理查森報告 2019－2022（Richardson Reports）

※  此處僅提供自2019年便關注論文門的美國獨立撰稿人Michael Richardson文章重點摘錄與大意簡述，原文請見 https://richardsonreports.wordpress.com/author/richardsonreports/


—（July 4, 2019）Tsai, who is now the President of the Republic of China in-exile and living on Taiwan, attended LSE in London in 1984 when she authored her doctoral dissertation entitled “Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions.” The only problem is that Tsai's thesis upon which her doctorate degree is based is not to be found. Ruth Orson of the library's research services office answered questions about Tsai's missing dissertation: “Dr. Tsai's thesis is unavailable I'm afraid. LSE Library has never had a copy of this thesis.”“All Ph.D.s from that period were awarded under the University of London banner and would have been sent first to Senate House Library, and this being under Law would also have gone to the IALS.”“Unfortunately Senate House apparently never received a copy and the IALS are unable to find their copy. We had to make extensive searches when Dr. Tsai stood for election and I am sorry to disappoint.”……The questions emerged in early June on Facebook when academic researcher Cao Chang-qing suggested the thesis does not exist. Cao said the missing thesis was unsettling, but the fact it had not been resubmitted by Tsai was even more baffling. Talk show host Dennis Peng picked up the inquiry. Peng commented that Tsai's missing thesis was the most bizarre thing he had encountered in his twenty-five year academic career.Fear that a scandal would sour Tsai's chances of reelection and return the Kuomintang to power have kept the lid on the story of the phantom thesis. Democratic Progressive Party loyalists have gone silent on the controversy and Tsai Ing-wen has nothing yet to say on the matter.
大意：2019年6月初，確認了蔡英文總統所謂的「博士論文」無法在英國校方的圖書館（倫敦大學總圖SHL、高等法律研究所IALS）中尋獲，引發議論。

—（July 5, 2019）Tsai Ing-wen, president of the Republic of China in-exile, has one thing in common with her Kuomintang predecessor, Ma Ying-jeou. Both leaders have doctoral thesis problems. Ma’s thesis was full of errors, typos, mistakes, and footnotes that did not check out. Tsai’s thesis goes unread and missing from the three libraries where it is supposed to be on file. Circumstance was such that I broke the story on Ma’s sloppy Harvard thesis in Boston which then got picked up by the Taipei Times. I had been approached by a retired Taiwanese school teacher who had checked out Ma’s thesis because she wanted to know his views on maritime issues. Shocked at the “sloppy scholarship” and number of uncorrected mistakes in the thesis the teacher took out her red pencil and marked the paper up. When the teacher gave me a corrected copy of Ma’s thesis I knew I had a scoop.……The retired teacher was unable to find evidence of plagiarism and the large number of mistakes suggests that Ma did write the paper himself. Less can be said about Tsai Ing-wen’s thesis which seems to have vanished in 1984 when it was apparently never placed on file at the Senate House Library, the London School of Economics Library, or the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies Library. Despite fifteen years as a university teacher, in the publish or peril world of academia, Tsai made no scholarly work available nor did she publish to receive her promotion to professor. Tsai’s written silence in her professional life raises interest in her doctoral thesis entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions.
大意：繼馬英九總統的博士論文被發現錯誤百出之後，蔡英文的論文甚至是在她拿到學位時就已消失，而且十幾年的大學教職生涯中幾乎沒有提出學術作品。

—（July 7, 2019）President Tsai Ing-wen of the Republic of China in-exile wrote a thesis thirty-five years ago entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions for the London School of Economics and Political Science. Somehow the thesis is missing from the three libraries that it belongs in but was on the shelf, Tsai supporters maintained, at the British Library. Not so says Lee Taylor of the Social Sciences Reference Service department,“No print copy of this thesis is available.”……In response to an inquiry Taylor said,“The item to which you refer is a thesis which has not yet been digitized. You can contact the library of the awarding body, in this case London School of Economics, for access to the thesis.”……The LSE Library does not even have an abstract of the thesis. Tsai cites the thesis as part of her qualification for the presidency. The thesis“discusses the extent to which protection mechanisms can be constructed in a rapidly changing global market system.”……It is not clear whether Tsai's thesis was removed from the libraries or never filed with them in the first place.
大意：蔡英文的支持者表示，論文雖然在校方圖書館失蹤，但是被大英圖書館保留。不過，館方人員確認沒有實體書，LSE圖書館的資訊中也看不到論文摘要。

—（August 30, 2019）Somehow, Tsai was able to obtain a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics despite not having filed her thesis with the LSE Library, as did the 105 other graduate students in her class. Researchers, wanting to know Tsai's views, looked in vain for the thesis until finally the missing document attracted media attention in June 2019. Tsai's supporters blamed London libraries, scanning backlogs, and catalog mistakes. After it became clear Tsai did not submit her thesis as required she made a tardy submission by fax. Tsai also slapped a restricted access copyright limitation on the thesis preventing copying the document. Professor Hwan Lin, a Taiwanese-American at Belk College in the United States, decided to do a little research himself and issued a fifty-page report on the history of the thesis, outlining a number of irregularities. Lin, who traveled to London and visited the LSE Library, found the faxed thesis to be a draft version with missing pages, page numbers that do not match the table of contents, and handwritten corrections. In Taipei, Professor emeritus Ho De-fen of Taiwan National University picked up the quest for truth questioning the validity of Tsai's doctorate. Tsai responded to the challenge almost immediately on her personal Facebook account and threatened Ho with legal action. Tsai called the questions about her thesis “fake news” and said Ho was “factually incorrect.”……Tsai said in her Facebook statement, “In short, if I received my diploma, then I submitted my thesis.” Curiously, Tsai's diploma is a modern re-issue, not the original award.
大意：和同屆其他的105名學生不同，蔡英文沒有向校方圖書館提交論文，仍以某種方式獲得博士學位。她在2019年6月才透過傳真提交論文，並設下種種限閱規定。親自看過論文的台裔美籍林環牆教授發表調查報告，認為提交的只是草稿，出現了漏頁、與目錄不符、手寫更正錯誤的狀況。

—（September 6, 2019）Tsai Ing-wen, president of the Republic of China in-exile, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Ho De-fen, professor emeritus at National Taiwan University, and Hwan Lin, a professor at Belk College in North Carolina. The lawsuit is over recent remarks the two professors have made about Tsai's 1984 doctoral thesis at the London School of Economics.……Ho De-fen, upon reading Lin's report, called a news conference and questioned the validity of Tsai's doctorate.……In support of her lawsuit Tsai has released some of her student records that shed a little light on a mystery man, Michael Elliot. Now deceased, Elliot is unable to answer any questions about his role in the thesis writing. After Tsai belatedly submitted her thesis the LSE Library cataloged the entry and listed Elliot as a co-author. That catalog entry was changed a week later and dropped Elliot. In her acknowledgements section of the thesis Tsai referred to Elliot has her supervisor. However, Elloit lacked a doctorate and could not, under standard academic protocol, have been her faculty advisor unless the London School of Economics lowered the standards in Tsai's case.……Tsai does have one advantage in the case, the ROC's antiquated judicial system with its “dinosaur judges” and lack of jury trials.
大意：賀德芬教授看過林環牆的調查報告後，召開記者會，蔡英文則向兩人提出誹謗告訴。當年論文的指導者Michael Elliott並無博士學位，有違一般指導教授的學術標準。

—（September 17, 2019）Tsai Ing-wen, President of the Republic of China in-exile, has instructed her attorneys to prepare litigation against internet talk show host Dennis Peng.……Dennis Peng, who raised questions about the missing thesis before it was tardily submitted to the LSE Library by Tsai, will be a formidable opponent as defendant. Peng appears eager to go to court. With a controversial reputation, the sometimes confrontational newsman is a bulldog. Peng can be expected to follow the old sports rule that a good defense is a vigorous offense, Peng will be aggressive in challenging Tsai’s thesis story. Peng has already been looking at watermarks and measuring margins of LSE correspondence and will likely keep his daily audience updated.……Since truth is a defense in defamation lawsuits Tsai will have to prove the defendants made untrue statements. Finally, as a political figure Tsai has to overcome the defendants’ freedom of speech rights as well.……Want to look at the thesis online? No can do. Tsai has put a restrictive copyright binder on the thesis keeping it under tight wraps at the LSE Library. ……However, Tsai will have a hard time keeping her thesis out of the courtroom, interested people may still get a chance to read the thesis as a court exhibit. Tsai’s battle with Peng is sure to be entertaining and will likely have a large audience.……In the end, the biggest opponent Tsai faces in the 2020 election may be herself.
大意：蔡英文繼續針對彭文正教授提告，因為對方每日在網路節目中積極挑戰論文門的議題。事實真相的調查與言論自由的界定將是誹謗訴訟的關鍵。

