses to explain how and why it made an EThOS catalog entry in 2015 for a then non-existent thesis.
Thoughout the controversy and tarnishing of three venerable British institution reputations over President Tsai’s thesis, she stubbornly continues to refuse to release the oral examination viva report that purportedly approved her thesis, thus keeping academic fraud allegations alive.
Judge Buckley’s decision on the FOI catalog question is expected later this month.
Official statement of the University of London on Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s missing PhD thesis. (credit: University of London website screenshot)
UK Watchdog is an independent research team dedicated to uncovering the truth about Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s controversial 1984 PhD degree from the University of London. UK Watchdog researchers have painstakingly pieced together from a variety of sources through the Freedom of Information Act behind-the-scenes communications and actions.
UK Watchdog has partnered with Richardson Reports to release its findimgs which provide a candid and disturbing inside view of falsehoods, evasive statements, lax academic fraud safeguards, violated protocols, and political influence. The UK Watchdog report can be found here.
The latest installment of the UK Watchdog Report begins with an Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice dated September 3, 2021, which explains the University of London’s position on two missing crucial pieces of information regarding the verification of President Tsai’s PhD degree. “Of the remaining two documents, [diploma & viva notification letter Feb. 8, 1984] it noted that the letter has not been retained in the student file. Finally, it noted that it did not retain hard copies of students’ certificates—only the record showing who achieved what qualification.”
President Tsai’s office has said that the viva notification letter of Febuary 1984, missing from Tsai’s UL student file, came from Tsai’s London School of Economics and Political Science student file. But how did the letter get into Tsai’s LSE student file?
According to the UL website, the UL does not hold copies of student degree certificates which makes Tsai Ing-wen the sole source of her March 14, 1984 diploma and any copies thereof, including the copy of her PhD diploma provided by the LSE and disclosed by Tsai’s office on September 4, 2019 on Facebook, along with the viva notification letter.
At the UL Research Degree Examinations office an email dated July 19, 2011, stated in part “we were chasing the examiners and the candidates supervisor for the return of the examination copies up to 1 ½ years after the award was issued, but there is no written entry to clarify whether or not they were ever received back.”
“We have had the old file out of the archives. Our records show the candidate was awarded in February 1984.” Curiously, the award was actually dated a month later in March 1984, according to the diploma certificate possessed by Tsai. UK Watchdog asks where did the Research Degree Examination office get its February date of award?
A UL response at What Do They Know website indicates the UL only holds “minimal information relating to graduates of Member institutions.”
“We record the name of the graduate, the date of the award, the name of the Member institution and the title of the thesis.”
February or March 1984, take your pick, the records go both ways. But what about the PhD thesis itself?
A Senate House [the UL library] email dated June 24, 2015 states in part “we do have an old card catalogue covering theses from the 1980s and there is a card for this one which indicates that we were due to receive the thesis, but it never arrived.”
No unique classmark had ever been assigned to Tsai’s doctoral thesis because there was no thesis on hand to tag. The UL possesses further information that it never acquired the thesis.
At the UL Research Degree Examinations office an email dated July 19, 2011 stated in part: “We still appear to have on file the green “record form” and the “reproductons of thesis form” that we usually would have sent to you with the theses.” This indicates that the UL has known for over a decade that it never had Tsai Ing-wen’s thesis in its collection.
On June 11, 2020, the Information Commissioner’s Office accepted the University of London’s new claim that Senate House had Tsai Ing-wen’s thesis but that librarians lost the thesis. “The original copy held by the University library was lost or mis-shelved sometime between mid-1980s and 2010s over which period there were numerous structural changes to the library.”
However, the UL false allegation against the librarians made to the Information Commissioner was put rest by Information Review Tribunal Judge Hazel Oliver on December 2, 2021. “We accept that the explanation originally provided that the thesis had been lost or mis-shelved may not have been correct, as there is no catalogue or microfilm record of the original thesis.”
Subsequently, on January 11, 2022, UL Information Manager Suzie Meriwether removed all blame from the librarians and put it on the examiners. “The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University from the examiners.” As the UL knew since 2011 that the thesis was not part of the UL collection the claim blaming librarians for the missing thesis was more than an inadvertent mistake according to UK Watchdog.
But what about the LSE Library? The UK Watchdog team studied closely the email traffic of Marcus Cerny, of the Academic Academy at the LSE. Cerny was not surprised that no examination copies of President Tsai’s theis could be found. “Examiners copies were sporadically returned to institutions post viva were probably simply left in an office, either centrally or in the department, unless specifically requested. I would not have expected examiner copies used in the viva to be lodged in a library or retained formally at LSE.”
