Unqualified Election Officials Must Step Down Immediately!

The Judicial Reform Foundation (hereinafter JRF), Cheng Society, and the Taiwan Law Society held a joint press conference this morning (the 9th), publicly naming election administration and supervision officials—including Lo Ying-sheh, Ch'en Hsin-min, Lin T'eng-pi, Sun Jung-chi, Huang I-t'eng of the Central Election Commission; Shen Chi-min, Lin Mei-lun, Hsü K'un-t'ien, Yeh Chia-yü, Li Meng-kuei, Hsü Lü-ping, Li Chih-ch'eng, Liu Han-yü of the Taipei City Election Commission; Li Chen-huai, Ch'en Li-ling, Wu Chün-shan, Chuang Shou-li, Lin Ming-chen, Li Wen-kuei, Tai Ching-chao, Kuan Jung-p'ao of the Taoyuan County Election Commission; and Fang Pang-liang of the Taichung City Election Commission—who recently published newspaper advertisements claiming that "the March 20 referendum is an illegal and criminal act" and inciting the public to refuse referendum ballots. The organizations demanded that these individuals resign from their election supervision posts effective immediately to prevent public suspicion regarding the neutrality and fairness of the CEC and the election commissions of Taipei City, Taoyuan County, and Taichung City in administering the upcoming referendum.

The three civic groups pointed out that the operations of election commissions and supervision committees at all levels must be conducted through a "collegial system" in accordance with their organizational regulations and guidelines for exercising supervisory duties. However, Lo Ying-sheh and the others spoke out publicly in the capacity of "election supervision committee members at all levels" without a resolution passed through an election commission meeting. Such practices not only violate the organizational regulations of election commissions and the guidelines for executing supervisory duties, but their actions in publishing advertisements intended to influence citizens' voting intent and results severely breach the principle of "election neutrality." It is practically impossible to expect them to "fairly exercise their powers in accordance with the law" (referencing Paragraph 6, Article 8 of the Public Officials Election and Recall Act) or to "remain transcendent and fair, and execute election supervision duties in accordance with the law" (referencing Article 2 of the Guidelines for the Execution of Supervisory Duties by Election Commissions at All Levels)!

Furthermore, the three civic groups express their profound disagreement with the aforementioned election supervisors' statements in the advertisement, which asserted: "According to explicit provisions of the Referendum Act, the 'Presidential Defensive Referendum' shall not be held on the same day as the election of the President and Vice President" and "The March 20 referendum is an illegal and criminal act." First, the Referendum Act contains no such explicit provision stating that a "Presidential Defensive Referendum" may not be held concurrently with the presidential election. Even if legal circles currently debate the applicability between Articles 17 and 24 of the Referendum Act, based on legal interpretation methods of "literal interpretation" and "rational interpretation," holding a "Presidential Defensive Referendum" on the same day as the presidential election should be permissible under the law. Second, even if a referendum is ultimately ruled null and void by a court, it does not constitute any criminal act. Citizens will certainly not become "criminals" by participating in a referendum, and election commissions at all levels will not transform into a "criminal syndicate" simply by administering election affairs! Regarding this point, Articles 57 and 61 of the Referendum Act set this forth quite clearly, and anyone with even a modest amount of legal common sense should understand this principle. The JRF and the other two groups fail to understand why these election supervisors seek to intimidate and mislead ordinary citizens, causing them to "fear" or develop aversions toward the March 20 referendum. Can such election officials still be considered "qualified"?

The JRF and the two groups believe that the actions of the aforementioned election supervisors have severely damaged the impartial and fair image that election commissions at all levels are required to strictly uphold. Civic groups feel profound regret and anger over this! Finally, the JRF, Cheng Society, and the Taiwan Law Society publicly call upon the aforementioned unqualified election supervisors to resign immediately to set the record straight; should they be unwilling to resign voluntarily, the election commissions to which they belong and their superior authorities should act swiftly to dismiss them, lest a regrettable stain be left on the history of elections in our nation!

Attendees

Prof. Hung Yu-hung, President of Cheng Society
Prof. Ku Chung-hua, Executive Member of Cheng Society
Prof. Ch'en Ying-ch'ien, Secretary-General of Taiwan Law Society
Attorneys Lu Ping-cheng, JRF Board Director
Attorney Lin Ching-p'ing, JRF Executive Director