—（September 26, 2019）The story started in April when a researcher announced he was unable to locate Tsai's thesis. The catalog entry at the LSE Library said the library had the thesis but that it was unavailable. Tsai remained silent and let supporters take up her defense arguing variously.……Finally, Tsai submitted what appears to be a faxed copy of a draft thesis.……The Oxford educated scholar（Hsu Yungtai）……spent two days studying the copyright-restricted thesis. Hsu issued his own report, confirming the accuracy of the Lin report, and providing more information about Tsai's thesis. Hsu choose to release his findings in a Kuomintang newspaper, World Journal published in the United States. The KMT quickly picked up the lead holding a news conference calling for an investigation of Tsai's thesis. Hsu followed up with another newspaper article asking how Tsai can enforce the copyright restriction which prevents copying or quoting from thesis if it is the property of London School of Economics.……We have also learned the thesis has three major parts, appearing to have been pieced together to make a whole. Included in Hsu's report is the finding that 90% of the thesis uses justified margins while 10% does not.……Perhaps the most intriguing discovery by Hsu is that the thesis is written in American “English” instead of the British spelling. Hsu, who got his Ph.D. at Oxford, says that British professors are very sticky on use of British spelling.……Television talk shows, from both the “green” and “blue” camps, also carried incorrect information about Richardson Reports. One popular talk show went so far as to claim I was the source of “fake news” about the thesis.
大意：畢業於牛津大學的徐永泰博士前往LSE的婦女圖書館探查，見證了嚴格的管制，並看到論文中出現了不該有的美式英文。台灣媒體資訊訊亂，甚至聲稱本人是「假新聞」的來源。

—（October 1, 2019）American humorist Mark Twain once commented, “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated,” after an erroneous obituary had been published. Cornell University Law School professor John Barcelo can now say the same thing following Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen’s declaration at a campaign rally that her academic mentor was dead.Contrary to Tsai’s claim of his demise, Barcelo remains active promoting Cornell’s international law programs, regularly lecturing, publishing, and traveling. Tsai included Barcelo in the Acknowledgment page of her 1984 London School of Economics graduate thesis. Tsai thanked Barcelo for the “feedback” he provided. However, Barcelo was busy at Cornell at the time and his resume does not list him as a visiting professor at LSE. Tsai did know Barcelo from her days at Cornell which suggests her thesis may have been an outgrowth of student work there.……Tsai has apparently not stayed in touch with Barcelo or she would know he is very much alive and not dead as she told her supporters at a campaign rally in Taiwan. ……“This professor was very famous. Since he is dead now I can talk about him. His name is Barcelo, like Barcelona of Spain. If you read my Ph.D. thesis [interrupted by laughter] at the end, you find the famous theories by Barcelo on antidumping.”……In the years since Tsai got feedback from Barcelo he has grown the Cornell Law School international law program with links to universities in Europe and has been recognized in France for his work there. Tsai lifted her copyright restriction and placed the thesis online in Taiwan in an effort to quell the controversy.
大意：蔡英文在競選集會上宣稱自己在美國康乃爾大學受教過的巴塞羅教授業已亡故而大肆談論，其實對方依然健在。目前蔡英文已公開論文電子版，而這位教授的名字就出現在致謝頁上，雖然並未指導過她的論文。

—（October 14, 2019）The Taiwanese news media is awash in politics and money and does not get bogged down with details. given the long history of ambiguity that has fogged the island. Taiwanese readers seeking truth in the propaganda blizzard that the partisan media houses dish out flocked to Richardson Reports for information about Tsai's thesis that was apparently first submitted to the LSE Library in 2019.……In a bid to blame somebody for the mess Tsai finds herself mired in over the tardy thesis, Richardson Reports has been targeted as the source of the controversy. Although it is not true and ignores the work of Cao Chang-qing, Dennis Peng, Ho De-fen, Hwan Lin, Hsu Yungtai, and others, the first comprehensive account in English came from the blog that offers news not found anywhere else.……The first big deal is that Richardson Reports is a blog. So what? Blogs are here to stay and make up a worldwide citizen journalist network. If Taiwanese reporters don't like being scooped by an American blog all they have to do is cover the story.……The London School of Economics has entered the fray issuing a news release validating Tsai's thesis and degree. However, LSE has not yet answered questions about the identity of the thesis examiners and the approval process. ……Now Richardson Reports is slammed for doggedly pursing the story ignored by others. Ironically, the smear campaign has backfired bringing in many new readers and establishing the blog as a source of news not found anywhere else.
大意：在台灣媒體報導論文門訊息不足的情況下，出現了對本人記者身分的質疑，反而吸引更多人關注。目前LSE雖然發布新聞稿替蔡英文背書，但是尚未回答口試委員和審批程序的問題。

—（October 31, 2019）Rachael Maguire, the LSE Information and Records Manager, responded to a social media request seeking the identity of Tsai's reviewers. Maguire wrote, “The School believes that this information is held in full by the University of London.”……“The viva report would be a University of London record. An award letter was sent out from the University of London Registrar on 8 February 1984, degree certificate issued on 14 March 1984.” Although LSE doesn't know or will not say who reviewed Tsai's thesis the school claims the review was conducted on October 16, 1983. Maguire says Tsai's adviser was Michael Elliot, whose degrees were a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Civil Law.……A very much alive Barcello has stated he had nothing to do with the LSE thesis and does not know why Tsai did not file it on time in 1984.……Meanwhile two leading Tsai critics, Dennis Peng and Hwan Lin, made a trip to London where they held a news conference taking the story to a new international audience as the story shifts from Taiwan to England.
大意：LSE資訊與紀錄經理說明蔡英文口試委員的相關資訊是由倫敦大學掌管，僅表示指導老師是Michael Elliot，口試則是在1983年10月16日（週日）舉行的。彭文正、林環牆已在倫敦召開記者會。

—（December 10, 2019）The University of London is conducting an internal review of its privacy exemption for Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's 1984 London School of Economics thesis examiners' identities. Kit Good, Data Protection and Information Compliance Manager, confirmed that an internal review is underway by the university. Good refused to name the examiners that reviewed Tsai's thesis. ……Good replied to a Freedom of Information request for the identities of Tsai's thesis reviewers by citing a privacy restriction and responded, “The University of London confirms that Ms. Ing-Wen Tsai was awarded a PhD by the University of London in 1984 and she was registered as an LSE student.” In response to my request for an internal review of the privacy restriction Good said, “The University will carry out an internal review in accordance with the guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office.”……The University of London has not announced who is conducting the internal review or when a decision on releasing the identity of the thesis reviewers will be made. If the results of the internal review uphold Good's privacy exemption the matter will then be taken up outside the university with the Information Commissioner.
大意：倫敦大學資料保護暨資訊法遵經理表示，蔡英文確實於1984年被倫敦大學授予博士學位，目前將針對口試委員身分是否屬於個人隱私而進行內部審查。

—（January 26, 2020）Following a six-week internal review by the University of London, the identity of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's thesis examiners will remain off-limits to the public. Rosalind Frendo, Director of Compliance and Secretary to the Board upheld the earlier decision of Kit Good, Data Protection and Information Compliance Manager, that the Privacy Act exempted such information from public disclosure. Frendo called the identification of university examiners “personal data” and denied a Freedom of Information request.
大意：經過六週的內部審查，倫敦大學決定將蔡英文的論文審查委員身分視為個資隱私，拒絕加以公開。

—（February 5, 2020）The ICO complaint outlines the arguments for and against disclosure and is reprinted here in full: The University of London is in violation of the Freedom of Information Act…
大意：麥可•理查森向英國資訊專員辦公室（ICO）投訴，認為倫敦大學違反了《信息自由法》（FOIA）。