UK Watchdog concludes after examination of relevant email correspondence at both the LSE and the UL that although a PhD degree was awarded there were no examination copies and no hardbound approved copies of Tsai Ing-wen’s thesis in existence at either school or library.
By August 1985, the UL gave up the chase for Tsai’s examination copies of the thesis but took no remedial measures to address the missing thesis. Although it possessed no copy of Tsai’s thesis, the UL awarded a PhD degree and over time the school issued four certification letters and reissued two diploma certificates.
The first certification letter was July 5, 1984, to the Free Chinese Centre, the then ROC representative office in the United Kingdom. The letter stated in part that Tsai Ing-wen was an “internal student of the London School of Economics and Political Science.” However, UK Watchdog investigators found this letter conflicts with the LSE Calendar which specified to the contrary that LSE students “are registered by the School as internal students of the University.”
Three years later, the Free Chinese Centre queried the UL Academic Registrar, asking again for confirmation Tsai Ing-wen earned a degree. The UL responded on September 30, 1987 to the Free Chinese Centre but got Tsai’s gender wrong and made no mention of the thesis whereabouts. “It is not possible to issue detailed information of Mr. Tsai’s PhD since it was awarded after a course of research and submission of a thesis title.” This time the UL reversed itself and declared Tsai was an internal student of UL, not the LSE as earlier alleged.
On April 9, 1990, the UL issued a third certification letter in a “To Whom It May Concern” format. However, still missing from President Tsai’s UL student file was the February 8, 1984 viva result notification letter which the UL never kept a copy of for her student file.
In 2010, Tsai Ing-wen ran for the New Taipei City mayor’s office. Tsai was required to submit proof of education so she asked the UL to reissue her 1984 degree certificate.
In 2015, in the run-up to the ROC presidential elections, Tsai Ing-wen again asked the UL to reissue her degree certificate. On September 22, 2015, the degree certificate was reissued once more. Accompanying the certificate was a fourth certification letter. However, the letter lacked an embossed seal which according to the letter itself was necessary for official confirmation. “This document is not official unless it contains the signature of the Chief Operating Officer and his embossed seal.”
According to UK Watchdog investigators, Tsai Ing-wen’s UL student file contains no record that Tsai had ever been asked for a copy of the approved thesis despite four certification letters and two reissued diploma certificates.
On June 29, 2015, someone, name redacted, from the UL sent a letter to LSE officials with an explanation about Tsai’s then missing thesis. “The Research Degrees Examinations had chased both examiners (appointed for the PhD examination) and the supervisor (Mr M J Elliott) for the return of the copies of the thesis. Apparently, the internal examiner left his copy of the PhD thesis with Mr Elliott post-viva. Mr Elliot left both copies with the LSE asking the LSE to return these to Senate House. These were never received.”
On June 24, 2019, Clive Wilson, at the LSE Library, sent an email explaining that Michael Elliott, Tsai’s supervisor, was long gone. “Michael Elliott appears to have been away from LSE in the last year of her PhD (sabbatical?) and subsequently left LSE in 1984 to join the Economist having left instructions to pass them on. Clearly this never happened.”
Tsai Ing-wen’s LSE student record reveals that Elliott was not assigned as Tsai’s supervisor in 1982-83 or 1983-84 because Tsai was not registered and had not paid her fee.
Although UK Watchdog has peered deep into the mystery of President Tsai’s missing thesis, many questions remain for the research team to explore, including how could the thesis vanish into thin air without any record and why does Tsai continue to refuse to release her oral examination viva report?
The viva report remains at the center of the mystery of the phantom thesis, however personal data exclusions in the Freedom of Information Act keep this critical document off limits to the public. A request to the Cabinet Office to amend the FOIA to close the academic fraud loophole created by the personal data exclusions has been turned down. Prime Minister Risha Sunak has been requested to review the Cabinet Office decision but has not yet responded.
UK Watchdog is an independent research team dedicated to uncovering the truth about Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s controversial 1984 PhD degree from the University of London. UK Watchdog researchers have painstakingly pieced together from a variety of sources, through the Freedom of Information Act, the behind-the-scenes communications and actions regarding Tsai’s thesis and degree award.
UK Watchdog dug deep into the procedures necessary to obtain a PhD degree from the University of London in the 1980s for students of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Which school was the gatekeeper of degrees has been a question throughout the long-running controversy over the PhD degree of Tsai Ing-wen. Both schools have issued statements confirming the degree but neither has provided requested verification information, including the oral examination viva report for Tsai’s thesis.
UK Watchdog examined regulations, memorandums of understanding, institutional archives, official calendars, various correspondences, Tsai Ing-wen’s student record, and a sample student file to learn what should have happened back in 1983 after Tsai completed her studies. The report findings are here.
