What started out as a tempest in a teapot in Taiwan over Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s PhD thesis has turned into a hurricane inside a fishbowl in the United Kingdom. The long-running saga of Tsai’s controversial 1983 thesis entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions ratcheted up another notch with Information Commissioner John Edwards‘ endorsement of a new policy of blanket denials of information requests.
The maelstrom was triggered by President Tsai in June 2019 when she filed her thesis with the London School of Economics Library, thirty-five years after it was due, and refuses to release the oral examination viva report which purportedly approved the dissertation.
In an extreme response to a growing number of Freedom of Information requests about President Tsai’s thesis, Edwards has signaled a new legal strategy to thwart transparency requests from the public about the thesis. Edwards articulated the new policy of categorical denials in a recent case involving the British Library. The library maintains an online thesis collection data base and was called upon to answer questions about Tsai’s thesis that now it no longer needs to answer based on an ICO Decision Notice.
The new ICO ruling expands the strategies of the University of London and the London School of Economics and Political Science of declaring information requests as “vexatious.” The ICO ruling spells out Edwards’ rationale for the strangulation of the Freedom of Information Act by wholesale denials of requests for vexatiousness.
“The complainant has questioned the accuracy and adequacy of information which has previously been released by the Library about Dr Tsai’s PhD thesis that is available on EThOS (an e-theses service provided by the Library which gives free access to “virtually all UK doctoral research”).”
“The Library has advised that since 2015, when it became apparent that Dr Tsai would become President of Taiwan, there has been a concerted campaign to call the validity of her PhD qualification into question. It goes on to say that whilst the LSE then published Dr Tsai’s thesis (the thesis), and a copy was ingested into EThOS, information requests have continued to be received about the matter.”
“The Library advised the complainant that since 2020, the LSE, and the University of London, have been refusing requests relating to Dr Tsai’s PhD on the basis that they were vexatious; the Library also referred to a statement published by the ICO about its decision to apply section 14 to any requests received on the same subject where it was found that they were lacking “valid purpose”.
“The Library went on to say to the complainant that, at the start of 2022, there had been an increase in volume of similar requests made to the relevant institutions about the matter of Dr Tsai’s PhD. It referred to a statement published by “My Society” (who operate the “whatdotheyknow” website) which said that the rise in such requests indicated a “concerted disinformation campaign” that was “designed to harass the government of Taiwan and its democratic allies” (“My Society” went on to block a number of individuals from using the services provided by the “whatdotheyknow” website).”
The cyber censors at MySociety conducted a large purge of its Freedom of Information website last year of Taiwanese researchers with the unverified allegation they were Chinese disinformation operatives. More recently, MySociety’s “house rules” have led to new bans and suspended accounts of thesis researchers without explanation. Commissioner Edwards has seemingly adopted MySociety’s censorship approach to questions about President Tsai’s thesis with his endorsement of categorical denials.
“The Library explained to the complainant that it received a steady flow of requests about matters relating to Dr Tsai’s PhD each year and that it has already responded to many requests on the subject. It went on to say that it is aware that the complainant already has all the information that the Library holds, and has published, on the matter.”
“The Library said that it regarded the complainant’s request to be “repetitive, lacking in serious purpose”, and that it “is likely to be part of a concerted and/or state sponsored disinformation campaign designed to harass the President and government of Taiwan, the UK public sector in general, and the British Library in particular.”
“The Library went on to say that answering requests on a subject where the matter is regarded to have already been addressed and the information that is held has been released, would cause a disproportionate burden on finite resource. It said that it would disrupt its services in a way that would not be in the public interest and that, as a result, it was refusing the request on the basis that it is vexatious.”
“The Commissioner accepts that there have been a large number of requests made to various institutions about Dr Tsai’s PhD award, and thesis, over a protracted period of time.”
“The Commissioner also agrees that there is evidence that individuals have acted together as part of a campaign when making requests for information about Dr Tsai’s PhD; where information has been disclosed, or explanations have been provided, it has resulted in the submission of further queries and requests for information about the matter.”
“Whilst the Commissioner is not persuaded that the complainant in this case can be directly linked to any larger ‘concerted campaign’ as claimed by the Library, he is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the motivation behind their request is the same as that of individuals who are part of a concerted campaign; that is, they are all asking for information primarily for the purpose of calling into question the validity of Dr Tsai’s PhD thesis, and qualifications.”
“In the Commissioner’s opinion, if the complainant’s request were to be considered in isolation, it could be seen to have some value and serious purpose; it relates to the academic record of an individual who has become the President of Taiwan. He regards there to be some weight to the argument for transparency over such a matter, particularly given that, in this instance, it has been the subject of some controversy.”
“However, the Commissioner regards it to be appropriate to also take into account the information which is already in the public domain when determining the value of the complainant’s request.”
“The Commissioner regards it to be pertinent to note that the LSE, the University of London, and the Library have all released information in response to requests that relate to Dr Tsai’s PhD award and thesis. In addition, the LSE and the University of London have made a number of public statements about the matter.”
“The Commissioner has also considered comments made by the Information Rights Tribunal in the case of [Citation Deleted]. In that case, the Tribunal considered a request made to The Board of Trustees at the University of London for information held that related to Dr Tsai’s PhD studies.”
“The Tribunal stated…that it appeared that “none of the libraries have a record of the thesis being provided at the time the PhD was awarded in 1984”. However, it went on to say that this “did not mean that President Tsai was not awarded a PhD degree, or that there has been academic fraud, It simply means that the thesis was not filed correctly in the libraries in 1984.”
“The Tribunal goes on to say that the “University has provided clear statements confirming that President Tsai had an oral (viva) examination and was awarded a PhD degree…….”
“It is the Commissioner’s view that the information that has been released, and statements and explanations that have been published, has allowed the public to have a full understanding about the records held relating to the relevant thesis and the award of a PhD to Dr Tsai.”
“Having considered the context and terms of the request, and the information that is already in the public domain about the relevant subject, it is the Commissioner’s decision that there is insufficient value and serious purpose behind the request to justify the impact and burden which would be caused to the Library if it dealt with that request.”
Two cases are presently before the Information Review Tribunal over vexatious denials from the two schools over the thesis. Now, the British Library is poised to join the crowd in the Tribunal fishbowl as the information denial is expected to be appealed.
The Cabinet Office has refused a request to rewrite the Freedom of Information Act to eliminate secret degree awards in the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has not yet responded to a request to direct the Cabinet Office to consider elimination of secret viva panels at public universities.
Richardson Reports 
2 thoughts on “In British Library case Information Commissioner John Edwards clamps down on Freedom of Information Act over Tsai Ing-wen’s PhD thesis citing a vexatious campaign”