—（March 23, 2020）Information Commissioner's preliminary finding is that release of Ph.D. thesis examiners' identity likely to cause“damage or distress”to Republic of China President Tsai Ing-wen…“who examined it and when – would not be disclosed to world at large in response to a FOI request.”
大意：ICO初步評估，揭露論文審查委員身分可能會對蔡英文造成傷害或困擾，因此不會公開相關資訊。

—（June 11, 2020）Information Commissioner claims Tsai Ing-wen's thesis lost during remodeling…“The University has told the Commissioner that it holds a copy of the examination report for the thesis and the thesis copyright submission form. There is also a record of the individual and the thesis on the University's pass list published in that year.”
大意：ICO聲稱蔡英文的論文是因為圖書館內部重整而不知所蹤。倫敦大學告訴專員，校方擁有一份論文審查報告影本和論文版權提交表格，該年度的合格名單上也記載其個人姓名與論文名稱。

—（July 9, 2020）The appeal was submitted to…the Information Review Tribunal. …The appeal asks the court to compel the Information Commissioner to require the University of London to provide the examiner names and the date they approved the thesis. The court has also been asked to order the disclosure of the thesis examiner's viva report…
大意：麥可•理查森向英國的信息審查法庭提告，要求ICO / 倫敦大學提供審查委員的姓名、批准論文的日期、以及論文口試的考官報告。

—（July 17, 2020）Information Review Tribunal Registrar Mrs. R. Worth has ordered me to explain why I should be allowed to appeal a denial of the Information Commissioner since I do not live in the United Kingdom. …An ICO guidance states,“Anyone can make a freedom of information request – they do not have to be UK citizens, or resident in the UK.”
大意：信息審查法庭質疑麥可•理查森的外國人身分。但ICO的指南寫著：「任何人都可以提出信息自由的請求，而不必是英國的公民或居民。」

—（July 30, 2020）…Tsai has boasted about compliments from the thesis examiners although she refuses to name them. …The Information Commissioner's Office agreed with the University of London that disclosing the names of the two examiners might cause Tsai“distress”and perhaps also to the examiners if they were still alive. However, if the thesis examiners liked Tsai's thesis enough to compliment her it is difficult to understand where is the distress?
大意：蔡英文曾提到論文得到口試考官們的稱讚，那麼公布他們的姓名為何會造成傷害或困擾？

—（September 22, 2020）“The Commissioner finds it somewhat difficult to describe the “fake thesis/degree” theory as it lacks coherence. In broad terms, the theory alleges that the University or the LSE (the“corrupt”institution varies from allegation to allegation) conspired in 1984 to award the then-Miss Tsai a PhD to which she was not entitled—presumably for the express purpose of manipulating the Taiwanese presidential elections of 2016 and 2020—and is now trying to cover its tracks. Another alternative theory is that the PhD was never conferred and President Tsai has simply invented it. According to this version, the LSE and/or the University have conspired to fabricate the original records (and the degree award) to either curry favor with government of Taiwan or to increase their own prestige by associating themselves with a head of government.”
大意：英國校方被懷疑在1984年因貪腐而違法授予蔡英文學位，或是後來配合參與總統大選的蔡英文而偽造文書。

—（October 20, 2020）Activist attorney and law professor Ho De-fen and True Voice of Taiwan TV show host Dennis Peng have been subpoenaed by Republic of China in-exile prosecutors for their criticism of ROC President Tsai Ing-wen's controversial 1984 PhD thesis. …Taipei District prosecutors waited a year to act on President Tsai's complaint raising an unavoidable question, why?
大意：賀德芬與彭文正終於收到傳票，北檢不知為何拖了一年才對蔡英文的提告採取行動。

—（December 9, 2020）Tsai's advisor, Michael Elliott, only had a Masters degree.＊…Her supporters have managed to delete all reference to the ongoing controversy from Tsai's Wikipedia page.
大意：蔡英文的指導老師Michael Elliott只有碩士學位。其支持者設法刪除維基百科上的爭議內容。
＊ 編按：Oxford BCL（Bachelor of Civil Law）

—（December 12, 2020）Tsai erroneously claimed one of her professors, who she cited in the thesis, was dead. John Barcelo, who is alive and well, says he had no role in the writing of the thesis. Tsai also falsely captioned a photo in her online memoir, taken with her sister in Boston, as being taken in London when the sister allegedly visited to give support during the thesis oral examination.
大意：蔡英文的一位教授John Barcelo被她宣稱業已過世，其實依然健在。她還將一張美國波士頓拍攝的照片說成是姐姐到倫敦陪她口試。

—（February 24, 2021）Denham has been given until March 16 by the court to explain why she is protecting the identity two thesis examiners. …The Information Review Tribunal has now ruled that anyone in the world may make information requests.
大意：信息審查法庭要求ICO限期解釋為何要保護兩位審查委員的身分，並裁定世界上任何人都可以提出公開資訊的請求。

—（March 27, 2021）Denham has defended Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen from public scrutiny by arguing that Tsai's privacy right trumps the need for verification of her 1984 University of London PhD degree.……Denham says she has been paying attention to the news about the thesis. “Separately, the Commissioner has news reports of the President taking court action against those who have questioned the validity of her thesis.” “The Commissioner is thus persuaded that the validity of the thesis has been demonstrated by the above, and that releasing the names of the examiners and the requested date is not necessary.”
大意：ICO專員表示，捍衛蔡英文總統的隱私比驗證她是否於1984取得博士學位更重要；另外根據台灣論文門訴訟的進展，已認定論文沒問題，無需揭露考官姓名和口試日期。

—（April 15, 2021）（Elizabeth Denham, Information Commissioner for the United Kingdom,）maintains that disclosure of the examiner identities is not necessary because the validity President Tsai's PhD thesis“has been met to a extremely large degree”by three facts: the thesis is online, the thesis is listed in an index document, and the University of London claims it holds records of the viva examination. …Denham, relying on University of London assertions rather than on official records or correspondence. …however, public relations statements and news reports do not constitute, in any manner, academic authentication or actual verification of a PhD thesis viva examination; nor does the indictment of Professor Peng constitute academic authentication or actual verification of the viva examination.
大意：ICO專員僅是單純相信倫敦大學的說法——（2019）在線論文、（1985）研究索引、以及有論文口試記錄的公關聲明。然而（倫敦大學）公關聲明和（LSE官網）新聞報導並不算是學術認證，台灣檢方對於彭文正的起訴也沒辦法證明什麼。

—（April 30, 2021）The back and forth email exchange…discusses what could be released without Tsai's consent from her 278 page LSE student file…“It appears from her student file that MJE [Michael Elliott] and Professor Leonard H Leigh examined President's Tsai's thesis in October 1983.” …Professor Leigh, who taught criminal law at LSE, was eligible to have served as an internal examiner but not as an external examiner. The principle, to prevent academic fraud, is for at least one member of a doctoral examination viva panel to be from an external educational institution.
大意：LSE法律團隊負責人在蔡英文並未授權的狀況下，向台灣官員透露兩位口試委員為Michael J. Elliott（蔡英文的指導老師）和Leonard H. Leigh（LSE的刑法教授）——然而為了防弊，英國大學通常規定至少要有一名論文口試委員來自校外。

—（May 29, 2021）Two Freedom of Information requests, one in 2019 and the second in 2021, to LSE for the identities of the thesis examiners elicited the same answer from Rachael Maguire, Records Manager, that LSE did not have the examiner names. An Internal Review by LSE confirmed the school could not answer the request. School Secretary Louise Nadal stated on May 26, 2021, that “the School does not hold the information you have requested.”However, what Nadal either did not know or was deceptive about, is that Kevin Haynes, “Head of Legal Team” at LSE, has compiled a 278 page file from President Tsai's student days that is indexed and carefully numbered.
大意：2019、2021年兩次詢問口試委員身分，LSE資訊與紀錄經理和學校秘書長都表示校方並未持有相關資料，但是LSE法律團隊負責人卻指出蔡英文的學生檔案高達278 頁，內有口試委員資料。