The research team learned the degree award was a two-step process with a study stage at the LSE and an examination stage by the UL and a clear transfer of responsibility for academic integrity. President Tsai was technically registered by the LSE as an internal student of the UL, or at least should have been, putting her under the scope of the UL regulations for internal students which required her to be registered for a Masters degree first.
President Tsai was required to have completed two years of full time study at the LSE under the UL regulations. There were provisions for transfer from the Masters program to the PhD program upon the recommendation of her Supervisor. The Supervisor at the LSE was also responsible for approval of the thesis title. All of these requirements had to occur before Tsai was permitted to advance to the UL examination phase.
President Tsai’s student record was compared to a sample student record identified as belonging to VV who was registered at the LSE contemporaneously. Both began their study in October 1980 and both competed 21 months of study, although VV was awarded a PhD in October 1983 while Tsai was awarded her degree in February 1984 according to her student record. VV’s thesis title was approved by LSE on December 14, 1982, while Tsai’s thesis title was approved on January 19, 1983.
To advance to the examination phase the PhD candidate must submit an entry form to the Academic Registrar at the UL. VV’s date of entry for examination was March of 1983. President Tsai’s date of entry for examination was June 1983.
Presdient Tsai was required by UL regulations to submit three bound copies of the thesis and under LSE regulations to submit to oral examination. Further, UL regulations required the PhD candidate to authorize the submission of the thesis to both the UL Library [Senate House] and the LSE Library and “be made available for public reference, inter-library loan and copying.”
In VV’s student file was a copy of a letter to the LSE Supervisor requesting recommendations and informal agreements for examiners. However, in Tsai Ing-wen’s case the Information Commissioner’s Office, on November 26, 2021, outlined a somewhat different procedure as explained by the LSE. “The University of London was responsible for invigilating any examinations.”
“The LSE accepted that it did still retain President Tsai’s student record, but that record only dealt with her activities at the LSE—and this did not include details of her final examination or viva.”
“The arrangements between the LSE and the University of London were different in 1984 to how they are today. As the degree-awarding body, it is logical to consider that it would be the University that has the records pertaining to President Tsai’s examination—and the Commissioner has already established that these records are, as a matter of fact, held by the University of London.”
Although the UL has missing examination regulations from the mid-1980s, the 1998-99 regulations specify: “The degree shall not be awarded until two copies of the successful thesis, bound in appropriate formats, have been lodged with the Academic Registrar.”
While it is understandable that UK Watchdog would be looking into the UL examination procedures, the investigators have not been the only ones interested. Curiously, in September 2019, President Tsai Ing-wen decided to refresh herself on how she got her degree.
On September 2, 2019, Clive Wilson, at the LSE Library, received an email from the Presidential office in Taiwan.
“I am writing to again seek your kind assistance with regard to President Tsai’s LSE doctoral degree. To rebut the defamatory libel, President Tsai decides to take legal actions against the people behind the malice. For the court proceeding, President Tsai will need her student record, including the beginning and ending dates of study, names of supervisor and viva examiners…etc.”
On September 4, 2019, Clive Wilson got another email asking for help.
“The President’s Office has asked me to find out what the procedure was back in the 1980s for PhD students to submit their theses. Do you know what they would be required to do and how the University of London would process and catalogue the theses submitted at that time?”
Twenty-five minutes later Marcus Cerny at the LSE sent an email to Wilson trying to extract the LSE from the thesis controvery.
“I think that is something for the UofL to clarify. My knowledge would go back to the late 1990’s and that is not robust.”
“The physical thesis submission for examination will have been handled by the Research Degrees Office at the UofL and the final copy by Senate House Library.”
“Sorry about this rather unhelpful response. I am confident in my assumption as to what will have been even at that time (confirmation that the thesis had been passed by the examiners,hard bound copy to Senate House triggering confirmation of award by RDO and placing in the Library) but this should be clarified by UofL and I would direct President Tsai’s office to send queries on this process to them.”
On September 18, 2019, Wilson got some editorial help on a public statement he was working on.
“As LSE is one of the leading academic institutions in the world, any statement issued by LSE certainly carries weight by itself. We would be truly grateful if you can kindly mention the following points in the statement.”
“1. University of London and LSE records confirm that Tsai Ing-wen waas awarded a PhD in Law in 1984.”
“2. LSE is in possession of all relevant information pertaining to Dr. Tsai’s degree. Dr. Tsai was originally registered as a Mphil student in September 1980. In her second year, upon the recommendation of her supervisor that her work was of doctorate standard she was retroactively upgraded to PhD status. Dr. Tsai submitted her thesis “Unfair Trade Practices and Safguard Actions”, and successfully passed the viva examination in October 1983. She was later awarded a PhD in Law in 1984.”
“3. This procedure is in line with the School’s regulations.”
