Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s controversial PhD thesis and Tribunal Judge Sophie Buckley who ruled the University of London may keep the identity of the thesis examiners secret. (credits: Hwan Lin/Dere Street Barristers)
An appeal application has been filed in the United Kingdom with Information Review Tribunal Judge Sophie Buckley over her September decision to allow the University of London to keep secret the identity of the examiners who reviewed Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s controversial PhD thesis. Tsai submitted her thesis, entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions to the London School of Economics and Political Science in June 1983. The University of London subsequently awarded Tsai a PhD degree in 1984.
President Tsai triggered a media controversy in June 2019 when she filed the thesis with the LSE Library, 35 years after it was due. The thesis does not appear to have been in any library collection prior to 2019, despite the requirement it be filed with the LSE Library, the University of London’s Senate House Library, and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies Library, the United Kindgom’s national law library.
The Senate House Library stated in email correspondence in September 2019 that it never had the thesis in its collection. The University of London later contradicted the library staff stating it had been lost sometime between the 1980s and 2010 during library “structuring” and stood by the thesis award.
The University of London flip-flop led to a Freedom of Information request for the names of the examiners who approved the thesis. The Information Commissioner of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth Denham, backed the University secrecy claiming the identity of the thesis examiners was President Tsai’s personal information and not subject to disclosure. From there the matter went to court where after a lengthy delay Judge Buckley unheld the secrecy determination.
Under United Kingdom court rules, an appeal of Buckley’s secrecy decision requires her permission and is limited to questions of law. An appeal application has now raised three legal issues for review.
The first issue is violation of the Freedom of Information Act mandate of transparency and openness. “Thesis examiners are the gatekeepers of a PhD degree requiring their exclusion from any personal data exemption as they are in fact the qualification certification and structurally essential to the integrity of the University degree, overriding any individual privacy concern. Examiners should have no exclusion from disclosure, nor have an expectation of exclusion, given their important public duty. The University of London is not a secret institution and the certification of its degree awards should not be secret as that undermines public confidence in the institution. Public servants carrying out their ordinary functions should not be given anonymity as of right.”
“Verification of qualification for a PhD degree at the University of London is contingent on approval of examiners selected solely for assessment of a PhD candidate’s thesis. The examiners are a unique, necessary, and indispensible element to the award of a PhD degree and their identification is absolutely essential to a transparent verification of a PhD candidate’s qualification. The substantial evidence standard applied by the Tribunal instead of a more anxious scrutiny falls short of the…mandate of
transparency and openness when it shields the identity of examiners from disclosure and its application constitutes legal error against the public interest.”
The second issue involves a requirement to describe withheld information. “In the present matter the Tribunal, in acting on behalf of the citizen, reviewed a closed document with the names of the examiners in question and the dates of their signed approval. The decision to grant an exclusion from disclosure by the Tribunal substituted its review for that of Appellant and other members of the public. The Tribunal…did not describe, with legally sufficient detail, the closed document.”
“Appellant is not only denied by the Tribunal, acting in his behalf, of the identity of the examiners, but any information at all including the number of non-disclosed examiners, whether or not they were external examiners, or even the date of their signed approval which does not reveal their identity in any manner. The foregoing information constitute important and critical elements in assessing an allegation of academic fraud, the proverbial elephant in the room, all of which could be learned by Appellant and the public from the identity of the examiners.”
The third legal issue concerns the Tribunal failure to properly investigate the conflicting factual claims before it. “The University of London has provided differing accounts for the absence of the thesis from its collection. The University has not provided Appellant, despite a FOI request and an Internal Review request, any bibliographic, catalogue or acquisition data of the thesis, nor has the University established with verifiable documentation the presence of the thesis in the library collection at any time.”
“The University stated on 9 October 2019…in a response to an information request from the public that: “It would seem from our card catalogue records that Senate House Library never received the original copies of this thesis from the External Examiners.”
“The University, subsequent to the filing of this Appeal, stated…“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.”
“The two statements “never received” and “lost or mis-shelved” are inconsistent, incompatible, and required the Tribunal to provide an explanation for its speculative determination.”
“The Tribunal acceptance of the University’s speculation about loss of the thesis is foundational and erroneous, and more than a mere makeweight finding. Without discussion of Appellant’s tendered evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal avoids its fundamental investigatory function constituting legal error.”
While Judge Buckley decides on whether to permit an appeal of her decision, a Taiwanese newsman, Dennis Peng, awaits trial for criminal defamation. Peng, who has questioned the University of London PhD award on his internet television program “The True Voice of Taiwan” faces prison for his broadcasts. President Tsai complained to ROC prosecutors about Peng and two others, Ho De-fen and Hwan Lin, soon after the controversy erupted. The ROC prosecutors were idle for a year then, when the controversy over the thesis would not die, opened an investigation eventually clearing Ho De-fen and Hwan Lin of criminal defamation. Peng, the most vocal critic and now on a speaking tour in the United States about the thesis, remains a target of prosecution. Although no longer facing jail, both Ho and Lin have kept up questioning the validity of the University of London degree and support Peng who must undergo trial for his freedom.
President Tsai’s Republic of China in-exile does not permit jury trials and Dennis Peng’s fate will depend on the ruling of a ROC judge instead of a jury of his peers.
Richardson Reports 
Thank you, Michael!
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 12:04 PM Richardson Reports wrote:
> richardsonreports posted: ” Republic of China in-exile President Tsai > Ing-wen’s controversial PhD thesis and Tribunal Judge Sophie Buckley who > ruled the University of London may keep the identity of the thesis > examiners secret. (credits: Hwan Lin/Dere Street Barristers) An appea” >
LikeLike
Hi Michael,
Thank you very much for your perseverance. The court should not hold information under the name of individual privacy, which on the other hand at the expense of an imminent imprisonment of Prof. Dennis Peng, who had acquired significant evidence on the alleged academic fraud. Under the law, everyone should be dealt with equally and justice should be sought. Any attempt to conceal alleged academic fraud instead of verifying all surfaced evidences, will further worsens the already declined academic reputation.
I was educated under the British education system and it pains me when the British system seemingly never attempt to hold up a good reputation. Hearing such news that the names of viva examiners were held because revealing will cause distraught to certain individual is really hilarious. The purpose of a law is to seek and back justice, not to cause injustice. Revealing the viva examiners will clearly disclose the truth of this entire academic doubt, resulting a justifiable closure of the whole incident.
Each and everyday I was being haunted with the fact that justice may not be and innocent people punished.
Thank you!
Dr Kelvin Chua
SINGAPORE
LikeLike