—（September 21, 2021）United Kingdom Information Review Tribunal Judge Sophie Buckley, writing for a three-member panel, upheld the University of London's secrecy about the identity of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's PhD thesis examiners. ……The three-member Tribunal reached a decision on September 13th:“There is a broader public interest in the legitimacy of President Tsai's PhD. …We find that the legitimate interest can be achieved by the University's confirmation that there is a written record of the names of the examiners and of the date that they signed approval of the thesis. …It is not reasonably necessary for the names  or the date to be released. …Further, we find that there is sufficient evidence already in the public domain to satisfy Mr. Richardson's or the public's concerns about whether or not President Tsai was awarded a PhD. …The University has publicly confirmed that the degree was correctly awarded and that it holds records of the viva and the pass list in relation to President Tsai and the fact that the thesis appeared in the IALS list of legal theses successfully completed for postgraduate degrees published in 1985.”
大意：信息審查法庭的三人小組於9月13日裁定蔡英文一方擁有更廣泛的公共利益，沒有必要公布口試委員身分或批准論文通過的日期，因為透過校方來確認是否具有相關記錄即可，而且有1985年IALS索引等公開資訊可供證明。

—（October 16, 2021）An appeal application has now raised three legal issues for review. The first issue……“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.”……The second issue……“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 third legal issue……“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.”
大意：上訴高等行政法院的三大理由：1. 論文審查員的資格正當性應凌駕於個人隱私問題之上，2. 不涉及身分問題的審查員人數、簽署通過日期都不該被隱瞞，3. 法庭未能適當調查圖書館相關問題的矛盾現象。

—（November 22, 2021）President Tsai will be unable to see Peng locked up while he remains in the United States. The Repubic of China in-exile is not recognized by the United States as a sovereign nation and has no extradition treaty with the ROC. Further, the charge against Peng, criminal defamation, does not exist in America, the home of free speech where defamation is a civil tort not a criminal offense. ROC prosecutors will not likely seek some sort of special agreement to detain Peng as that would open the door to a federal courtroom in the United States for the newsman. The prosecutors are happy with their exiled Chinese legal system that lacks juries and allows judges to be switched in sensitive cases. ……Litigation under the Freedom of Information Act is ongoing in two cases involving UL now before United Kingdom courts and the Information Commissioner is investigating statements made by LSE about the thesis.
大意：滯美未歸的彭文正無法根據引渡協議返台，否則將引起美國司法的介入；崇尚言論自由的美國不會將誹謗視為刑事犯罪，而僅是民事侵權；缺乏陪審團的台灣法院允許在敏感案件中更換法官的現象也不單純。在英國法院和ICO，針對倫敦大學和LSE的訴訟與調查仍在進行中。

—（December 14, 2021）The LSE, in response to a May 2021 Freedom of Information request, conducted an Internal Review and declared it lacked records that identified the PhD thesis examiners. Six months earlier Kevin Haynes, the LSE Head of Legal Team, provided the initials of one purported examiner and the name of a second to the ROC Ministry of Justice in a criminal investigation……. Although Haynes is the Head of Legal Team at LSE he is not an attorney. Consequently Haynes is not subject to regulatory discipline if he gave false information……. "The student record had been examined and no definitive record of the examiners had been found. Whilst one document indicated that a particular individual might have been an examiner, the LSE had no way of cross-checking whether that individual had in fact performed that role – and the LSE considered it unlikely that they would have done so."
大意：根據LSE自行檢查的結果，蔡英文的學生記錄中沒有口試委員的確切記錄！雖有一份文件表明某人可能是考官，但無法確認此人是否有履行職責。這與LSE法律團隊負責人先前向台灣官員透露兩位考官的訊息相矛盾，但因他不是律師，提供虛假信息也不會受到處分。

—（December 18, 2021）Information Review Tribunal Judge Hazel Oliver has rejected the dog-ate-my-homework story of the University of London that the PhD thesis of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen was lost-in-the-library.……"The appellant says that the absence of the original thesis from any of the libraries, as required by the University’s rules, indicates that there was no thesis at the time. Having viewed the emails from the libraries and the video from Dr. Peng, it does appear that none of the libraries have a record of the thesis being provided at the time the PhD was awarded in 1984. We accept that the explanation provided by the University that the thesis had been lost or mis-shelved may not be correct, as there is no catalogue or microfilm record of the original thesis. "……The appellant is a Taiwanese-American…….
大意：另有質疑者向行政法庭提告，而法官基於缺乏論文的入館紀錄和微縮膠卷，表示不認同圖書館丟失的說法。

—（January 18, 2022）In a January 11, 2022 email, Data Protection Officer Suzie Mereweather stated, "The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University from the examiners."……In 2011, in response to her exploratory bid for office, the University of London began a search for the long-forgotten thesis, entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions. Internal Senate House Library emails reveal an extensive search was made for the thesis with no success, leading to the conclusion that it must have been lost from the library.……In 2015, in response to Tsai's intention to seek office, the Senate House Library conducted a second, deep search for the dissertation. This time internal library emails disclose the thesis never was received. The thesis had not been lost, the University never had it to lose. However, that information was kept secret and Tsai went on to become the ROC president.
大意：2022年，倫敦大學終於承認考官並未繳回審閱本，所以沒有發表蔡英文的論文。之前在2011、2015都進行過內部調查，先是以為圖書館不小心遺失，而後確認沒有收到論文，但是這項訊息被保密起來。

—（January 21, 2022）However, when one asks questions about the viva examination, neither school has the requested information and both claim the other school holds the answers.……Both schools have buttressed their right-to-privacy denials with a second line of defense, a purported lack of records. ……In a November 8, 2019 response to a FOI request, Rachael Maguire, Information and Records Manager (the London School of Economics), said: "I can confirm that the Department of Law holds no records relating to President Tsai's PhD. At that point in time, the School did not award degrees as it had no degree awarding powers. As such, all records relating to the degree are held by the University of London."……In a January 11, 2022 response to an information request, Suzie Mereweather, Head of Data Protection and Information Compliance (the University of London) said: "The primary record for PhD awards is held by the Member Institution, not the University of London."…… Reliance by the LSE on the tardy thesis for confidence in the verification of the thesis, despite an absence of records, has been joined by the UL, which now cites the LSE statement as proof that President Tsai qualified for the UL degree.
大意：當有人詢問蔡英文的論文口試問題時，LSE和倫敦大學都聲稱另一所學校掌握著相關記錄。目前兩校仍引用2019年10月的 LSE 聲明作為蔡英文獲得博士學位的證詞。

—（February 4, 2022）University of London refuses Freedom of Information request about Tsai Ing-wen thesis calling Professor Hwan Lin vexatious……Dear University of London,
In 1984, there was Central Registry within Academic Division of the Senate Department of the University of London, and Mrs. P. C. Kennedy served as Supervisor of the Central Registry according to the University of London Calendar of 1983-84. Please kindly answer the following questions: 1. Did Mrs. P. C. Kennedy continue to serve as Supervisor of the Central Registry in 1987 at the University of London? Does she still work at the University of London today? 2. Was there a person, called "Mrs. A. M. Amos", who worked together with Mrs. P. C. Kennedy within the Central Registry in 1984? If not, did Mrs. A. M. Amos work elsewhere then at the University of London? The above questions are my FOIA request to the University of London. Thank you very much for your valuable time in advance. Yours faithfully, Hwan Lin……In refusing to answer Lin's questions, the school explained its rationale for non-compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
"The University considers that your request has the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. ……Your request has met one or more of the following criteria of a vexatious request: being a burden on the authority; using abusive or aggressive language; bearing a personal grudge; being of unreasonable persistence; giving unfounded accusations; or a deliberate attempt to cause annoyance."
大意：林環牆向倫敦大學詢問1984年7月5日發函認證蔡英文學歷的A. M. Amos（未簽名）和P. C. Kennedy（代簽名）是否曾任職於註冊中心，但是校方卻視為無理取鬧。

—（February 12, 2022）A recent University news release defending a controversial PhD award to Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen……The University granted Tsai a degree in 1984 but does not have a thesis from Tsai in its library collection. When confronted with the problem of a missing thesis, the school, through spokesman Kit Good, alleged they had the thesis but it was lost by librarians. After Information Review Tribunal Judge Hazel Oliver dismissed the claim that librarians lost the thesis the school now says they do not know if they had her thesis or not. That story however contradicts email correspondence from the school’s Senate House Library that the thesis was never received. The University of London says not to worry because the degree was correctly awarded despite the absence of a thesis and its refusal to name the examiners who purportedly approved the "lost" thesis.
大意：倫敦大學於近期聲明：儘管不知道是否保有蔡英文的博士論文，不過學位是正確授予的。