“4. A PhD degree is only awarded once a candidate has provided a copy of the successful thesis. While the original copy of Dr. Tsai’s thesis cannot currently be located, it is not the only one missing and a hardbound copy of this thesis is currently available at the LSE Library.”
The thesis copy now available to the public has four pages that were added post-viva, acknowlegements and an abstract. However, the 1983-84 UL regulations required the abstract to be submitted bound with the thesis plus one loose copy, which has never been located.
Tsai Ing-wen’s official UL date of award was March 14, 1984, although her LSE student file lists February 1984 instead. The conflicting dates raises a question about which school has the most accurate information.
The University of London responded to a Freedom of Information question on the What Do They Know website which addressed what information the UL keeps. “The University of London holds only minimal information relating to graduates of Member Institutions. We record the name of the graduate, the date of award, the name of the Member Institution and the title of the thesis. The remainder of the information is usually retained by the Member Institution (such as LSE)”
On March 29, 2023, the ICO quoted the UL about examination records. “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.”
UK Watchdog researchers looked closer and found the UL claim contradicted the LSE Graduate School Committee October 15, 1980 minutes outlining examination procedures which specified the duties of the UL Boards of Studies. When presented with the UK Watchdog findings, Information Review Tribunal Judge Brian Kennedy ordered the UL into court to explain itself. The school has until September 4th to respond.
Marcus Garvey made several trips to British Honduras but failed to collect a large bequest from Isaiah Morter because African redemption was deemed illegal by British courts. (credit: Public domain)
Marcus Garvey, famed black nationalist and orator, made several trips to British Honduras during the colonial days of Belize. Garvey’s first trip was as a young man exploring the world and little is known about his visit. Garvey traveled extensively as he developed his advocacy for African redemption and a homeland he never saw.
Garvey’s most memorable visit to the colony in July 1921 gained him the devotion and friendship of wealthy landowner Isaiah Morter and the services of Samuel Haynes, lyrical author of the Belize national anthem. Morter would later bequeath much of his estate to Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association, making the largest single donation in the organization’s history.
Stage actress Henrietta Vinton Davis accompanied Garvey to Belize City and gave a report on her trip. “We sailed for Belize, British Honduras, and there we met with such great enthusiasm not only from the citizens and natives of Honduras, but from the West Indians that sojourned there, from the Caribs, who were the aborigines of British Honduras. They too came to join our ranks, to mingle their voices with our voices, to subscribe to the principles of the Universal Negro Improvement Association and do acclaim with one voice that Africa should be redeemed for her children wherever they may be scattered.”
Davis was a crowd pleaser and glowingly told her audience, “I find Belize indeed a Home Sweet Home.”
Garvey’s newspaper, Negro World, published Garvey’s comments on his visit to the British colony. “We were heartily received in Belize, British Honduras, by the people of that country. In Belize they have a beautiful Liberty Hall….It is a splendid hall and is living testimony of the loyalty and devotion and the splendid spirit of the people living in that city of Belize in British Honduras. I spoke there several nights and won the confidence of the people. There I was the guest of a black man who is known as the “Coconut King” of Central America. He is known to be a millionaire—a man who is coming up to the convention to be presented to you—a loyal member of the Universal Negro Improvement Association. His name is Issac Morter.”
Garvey later got his host’s name correct for a two-column photograph in Negro World of Isaiah Morter, the “Coconut King of British Honduras,” who donated $25 to the African Redemption Fund. Garvey flattered Morter following the trip to Belize. At the 1922 international convention, Morter was awarded a U.N.I.A. knighthood and the title “Knight Commander Distinguished Service Order of Ethiopia” for his “faithful and distinguished service to the Negro race.”
When Garvey sailed from Belize he took along a key local activist, Samuel Haynes. “On the 12th July, 1921, I am sailing from these shores as a soldier of the Hon. Marcus Garvey…I have enlisted myself under the banner because I feel that the time has come when I should do something for humanity.”
A local Belize newspaper, the Clarion, published a friendly view of the recruitment of Haynes by Garvey as an honor. “He has found in a young man of Belize—a son of the soil, one who with some training, he says, can be of some assistance to him in his great worldwide movement….He at once decided that in young Haynes he found the sort of man he wants and immediately offered to take him to New York.”
One evening when Garvey was absent from Liberty Hall in Harlem, Haynes was pressed into service. Haynes had acquired Garvey’s use of big numbers and expressive oratory. “The Universal Negro Improvement Association is a mighty movement. It is a movement that is filled with possibilities. It is a movement that has drawn together in the course of a few years more than 5,000,000 people.”
“The Universal Negro Improvement Association is impregnable, for it is not founded by man but by God….this struggle towards African redemption is sanctified with the bleeding of Him who died that others may live.”
