※ 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。