—（March 13, 2022）A series of emails from librarians and other school officials at the University of London, recently disclosed by a Freedom of Information request, revealed that the University first knew the 1983 PhD thesis of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen was missing in 2011. ……University of London officials never did find the thesis in its Senate House Library, however they located a computer "card output" for the thesis leading them to believe the library once had the thesis but somehow it went missing. ……Four years later in 2015……as before, the thesis was never found. This time a deeper search was made and instead of relying on a "card output" to verify that the thesis made it to the shelves, a librarian went into storage and discovered a notation the "card output" did not have. "However, we do have an old card catalogue covering theses from the 1980s and there is a card for this one which indicates we were due to receive the thesis, but it never arrived. "
大意：倫敦大學在2011年找不到蔡英文的博士論文，但表示有相關資訊；2015年再度查找，確認論文從未送達圖書館。

—（May 12, 2022）Now, the UL is forced to admit it is missing critical pages from its 1983 PhD regulations. Emily Brick, the UL's Information Goverance Officer, offers the current regulations but says missing pages of the 1983 regulations cannot be found. "I am writing to release the additional information requested – the missing pages in the 1983-1984 Regulations for Internal Students and the General Regulations 1983-1984." "I have asked colleagues and we could not find any material on the nomination of examiners for the time and composition of examination boards, although we do have these guidelines now which are published on our website."……However, a larger question presents itelf. How could the UL know that President Tsai was correctly awarded a PhD degree if they cannot verify the viva examination panel was properly constituted?
大意：倫敦大學表示找不到當年任命博士口試委員的相關規定，而提供的資料中有明顯漏頁。倘若校方無法驗證考官是否符合資格，如何確認博士學位是否正確授予？

—（June 21, 2022）In a stunning reversal, Information Review Tribunal Judge Alison McKenna overturned the Information Commissioner and found that the London School of Economics violated the Freedom of Information Act. ……In a Freedom of Information request, the LSE was asked for the names of President Tsai's examiners, however, the school claimed that it lacked the identities of the thesis examiners. At the same time, Kevin Haynes, the "Head of Legal Team" at LSE, volunteered to the ROC Ministry of Justice the names of purported examiners. ……Haynes' subordinate, Rachael Maguire, has since suggested that Haynes gave incorrect information to Tsai's prosecutors because of a "hurried view" of Tsai's student record. ……Its submission to the Tribunal dated 14 March 2022 it stated that "…the information we hold on file is only there accidentally…we cannot be certain that this information is accurate". ……“LSE confirmed to the Tribunal that it holds President Tsai’s student file, comprising 278 pages. It stated that there is a letter on this file in which a person appears to self-identify as one of the Viva examiners, but that it has no official notification from University of London whether this information was correct, and it holds no information on the identity of the co-examiner.”
※…the information that she had two internal examiners – [XX] and [YY] – and one external examiner – [ZZ].-[XX], who refers to ‘my co-examiner and myself’ in a memo …dated 16/1/1983.- [YY] is mentioned in the file but couldn’t find him specifically named as an examiner.-[ZZ], named as external examiner in a letter from Pres Tsai to …
大意：英國行政法庭推翻前議，認定LSE在論文門案中違反《信息自由法》：一方面否認持有相關資料，另一方面卻向台灣提供沒有確實查證的口試委員信息。※ 當時LSE法律團隊負責人匆忙查看了一些意外找到的資料，如今發現所謂校內口試委員XX是在1983年1月16日（編按：當時蔡英文的論文題目尚未被獲准）寫下「我與一位共同考官」等語，而另一位校內口試委員YY則是缺乏相關線索（編按：雖然蔡英文曾在1990年稱他是指導教授之一），至於校外口試委員ZZ這個名字（編按：蔡英文於2021年根據個人印象而首次陳述）則是出自蔡總統的一封信。

—（July 12, 2022）A complaint has been filed against the University of London with Information Commissioner John Edwards over missing examination regulations. The complaint is in response the UL claim that 1983 thesis examination regulations are missing with no copies available. ……The Freedom of Information request for the examination regulations was made May 10, 2021. The UL stonewalled the request until May 10, 2022, a full year later, only to announce the regulations were missing. The year-long wait for nothing prompted the complaint to the Information Commissioner. “Complainant believes the response by the UL, of missing thesis examination regulations, to his FOIA request is improbable and part of a pattern of continuing obfuscation directed against Complainant and others seeking information that might shed light on the veracity of allegations of academic fraud. ……The regulations the UL did provide to Complainant appear to be copied from a bound volume. The examination regulations pages sought by the FOIA request are missing from the pages disclosed.……”
大意：倫敦大學花了一年的時間才宣稱找不到1983年的考試相關規定，被懷疑是故意隱匿，目前ICO已接受投訴。

—（July 20, 2022）The London School of Economics and Political Science has been slapped with a Notice of Non-Compliance for its failure to comply with a June 21, 2022 court order issued by Information Review Tribunal Judge Alison McKenna. The LSE was given twenty-eight days by the Tribunal to “issue a fresh response to the Appellant's original information request which confirms that information within the scope of his request is held and either disclose it or claim any exemptions to disclosure on which it relies.”
大意：英國行政法庭在6月21日要求LSE在28天內重新針對口委信息作出回應，然而校方並未遵守，因此法庭發出違規通知。

—（July 21, 2022）Dennis Peng, a Taiwanese newsman living in self-exile in California, has won a new Canadian human rights award of $10,000 CD called the Justice Star Award. ……The new award, established byEstrella Shen, a Taiwanese-Canadian, received a number of nominations for Peng from former Stanford University faculty members and overseas organizations. “The committee scrutinized Professor Peng's fearless performance in defending Taiwan's freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and judicial justice, and in monitoring and challanging the totalitarian government.”
大意：彭文正勇敢捍衛言論、新聞自由和司法公正，受到眾多海外人士的提名，榮獲加拿大「正義之星」獎。

—（July 31, 2022）Jack Healey, founder of the Human Rights Action Center, following his retirement as director of Amnesty International, wants Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen to drop her criminal defamation charges against Taiwanese newsman Dennis Peng. ……Jack Healey is now following the story and posted a summary on his Facebook page.“Professor Peng was the most popular political TV show host from 2009 to 2019 in Taiwan and in 2012 he read my blog regarding Chen Shui-bian's human rights on national TV, which brought a national awareness to our rescue mission….His criticisms of the present Tsai government should not land him in trouble and some political very hot water.”
大意：前國際特赦組織美國分會秘書長傑克•希利呼籲蔡英文撤銷對彭文正的刑事誹謗告訴。

—（August 1, 2022）However, the LSE fresh response still does not name the thesis examiners.……“….Examiner names are kept confidential in order to ensure that no pressure to increase or decrease marks occurs. There is therefore an expectation from examiners that their names will not be released, either to students or to other third parties. It would therefore breach the first data protection principle to release as it would not be fair.”“In deciding on the fairness of release, we considered whether there was a public interest reason for releasing the names, but on balance do not think there is. The examination was nearly forty years ago. Neither LSE or University of London believe there is any reason given by any third party that the examination did not come to a proper conclusion that Ing-wen Tsai had passed the viva. Considering the interest in the case, we believe that there would be immense pressure put on the individuals concerned if we released their names that they could not have expected almost forty years ago when they agreed to be the viva examiners and which we cannot lay on them or those associated with them now.”
大意：LSE拒絕透露蔡英文的口委信息，理由是這有違資料保護原則，而且40年前的事已不具公共利益，並認為公布姓名會給當年的口委帶來巨大壓力。

—（August 24, 2022）……Upper Tribunal Judge Mark West next week will consider arguments pitting the Data Protection Act against the Freedom of Information Act.……The DPA (Data Protection Act) protection of personal data has been considered by the UL and the ICO as an absolute exclusion from the transparency mandate of the FOI (Freedom of Information). ……Thus far the Information Commissioner has sided with the UL against the general public interest. The UL approach to examiner identities, adopted by the ICO, is not universal in the United Kingdom academic world. The University of Edinburgh Handbook for External Examining of Research Degrees takes a different approach to examiners. Regulation 16.5 provides: “External Examiner reports and any correspondence engaged in by the External Examiner in connection with their External Examiner duties are disclosable in line with the University’s freedom of information obligations.”……Judge West will have little precedent to guide him in sorting out which law overrides the other.……However, if the Upper Tribunal finds that the larger matter of the necessity of verification of qualification is at issue, Tsai’s thesis case could have a widespread effect on the examination process for advanced degrees in all of the United Kingdom.
大意：英國高等行政法院將評估「資料保護」與「信息自由」孰輕孰重。ICO等機構讓個資的重要性凌駕於公益，而愛丁堡大學則規定：外部審查員的報告和相關通信都要服膺於大學的信息自由義務。