In May 1923, when Marcus Garvey’s mail fraud trial began in New York, one supporter made the trip from Central America all the way to New York to show solidarity with Garvey. Isaiah Morter appeared on the platform at Liberty Hall with Garvey at the start of the trial. Garvey continued to cultivate a relationship with his former host in Belize. The Negro World dutifully reported Morter’s appearance.
“On the rostrum was a large number of distinguished high officials of the association and among them was one of the prominent, respected and wealthy citizens of Belize, British Honduras, in the person of Sir Isaiah Morter, who at the last convention was honored by the association with a title.”
Back in Belize, the U.N.I.A. Black Cross Nurses brought out the governor of the British Honduras colony to a health fair. With the financial help of Isaiah Morter, the nurses were trained in health service skills. Governor Eyre Hutson distributed certificates to the nurses who had completed their training. The health fair helped bond Morter to the Association and fostered a favorable relationship
with the colonial government.
The 1924 death of Isaiah Morter in Belize prompted a special memorial service the following week at Liberty Hall in Harlem. George McGuire, Lord Primate of the African Episcopal Church, delivered a sermon. The Negro World described the solemn but colorful ceremony.
“Sir Isaiah was a member of the Universal Negro Improvement Association and one of its staunchest supporters, being knighted in August, 1922, for his outstanding services to his race. An able business man, Sir Isaiah amassed a great fortune, but, unlike many of the Negro race…in his affluence remained as unaffected and loyal to his race…as he had been in days of indigence.”
“The Hon. Marcus Garvey, President-General, and the executive officers of the association, were present, clad in their robes of office and went in procession, led by the choir.”
Clifford Bourne delivered the eulogy. “Mr. Isaiah Morter, a capitalist and a man of high social standing, lent prestige to our Association and caused all of the distinguished people of the community to recognize and respect the principles of the Association. When the Negro World was branded as an undesirable paper, it was through the efforts of Sir Isaiah Morter that the Governor permitted the entrance of said paper there.”
Samuel Haynes memorialized his friend. “As a citizen he labored for the good of the community. All the improvements, social, spiritual and political, in the city of Belize can trace their starting point to the interest shown in those improvements by the late Sir Isaiah Emanuel Morter.”
“Sir Isaiah was the first to subscribe in order to raise funds to bring about the realization of that charter. During the days of the Black Star Line Sir Isaiah took a keen interest, bought his shares, told others about it, and advertised the Black Star Line as he went from British Honduras to Guatemala….He was a great race patriot.”
“The new Liberty Hall, which today graces the city of Belize—it is one of the finest in Central America—has been brought about through the financial assistance of Sir Isaiah Morter.”
The Negro World announced the news of a generous bequest in Belize. Morter had left the bulk of his estate for the cause of African redemption by the U.N.I.A.
“Sir Isaiah Emanuel Morter of British Honduras, Knight Commander of the Distinguished Service Order of Ethiopia, was a man of the race who knew how to make money and how to use it wisely He never grew so rich as to get away from the Negro race. He kept in close touch with it; he sympathized with it and he helped it help itself. He believed in the Universal Negro Improvement Association and its work of African redemption and repatriation, and when he died recently he bequeathed it between $50,000 and $100,000 of his abundance for the furtherance of its work. That is the first big gift that the association has had bequeathed to it.”
The 1924 U.N.I.A. convention in Harlem opened with a “divine service” at Liberty Hall led by Bishop George McGuire who used his sermon as a fundraiser. McGuire urged the worshipers to give freely. McGuire opened the pitch by memorializing Isaiah Morter.
“Down in British Honduras a black man, a deceased and honored member of this Association, Sir Isaiah Morter, proved beyond semblance of doubt that even outside the United States it is possible for humble Negroes to attain financial distinction by making use of the opportunities of their environment. Morter, like Moses, had a rod which he skillfully polished and used with powerful effect, leaving behind him a fortune reputed to be about a half a million dollars. All honor to Isaiah Morter, and still greater honor in that in his last will and testament he bequeathed the bulk of his estate to the Universal Negro Improvement Association. When an individual of his cool, calculating type, a man unmoved by passing sentiment or wild emotion, deliberately wills thus the major part of the earnings of an eventful life, it is evidence that this movement has taken a firm grip on the new Negro….At this solemn moment we revere the memory of Sir Isaiah Morter, I most earnestly urge you, one and all, to emulate his illustrious example. Donate, lend, invest during your lifetime, but see to it that in your last will and testament you provide, to the extent of of your ability, a legacy for this movement.”
