Central Election Commission disputes 60% of names in KMT’s petitions

Описание: Last month, the KMT submitted proposals to hold three referendums: one on air pollution, another on coal-fired power generation, and a third on Japanese food imports. The Central Election Commission, or the CEC, claims that it’s found irregularities in 60% of the signatures backing the KMT’s proposals. KMT lawmakers have rejected claim and called the CEC a political tool of the ruling party.Three KMT lawmakers headed to the CEC today to mount a defense. The KMT had submitted three referendum petitions in August, and the commission has disputed about 60% of the signatures on grounds that they used similar handwriting. The commission says 2% of the disputed names belong to people who had already passed away.John WuKMT lawmakerWho is to judge whether handwriting is similar? If you’ve got gumption, say that the handwriting is identical. Just saying it’s similar doesn’t mean anything. Siblings who were taught by the same mother, will their handwriting be similar? It is possible.Tseng Ming-chungKMT lawmakerCEC Chairman Chen In-chin has recently been exaggerating the extent of the petitions’ irregularities. He’s nothing more than a mouthpiece of the ruling party, a tool for the ruling party’s battle against the opposition. The KMT caucus demands that he step down.But DPP lawmakers had little sympathy for the KMT’s plight.Lee Chun-yiDPP lawmakerThe KMT’s referendum proposals are outrageous. Over 2% of the signatures belong to people who are already dead. On these forms, there are divorcees who were married again by the KMT. And there are many petitioners whose household registration is all wrong.Cheng Yun-pengDPP lawmakerOther people did a clean signature drive, collecting one name after the other. These signatures were earned at a considerable price. But the KMT simply copied information, and it wants to keep the public authority from investigating. With regard to this matter, I feel that the KMT should apologize to the public. The CEC reiterated that it handled every referendum proposal with the same standards and protocol, dismissing the KMT’s claim of discrimination.