—（September 5, 2022）Louise Nadal, Secretary of the LSE Board, announced the school's uncertainty after conducting a second internal review of Tsai's student file. Previously, LSE “Head of Legal Team” Kevin Haynes identified Michael Elliott, Tsai's LSE advisor, and Leonard Leigh, a LSE professor, as Tsai's thesis examiners.……“You stated that the School is required to confirm or deny whether the information is held. ……In the absence of certainty that information is accurate, the School cannot be sure whether it is held.” The school's uncertainty has not stopped them from declaring President Tsai's degree valid, making a special public announcement confirming the validity of the PhD award.……Nadal said not only was the school uncertain of who President Tsai's examiners were but that whoever they were, they needed to be protected from a hostile campaign.“……The volume of enquiries and correspondence the School has received on this matter in recent years, often of a hostile nature, does not persuade me that any disclosure would prevent those named from being subject to similar attention as part of a campaign.”……“I note that you are not persuaded by the School's explanation that the names of examiners are kept confidential to prevent pressure from being applied to alter marks. While this is a principle which you consider inapplicable to this matter, it remains the case that examiners have a reasonable expectation that their identity will not being [sic] disclosed to students or others. ……” ……“You have also compared the School’s response adversely to that of the University of Oxford, suggesting it does not reflect a modern approach. I do not think the two cases bear any particularly close similarity – at the University of Oxford, the student claimed an award which does not reflect that given and the University provided a formal clarification. In the case of Tsai Ing-wen, the University of London has not issued any correction or statement questioning the nature of the award made.”
大意：LSE秘書長向麥可•理查森表示，校方無法確定是否保有蔡英文的口委身分信息，但無論如何都要保護個資，畢竟考官會希望其身份不被學生們或其他人士知曉；此外，她認為不應該將蔡英文一案與牛津大學的情形（編按：小馬可仕一案）加以比較。

—（September 9, 2022）The (What Do They Know) website , designed to help the public with Freedom of Information requests, has done a backwards somersault and purged citizen activists from its data base. The purge, announced in March ……The purge was announced by Senior Developer Gareth Rees in behalf of the management team which is operated by a group called MySociety.……Spokesman Rees said that instead of representing a strong public interest in the validity of President Tsai’s PhD degree, the many requests represent something more sinister emanating from the People’s Republic of China. ……“During the course of this situation, we have banned 108 user accounts, most of which have been created to circumnavigate previous bans and to post inappropriate material to our site. We removed more than 300 requests from the site and 1,640 comments from pages.……To put this in context, we only banned 126 newly created user accounts in the whole of 2021, mainly for spamming.”……(Hwan) Lin, a PhD himself, wants to know how the purge of academic inquiries to universities helps citizens obtain accountability. “I made an FOIA request to LSE in January 2022 and another two FOIA requests to the University of London in February 2022. They are all about the controversies of Ing-wen Tsai’s doctoral thesis and degree. The January request has long been overdue, while the two February requests were labelled as vexatious for no legitimate reasons. Even more absurd was the ensuing suspension of my What Do They Know account, ridding me of rights to information from public authorities.”
大意：WhatDoTheyKnow網站的管理團隊MySociety接受檢舉，認定論文門案的大量討論與中共的陰謀有關，於2022年3月間進行了前所未有的大規模清除行動：禁止108個帳戶，並且刪除300多個信息自由的請求和1,640條相關評論，其中的受害者包括林環牆。

—（September 12, 2022）Deluged with Freedom of Information request denials by the London School of Economics and Political Science and the University of London, the Information Commissioner's Office of the United Kingdom has turned on members of the public making the requests, refusing them as vexatious. The requests are disparaged in a public announcement by the ICO.……“Our understanding of the matters around Tsai Ing-wen's PHD awarded by the LSE [sic] in 1984, in as far as we have been required to consider them in connection with several complaints we have received…are summarised in a series of decision notices available on our website. ”（FS50908339, IC-40405-S7L3, IC-83994-C7Z4, IC109451-S1M2）……(Presently, the Tribunal decision is now under reconsideration by the Upper Tribunal.)……“The intent of these requests is clearly to try to add weight to theories around the falsification of President Tsai's PHD, which have already been considered at length by the Commissioner and the Tribunal and found to be entirely lacking in substance, as well as to express dissatisfaction with the Commissioner's decisions in these matters and cause deliberate disruption to the ICO's services.”
大意：由於LSE和倫敦大學拒絕大量信息自由的請求，ICO已將論文門的質疑視為無理取鬧。雖然ICO列舉已處理的投訴，貌似結案，但是英國行政法庭正在重新審理中。

—（September 15, 2022）Rees may soon be calling his MySociety censorship team together to work on some apologies. The banned WDTK users (Hwan Lin, Wen-Ting Chiu, Herb Raison Lin, Taitzer Wang, and Yu Chao) have begun stepping forward to deny their information requests were vexatious or that they were acting as disinformation agents for China. To a person, they all insist the pursuit of truth is their only motivation. They are unhappy at the denial of due process and being purged without cause or notice by a group supposedly dedicated to advancing Freedom of Information access.……“As a Taiwanese and Polish citizen, to be insinuated that I am involved in activities to gain social credits in China is a grave insult to me. I am interested in the complete transparency of President Tsai's degree, because I think integrity is an essential quality of a state leader. There is nothing for me to gain personally, either the degree is genuine or not. All I seek is truth.”……“I am appalled by the fact that this self-appointed, faceless arbitrator of 'truth' in the UK has the nerve to come out in the open to defend its despicable act of blatant censorship and disinformation, and to justify it by pinning it on the PRC, as if the source of these questions had any bearing on their validity. Not to mention people pursuing the ThesisGate are predominantly those on the PRC blacklist……”
大意：被封鎖的WhatDoTheyKnow用戶否認中共同路人的指控，認為這是對追求真相者的嚴重污辱，而且許多探究蔡英文論文門的台灣人被列入中共的黑名單。

—（September 16, 2022）Rees, who was trying to justify the purge of Taiwanese researchers from the WDTK website, explained the LSE told him the school was targeted by Chinese disinformation agents for personal gain. Rees and his management team quickly sprung into action and shut down pending FOI requests about the thesis denouncing the purported misuse of the website by Chinese operatives without offering any supporting evidence. The purged WDTK users thus far identified have not been Chinese at all and instead are Taiwanese researchers concerned about possible academic fraud by President Tsai. So far none of the questions posed by the researchers appear to be vexatious and MySociety's purge has all the appearances of political interference with FOI requests rather than a response to misuse as Rees claimed. ……MySociety claims, “Our work is politically non-partisan, evidence-based, accountable and open to scrutiny. We critique our own work and that of our sector honestly; we publish our references, won't hide uncomfortable truths, and where we fall short we seek to rectify our mistakes promptly.”
大意：LSE告訴MySociety的人員，學校已成為中共假信息傳播者謀私利的目標，於是後者在缺乏證據支持下就進行了掃蕩。MySociety號稱是無黨無派，以證據為準，不會隱藏令人不安的事實，並且願意及時糾正自身的錯誤。

—（September 20, 2022）It is unknown if the MySociety censorship team called upon its TicTech advisor Wu Min Hsuan, a Taiwanese computer guru with political connections, to vet the purged researchers. Wu's LinkedIn bio lists him as a former paid political consultant in Taiwan. Wu's mission is explained on the Doublethink Lab website he founded. “Doublethink Lab is researching modern threats to democracy and devising strategies to counter them. He is focused on mapping China's online information operation mechanisms.” ……Rees and Wu have both been featured MySociety speakers at RightsCon, a periodic international cyber convention. Wu's signature work is something called the China Index, where the PRC propaganda influence is cataloged and quantified.
大意：關注中共假信息的台灣民主實驗室（Doublethink Lab）創辦人兼執行長吳銘軒是MySociety的顧問，目前還不清楚MySociety是否請他針對論文門的質疑者進行審查。