The death of Isaiah Morter was a setback to the U.N.I.A. noted by Garvey in his New Year’s Eve speech at Liberty Hall. “We lost that great prince of men of Central America in the person of Sir Isaiah Emanuel Morter, of Belize, British Honduras, one of our stalwart supporters and giants in the cause of Africa’s redemption and the emancipation of the 400,000,000 Negroes of the world. Sir Isaiah Morter was so thoughtful of the work of the Universal Negro Improvement Association that in his last will and testament he bequeathed to this organization an estate that was valued at more than $100,000.”
“Unfortunately, enemies of the organization inspired a contest for the will, and the matter is still before the Probate Court of British Honduras, not yet settled, and the intention of that great man not yet carried out because the desire of others not to see his will made manifest.”
In British Honduras, a court battle between widow Ann Morter and the U.N.I.A. over the will of the late Isaiah Morter brought Henrietta Davis to the colony, where she testified as an officer of the U.N.I.A. that she never saw a balance sheet and had not been paid all of her salary.
“I am one of the officers of the U.N.I.A.–Fourth Assistant President General….There is a division in Belize. I know that a charter was issued to the Belize division. I signed the charter.”
“I knew the late Isaiah Morter. I saw him in New York. He frequently attended the meetings of the U.N.I.A. Inc., of New York….Mr. Morter contributed at meetings to the fund.”
Cross-examination by the widow’s attorney was more informative. Ann Morter had long been estranged from her husband and he only left her a “paltry” inheritance, instead bequething the majority of his wealth to the African Redemption Fund. However, the widow was fighting an organization in far away New York that worried the government and she was on home ground. Henrietta continued her tale.
“I am employed by the U.N.I.A. I am on the salary list. Some times I get my salary and some times I don’t….I have given donations to the U.N.I.A….I have bought shares in the Black Star Line and given money outright. I don’t quite remember how many shares I purchased.”
“I knew Marcus Garvey since 1913. I met Mr. Garvey in Jamaica….I last saw Mr. Garvey in the Atlanta penitentiary, Georgia. I discussed the case with Garvey.”
“They used to pay me by cheque. I got a cheque on the Chelsea Bank of New York in October last.”
Davis did not know that a copy of Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey had been sent to the judge which he admitted into evidence. The topic then turned to Liberia. Davis explained events as she knew them.
“Looking toward the colonization of Liberia…a commission was sent to Liberia in December 1923, to obtain concessions of land from the Liberian Government for colonization purposes….After they returned to New York five men were sent to Liberia with tools and agricultural implements to survey and clear the land which was obtained through President King of Liberia. These men were refused admission.”
“This was in preparation for colonization. People were to go to live and settle there among the backward tribes and teach them the ways of civilization and uplift them in every way by precept and example. I was an officer in the commission sent to Liberia….The backward tribes did not receive any money out of the money sent. The object was to prepare for immigration.”
“I still believe that the association is genuine for the benefit of the Negro throughout the world. The people in Belize have formed a division of the U.N.I.A. They realize their racial conditions and are aspiring towards higher ideals.”
When asked about the finances of the association Davis was not so well informed. “I have nothing especially to do with the financial part of the business. I did not know at any time how much money either of the two societies had in the bank. I had not seen a balance sheet of the association at any time.”
In a ceremony at the Liberty Hall in Belize a new local president was appointed by Davis. Maurice Young’s first announcement was a battle cry against enemies. “I am going to oust out every slacker and traitor.”
William Sherrill took time away from Liberty Hall to journey to British Honduras on a “business mission” and appeared at several gatherings in Belize. Sherrill was no doubt trying to obtain proceeds from the will of Isaiah Morter for the cash-strapped U.N.I.A. Sherrill told one audience at the Rex Theatre that Garvey was the “greatest man the race had yet seen.” However, Sherrill was unable to shake loose money as Morter’s will would be contested for years to come.
During Garvey’s imprisonment, Samuel Haynes took on an active role supporting the Association and became a regular contributor to the Negro World. Haynes, a friend of Isaiah Morter, was a link to Morter’s bequest and followed the battle over his estate between the widow and the U.N.I.A. Haynes was quick to boast in the newspaper about the people back home.
“[O]ne of the strongest and most influential branches of the association flourishes under the British flag and is located in Belize, British Honduras, Central America, home of the late illustrious Sir Isaiah Morter.”
“Their membership embraces all classes of the community and their Liberty Hall is one of the finest in the world. It is well patronized by the general public for functions and other gatherings. Quite recently, the Royal Order of Ancient Shepherds, a local fraternal organization, held a public meeting there and the governor and his wife sat beneath the tricolor of African liberty and on the same platform from whence the doctrine of African nationalism is preached weekly.”
The Negro World provided an update on some longstanding litigation over money.
“Mr. Isaiah Morter, a native of British Honduras, a member of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, died three years ago willing practically the whole of his estate, representing a sum of $150,000, to the African Redemption Fund….Up to the present time the bequest has not been received, the local British Court ruling that furthering African redemption is “illegal.” An appeal has been taken to the British Court of Appeal in London and it remains to be seen what will be the outcome of this flagrant case of injustice to the black man by the white self-appointed overlord.”
Samuel Haynes rose in the public eye as the most vocal advocate for Garvey’s release from prison. The attention led to an unfriendly editorial in the Pittsburgh Courier which called Haynes a “lampblacked klansman” preaching an absurd doctrine of racial fanatical racialism and hatred of white people.
Haynes responded that the charge was false and untrue. “In July 1919, I saved a number of white men—British, Scot, Irish, German and American—from probably wholesale massacre at the hands of an infuriated contingent of returned soldiers in a British colony, receiving the commendation of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in a special dispatch to the Governor of the Colony for my restraining influence.”
“No one need waste his time preaching to Negroes to hate white folks. Only white folks can make Negroes hate them.”
Garvey never got to spend any of Isaiah Morter’s bequest. What didn’t get eaten up in attorney fees ended up going to a rival U.N.I.A. faction headed by Lionel Francis who moved to Belize and died in Hurricane Hattie.
UK Watchdog, an independent research team, has partnered with Richardson Reports to release a year-long study that details disturbing behind-the-scenes activity at the British Library, the London School of Economics and Political Science, and the University of London surrounding the missing PhD thesis of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen. The British Library maintains the national repository of doctoral theses in the United Kingdom. However, Tsai’s thesis eluded the EThOS collection until November 2019, when a digital version was linked, thirty-five years late.
The UK Watchdog team scrutinized EThOS after they realized the British Library violated EThOS protocol to guard against academic fraud by making an EThOS catalog entry four years before the thesis was submitted to the LSE Library for the first time in June 2019. To avoid answering a Freedom of Information question about how could the library make a catalog entry without a thesis, CEO Roly Keating falsely claimed the LSE published President Tsai’s thesis in 2015. UK Watchdog dug into the internal emails between the UL, the LSE, and the British Library to learn what was going on behind closed doors. Chapters One and Two of the UK Watchdog Report on the British Library are available here.
On September 25, 2019, the British Library wrote to Clive Wilson, Enquiry Services Librarian, at the LSE Library who was leading an internal investigation at LSE to track President Tsai’s missing thesis.
“No, we don’t hold a copy. The ‘DSC’ shelfmark is the EThOS ID. I know this looks confusing—it goes back to the days when DSC had a microfilm service—but we never made a microfilm copy of this thesis.”
The British Library did not microfilm Tsai’s thesis because there was no thesis to microfilm. The Senate House Library at the UL lacked a copy of the thesis, despite an academic regulation to loan the British Library a copy of the thesis for a microfilm copy to be made.
An internal Brtish Library email on November 10, 2019, noted that President Tsai’s thesis identification number was 652034 and thatTsai’s thesis was loaded into EThOS on June 24, 2015.
June 24, 2015, was indeed a curious and busy day as the UK Watchdog team learned, but the story goes back earlier. A July 19, 2011 email from the UL establishes that the UL knew it lacked Tsai’s thesis entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions eight years before she finally submitted it to the LSE Library.
“Our records show the candidate was awarded in February 1984. It also clarifies that we were chasing the examiners and the candidates supervisor for return of the examination copies up to 1 ½ years after the award was issued., but there is no written entry to clarify whether or not they were ever received back. We still appear to have on file the green “record form” and the “reproduction of thesis form” that we would usually have sent to you with the theses. So it may be that only one copy of the thesis (the spare 3rd examination copy, in those days) was sent to you sometime after the close of the examination, once it was apparent to us that no headway was being made with obtaining the examiners copies for you, we cannot be sure.”
“We can’t shed any light on the whereabouts on the copy you appear to have had at some stage.”
The “appear to have had at some stage” copy was purportedly in the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies collection although there is no acquistion record for Tsai’s thesis at the national law library. Thus far no one has been able to locate any copy of the thesis in any library prior to June 2019.
On June 24, 2015, the same day the British Library created an EThOS catalog entry for the thesis, the LSETO manager at the LSE, who maintains its online thesis collection, revealed in an email the LSE Library had no record of the thesis.
“A thesis indexed in ProQuest…has been requested from us. We unfortunately do not have a record of this thesis in the library. I have also been looking in the Senate House catalogue, and have been unable to find a thesis by this author.”
“This query is quite urgent. The author in question is the leader of a Taiwanese political party and is running in the upcoming elections. She is receiving a lot of publicity and consequently we have been contacted multiple times in the past two days.”
Also on that same summer day, June 24, 2015, an email from a Senate House librarian disclosed a trip into the storage room and a look in the old card catalog.