—（September 23, 2022）The long-running controversy over Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's 1983 PhD thesis at the London School of Economics and Political Science was highlighted in a Harvard University publication called Combatting and Defeating Chinese Propaganda and Disinformation prepared for the United States Department of State. The author of the Tsai Ing-wen case study is Aaron Huang, a former spokesman for the American Institute in Taiwan. Huang is also a veteran of the Intelligence Bureau in the State Department and worked in the United Kingdom on a House of Commons committee. ……Huang, a firm advocate of President Tsai's story, denounced “the falsehood that Tsai's London School of Economics doctoral degree was fake.” “China's role was in propagating and amplifying this false story.” ……One of Huang's sources on the allegation of Chinese disinformation efforts was Puma Shen, who is described as “Taiwan's top disinformation expert.” The Journal of Information Warfare cited Shen as the chairperson of an outfit called Doublethink Lab, founded by computer guru Wu Min Hsuan.……If the State Department wants to get to the bottom of the matter it should consider asking Huang to do more homework and update his Harvard University paper. Within the past month, the LSE has admitted not knowing who examined President Tsai’s thesis and the University of London, which awarded Tsai a degree for her scholarship, has admitted losing the regulations which governed her viva examination.
大意：任職美國在台協會的黃博倫（Aaron Huang）曾在哈佛刊物上探討台灣總統大選，認為論文門是中共假信息；許多強調中國認知作戰的文章列於參考文獻之上，包括台灣民主實驗室理事長沈伯洋的深度評論。

—（September 26, 2022）At the center of the cyber maelstrom, Facebook set up an Election Administration Center which became known as the “war room” to those in the know. A United States Department of State study conducted at Harvard University entitled Combatting and Defeating Chinese Propaganda and Disinformation provides some of the details.……“Facebook's policy, legal, and security representatives; content moderators; and local experts on politics, elections, and law…could meet face to face and expedite the decision-making process on what accounts to delete and what fake news to downrank/remove.……Facebook found the war room effective, and Dr. Puma Shen, Taiwan's top Chinese sharp power professor, stated that the war room was one of the key reasons why Chinese propaganda and disinformation did not have much effect on Taiwan's elections this time.”……An academic paper funded by the ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs entitled Media Warfare Taiwan's Battle for the Cognitive Domain offers more details of the effort to respond to the Chinese misinformation. The paper was authored by Professor Kerry K. Gershaneck. “Taiwan's leaders learned from the PRC aggressive Media Warfare in the 2018 election, and effectively combatted it in 2020 through an innovative, whole-of-society approach.……In the alliance, the government worked with major social media companies such as Facebook and LINE, and these companies became faster at finding and removing fake accounts and disinformation.……Facebook shut down a total of 118 Taiwan-based fan pages (one with as many as 155,443 members) along with 99 public groups and 51 accounts used to administer these pages various pages and accounts. Many of these pages and accounts supported the then-KMT presidential candidate, Han Kuo-yu.”……The Stanford Cyber Policy Center issued a report entitled Telling China's Story: The Chinese Communist Party's Campaign to Shape Global Narratives.……“Aside from suspicious YouTube channels and minimal activity on Twitter, China did not appear to leverage fake accounts on popular Western social media platforms to spread disinformation during the Taiwan 2020 presidential election. Although a cluster of accounts and Pages was removed from Facebook during the campaign, they were attributed to coordinated domestic actors—a reminder that not all inauthentic political activity comes from outside.”
大意：黃博倫和接受外交部資助研究的另一位外國教授皆表示，與政府結盟的台灣臉書作戰室在打擊中共的媒體戰方面很有成效，於2020大選期間關閉了118個粉絲專頁、99個社團、以及51個多重帳號，多為韓國瑜的支持者。史丹佛的研究則指出，除了極少數的可疑活動，中共當時似乎並未在台灣的社交媒體上散佈假信息。

—（October 5, 2022）Doublethink Lab is a think tank. The core activity seems to be a cadre of computer savy activists looking at internet data at the micro level and drawing conclusions on whether or not something is disinformation. Doublethink is well funded and well connected. Co-founded by Wu Min-hsuan and Puma Shen in 2019, the cyber-oriented think tank quickly moved into the political arena with its analytical talents and published a report on the 2020 election. Doublethink Lab describes itself as a “Taiwan based organization that operates at the intersection of the Internet, public discourse, civil society, and democratic governance.”……“We have developed a cross-platform database to keep track of 1,485 shared domains that can be grouped into 600 websites and filtered into 113 shared political content farms, which we used to reference 191 suspected Facebook Pages.……Facebook Taiwan has changed its algorithm to lower the ranking of disinformation sites in their search results in order to reduce the number of people who see these posts. Last October, Facebook filtered out all news feeds containing the domain names of the content farm Mission and other well-known content farms, including Kknews and Hssszn.”Despite all of Doublethink's work with Facebook data there is not a peep in the report about the election “war room” where Facebook representatives met with cyber warfare experts and ROC anti-infiltration agents while a purge of user accounts was planned. Content farms that outsource distribution for payments did get noted in the report.……“Listed below are four political rumors circulated in the 2020 Taiwan general election.……2. Tsai Ing-wen's PhD thesis dissertation is fake and unqualified.……”……Between Anti-Infiltration Act cyber teams in the ROC departments of government, Facebook censors ready to purge, and organizations like Doublethink Lab on the counter-offensive, Tsai Ing-wen's PhD thesis controversy quickly quieted as a campaign issue.……However, the MySociety purge has all the earmarks of the 2020 election war room cyber warfare with its allegations of personal financial motives by Chinese disinformation agents.
大意：協助臉書修改演算法的台灣民主實驗室曾指出論文門是與中共有關的政治謠言之一，於是在政府與民間團隊的努力下，投票日的出口民調顯示只有20%的人相信這些質疑。2020年Facebook和2022年MySociety進行的掃蕩都是指控中共同路人在趁機牟利。

—（October 12, 2022）A newly filed appeal to the Information Review Tribunal in the United Kingdom by Professor Hwan Lin over a Freedom of Information Act refusal by the London School of Economics and Political Science promises to provide a full-blown court hearing on the validity of the PhD degree of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen.……Lin made a FOIA request to the LSE for verification information about the school's October 2019 public announcement regarding Tsai's degree award which earned him a refusal for making a vexatious request. Lin was personally refused by Kevin Haynes, the “Head of Legal Team” at the LSE. Non-attorney Haynes showed his inexperience with FOIA litigation by tagging Lin as vexatious. When Lin complained to the Information Commissioner's Office the derogatory label was enhanced by Senior Case Officer Roger Cawthorne who branded Lin a conspiracy theorist.……Lin's appeal to the Tribunal is the fourth case about the thesis to reach the United Kingdom courts. Two cases seeking information about the October 16, 1983 viva examination are now pending at the Upper Tribunal on reconsideration request. The third case involved the LSE and the reversal of Cawthorne's handiwork forced the LSE to admit it does not know who the thesis examiners were. ……“Respondent's Senior Case Officer, Roger Cawthorne, who issued the Decision Notice without any communication with Appellant during the eight months of ICO inactivity on the complaint, has a history, which required judicial correction, of improperly processing a FOIA request complaint concerning the LSE and President Tsai's PhD degree. Judge Alison McKenna corrected the Decision Notice, EA/2021/0373, after finding Mr. Cawthorne failed to adequately investigate the complaint to which he had been assigned.”
大意：林環牆向LSE詢問2019年LSE官網聲明出自何方，被Kevin Haynes以「無理取鬧」來拒絕；向ICO申訴時，又遭專員Roger Cawthorne稱為「陰謀論者」，林環牆已向行政法庭提告。Cawthorne曾處理過蔡英文口委的案子，但是由於未能充分調查，行政法庭已於2022年6月推翻前議。