“I have done a bit of research for you and can confirm that we have no record of the thesis on our online catalogue. However we do have an old card catalogue covering theses from the 1980s and there is a card for this one which indictates we were due to receive the thesis but it never arrived. Unfortunatley no reason was given for its non-receipt which is not much help! The thesis does not appear to be on the British Library Ethos service either.”
So, on the same day the LSE launched an internal investigation into the whereabouts of President Tsai’s missing thesis and the same day that the UL discovered it never received the missing thesis, the British Library created a catalog entry for a thesis not in its collection, contrary to its own protocol. The EThOS FAQ page spells out the procedure for the listing of a thesis.
“We always work with the UK universities rather than the PhD authors direct. That way we know the theses we hold are the final validated thesis awarded by the university—it offers reassurance to the universities, authors and users.”
An August 10, 2015 email from the IALS Library confirmed it never had Tsai’s thesis either.
“I have checked with the [REDACTED] who has been in charge of IALS Library’s collections for many years. She cannot find any information about the thesis; unfortunately we no longer have acquisition records from the 1980s.”
“As you no doubt know, the thesis isn’t on the IALS Library Catalouge. [REDACTED] checked the shelves where the 1980s theses are kept, but didn’t find it.”
Four years later, on June 28, 2019, Clive Wilson at the LSE Library sent an email to British Library. “In our defence, it all seems to have gone wrong when the UL theses were repatriated—and we never had a copy to begin with.”
“I did think about suggesting myself that the BL shadow the record but we are hoping to get a copy from Taiwan. Although we are not sure what do to with it if we do. I don’t know if you know or not, but Ing-wen Tsai is the current president of Taiwan so some Chinese journalists are making a big deal about her thesis being missing.”
“Would you mind leaving it for now?”
Another email that same day from Wilson to the LSE academic team explained why he wanted to leave it alone for now. Wilson proposed the text for the LSE catalog entry. “This makes it clear it’s a copy—so some denability on our part if necessary.”
“By saying it was presented (again) and addressing her as President—it shows we are proud and still claiming brownie points for her as a LSE alumna.”
“The date shows as 2019 because that is when the copy was made—so again not claiming it is the actual thesis.”
Meanwhile, Professor Hwan Lin was doing his own research and asked the British Library about the EThOS entry. On July 18, 2019, the British Library replied to Lin. “The record was added in June 2015 by a member of staff in response to a user’s speculative request for the thesis. We have a note on the EThOS record stating that the item is ‘missing from university.’”
Questions lingered about the authenticity of the thesis at the LSE. On October 2, 2019, Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team, wrote to members of the academic group which had been convened to deal with the thesis controversy. “You’ll see below that the academic from Taipei who had approached me about President Tsai’s thesis has suggested that the published versions in our and Taipei’s library are not identical. How you had any conversations in this regard?”
Dan O’Connor, of Public Relations, promptly replied. “I don’t know. This is a question for her office. We were clear that we had a facsimilie of her copy of the thesis.”
“(I think there were some missing pages from the copy we received from her office. Anyway, I don’t think either copy is the final thesis submitted in 1984. It was always her personal copy from 2019.)”
The next day, on October 3, 2019, President Tsai authored a personal note for the online version of the thesis admitting it was missing from a library shelf. “As the thesis I submitted upon graduation from the LSE is missing from the Library, I am also providing the LSE with a copy.”
A November 20, 2019 email from the British Library to Clive Wilson notes EThOS finally had a legitimate catalog entry, properly vetted with a metadata harvest.
“Just to let you know we harvested your repository this afternoon and updated our record for this thesis on EThOS; it now links to the digital copy on the LSE repository.”
UK Watchdog examined the Memorandum of Understanding between the LSE and the British Library for EThOS entries. The LSE specified that the harvesting of metadata had to be accessible only via links to the LSE repository.
The EThOS metadata harvest leaves unanswered Hwan Lin’s question of how did EThOS create a catalog entry in 2015 before there was any metadata? Obviously the entry creation followed a “speculative request” but what exactly was that and who made the request? No one at the LSE nor no one at the UL, the only two sources EThOS was supposed to use, made the “speculative request.”
Meanwhile, the UL regulations on theses specified that the British Library was to make a microfilm copy of the thesis for purposes of inter-library loan, which never happened for President Tsai’s thesis.
Hwan Lin’s unanswered question has gone to court. The Information Commissioner accepted CEO Roly Keating’s claim the question was vexatious but the Information Review Tribunal has now required the submission of evidence and argument on the matter with a decision expected in September.
A false statement, an unanswered question, a violated EThOS protocol, and the mystery of what happened on June 24, 2015, all add up to serious credibility problems for the British Library.
Richardson Reports 