—（October 19, 2022）Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs of the United Kingdom gave Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen a pass and refused a Freedom of Information Act appeal request seeking information on the validity of her University of London PhD award.……Jacobs concluded “concerns and worries about the proper form of the President's degree cannot be resolved within the FOIA scheme.……The tribunal decided that it was not necessary to disclose more than was already known. President Tsai's name is on the contemporaneous pass list for in 1984 and the title of her thesis was published in 1985. The University had confirmed that there was an oral examination and that it holds records of that examination. The tribunal decided that this was sufficient to satisfy the legitimate interests of [Appellant].……The request was for information.……it relates to the information rather than to the document or file or other format in which it is held.……The request was made to the University of London.……the duty did not apply to the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), which was the relevant college.……The University's duty, subject to any exemptions, was to provide the information it held.……The University could not disclose what it did not hold. An appeal is not an opportunity to explore why some information is not held or to try to find other ways to obtain the information. The tribunal had to decide what information the University held. That is a question of fact and, provided the tribunal made its finding rationally, it is difficult to identify an error of law in a matter of fact. ……FOIA is limited to disclosing information held. It may contradict other data, but FOIA does not provide a way to decide which is correct. [Appellant] argues that the existence of the contradictions make it more necessary to see the original data. ……The Information Commissioner and the First-tier Tribunal have no authority to deal with a challenge to the accuracy of the record.……The tribunal found that, although the theses may not have been provided to the libraries rather than lost or misfiled, that did not undermine the accuracy of the information about the degree awarded. ”
大意：英國高等行政法庭拒絕麥可•理查森的上訴請求，認為沒有必要公開更多信息，而且本案僅限於要求倫敦大學披露所持有的信息，因此與LSE無關，也無法要求文件格式；至於校方為何缺乏資訊、或是內容與其他資料相互矛盾，ICO和行政法庭也無權處理。

—（October 24, 2022）In a non-appealable ruling, West granted the University of London unfettered control over verification of Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen's controversial PhD degree, depriving the public of the identity of two unnamed examiners who purportedly approved Tsai's 1983 thesis.……The thesis also lacked an examination statement and bore no evidence it had been examined.……“The Tribunal found that the Appellant had a legitimate private interest and that there was a broader public interest in the legitimacy of President Tsai's PhD, but that the disclosure of the requested information was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of that identified legitimate interest.……Whether a hard copy of the thesis was once delivered and subsequently lost, or never received in the first place, does not affect the question of whether it was necessary to process the data sought. A FOIA request is not a vehicle for discovering everything about President Tsai's thesis.……Although the Appellant addressed me eloquently on that matter, he was unable to cite any authority in support of his submission. The furthest he could go was to assert that 'The importance of public verification of qualification for President Tsai's PhD degree requires full disclosure of the requested information and the DPA has been misapplied by the FTT as a shield against necessary disclosure' but no authority is cited for that proposition.……There is no identifiable error of law made out by the Appellant……I am wholly unpersuaded, notwithstanding the Appellant's eloquent submissions to the contrary, that the University in this case has been lying or involved in academic fraud.……The Tribunal made its findings of fact and gave adequate reasons for reaching the conclusion which it did.…… There is no realistic prospect of the Appellant establishing that the First-tier Tribunal's decision was erroneous in law or that there is some other good reason to grant permission to appeal.”
大意：即使無法證明蔡英文的論文已通過審查，英國高等行政法庭仍拒絕查核其口委姓名的上訴。法官完全不相信校方涉及學術欺詐，認為上訴者沒有指出一審判決的法律錯誤，而且未引用「權威」來支持其論述。

—（November 11, 2022）Recently appointed Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, Michelle Donelan's staff has refused to consider an amendment to the Data Protection Act to close an academic fraud loophole in the law. Donelan, who was appointed to her post in September, is overseeing the passage of a rewrite of the United Kingdom's Data Protection Act. However, Donelan apparently will not support a correction in the law to require public verification of University of London degrees.……Donelan's department quickly dismissed judicial commentary on the controversy. “The government considers that the existing definition of personal data works well, and so does not intend to create a new definition or change the existing understanding of what identifiers fall into the definition of personal data.”Donelan was Minister of State for Higher and Further Education from September 2021 to July 2022 and her experience should have prepared her for the problems with the DPA/FOIA conflict of law identified by the Upper Tribunal. Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs ruled on 18 October 2022, in UA-2022-000491-GIA: “[Appellant's] concerns and worries about the proper form of the President's degree cannot be resolved within the FOIA scheme.” Upper Tribunal Judge Mark West ruled on 20 October 2022, in UA-2021-000416-GIA: “A FOIA request is not a vehicle for discovering everything about President Tsai's thesis.”……The Upper Tribunal applied the DPA personal data protections to examiners on the essential question of verification of qualification of a degree award, thus voiding and negating a public and transparent verification. In President Tsai's case, with its tardy thesis, unknown examiners to the school she attended, and contradictory statements on receipt of the thesis by the UL, a reasonable person is entitled to ask who approved the thesis and when. Under the present stautory scheme such a question by the public will not be answered, raising the spectre of academic fraud.
大意：近期從高等暨進修教育轉司數位、文化、媒體和體育的英國大臣，不支持修改《數據保護法》（DPA）現有的個資定義。然而根據蔡英文的案例可知，若是無法驗證考官身分，將成為學術詐欺的隱憂。

—（November 20, 2022）The University of London, which awarded Tsai her degree, claims to know who the examiners were but won't identify the scholars citing DPA personal data protections. Now, the Cabinet Office has been requested to seek amendment of the Freedom of Information Act to close the fraud gateway by requiring examination disclosure in a sixteen word addition to the list of exemptions adding: “unless such information is used in the verification of qualification for advanced degrees at public universities.”……The amendment proposal submitted to the Cabinet Office sets out the rationale for the change in the law. “The problem of verification of qualification of a PhD degree is not one limited to President Tsai's case, it is one of a structural nature, capable of being repeated. The practice in the United Kingdom on identification of examiners is varied, Oxford University, for example, names examiners while the University of London does not identify examiners.”……“It is a matter of good and prudent public policy for advanced educational degrees to be awarded in a fully transparent manner, naming the examiners who approved the award. The importance of public confidence in the intergrity of degree awards overrides any inconvenience or personal objection of either students or examiners.”
大意：針對各大學是否揭露考官身份的做法不一，已向英國的內閣辦公室提出《信息自由法》的修正案，要求公立大學的高等學位資格驗證不能列在豁免清單內，因為公眾對於正確授予學位的信心應凌駕於個人不便之上。

—（December 6, 2022）A correspondence officer for the Cabinet Office in the United Kingdom has stated that no effort to amend the Freedom of Information Act will be made to modify the personal data exclusion.……“The Government considers that the existing definition of personal data works well and does not intend to create a new definition, or change the existing understanding of what identifiers fall into the definition of personal data. The Government will therefore not be amending section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act.”……Thus far the Department of Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport has declined to amend the Data Protection Act to close the personal data loophole on examiners. Now the Cabinet Office has refused to amend the Freedom of Information Act to correct the gap in public disclosure of examination information leaving the public left to wonder who approved President Tsai's thesis.……The campaign against Peng has recently ramped up with a refusal to renew his ROC passport in an apparent bid to obtain his deportation to Taiwan where he has been ordered arrested.
大意：英國的內閣辦公室認為現有的個資定義運作良好，無意利用修法來堵住學術詐欺的漏洞。目前遭到通緝的彭文正已無法繼續使用中華民國護照，反對聲浪愈發高漲。

—（December 17, 2022）Rishi Sunak, the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has received a request to review a Cabinet Office decision to not seek an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act to close an academic fraud loophole.……“The Cabinet Office declined to consider a proposal to amend the Freedom of Information Act to safeguard against academic fraud at public universities. The need is demonstrated by an ongoing controversy concerning Republic of China President Tsai Ing-wen. The controversy has led to a half-dozen Decision Notices by the Information Commissioner's Office and four Tribunal cases involving use of the FOIA to resolve questions on the validity of Tsai's degree award.”“Two Upper Tribunal Decisions have been issued closing off the FOIA as an avenue for transparency of the degree-awarding process, thus your review of the Cabinet Office decision to not amend the law is needed.”……Section 40(2) of the FOIA: “Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if— (Proposed amendment:) unless such information is used in the verification of qualification for advanced degrees at public universities.”
大意：由於內閣辦公室拒絕修法，已要求英國首相重新審視此事。提議讓《信息自由法》有關個資的第40(2)的條文增加但書：與信息請求有關的任何個資皆可豁免——除非用於公立大學高級學位資格的驗證。