一般而言，股東會議程所有議案資訊必須事前揭露給全體股東，提供股東充分資訊，其方能在充分瞭解下作成投票決定。惟我國公司法長久以來承認股東有臨時動議與議案修正之權利，允許出席股東就第一七二條第五項規定除外事項之其他一切事項，在股東會現場提出臨時動議或原議案之修正，此舉不但將形成股東會議程資訊之漏洞，復以實務一般認為只要未違反第一七二條第五項之規定，股東可以在現場以臨時動議提議召開股東臨時會針對法定除外事項進行決議，或在同一議題下，可以提出任何修正案，而架空第一七二條之一股東提案權制度所寓有之資訊揭露功能。在無法獲得充分資訊之下，股東應當如何行使表決權，尤其未出席股東以書面或電子方式事前行使表決權時，更是需要充分資訊，否則一旦面對臨時動議或議案修正時，其表決權將依法視為棄權，更進一步衍生出表決權操縱和應否親自出席之問題，橫生枝節，臨時動議與議案修正之突襲性問題，亟待解決。 因此，參考美國、日本、德國、英國、香港、韓國和中國大陸公司法制，公司法應明文要求將股東會議程之主要內容或要領記載於召集通知中，股東會不得就召集通知所未記載之議案進行決議，股東如欲發表任何意見，應循事前提案權提出，而非在現場提出臨時動議或議案修正突襲其他股東。因此，本文建議禁止在現場提出任何臨時動議或議案修正。 / Generally speaking, the agenda of general meeting, including all motions, should be disclosed to all shareholders of the company in advance of a general meeting to provide them with sufficient information to vote (informed voting). However, according to Taiwan Company Act, shareholders have right to move extemporary motions or amendments all but any items as set forth in §172(5) hereof at the meeting. This will not only come to be a loophole resulting from blank statements in a notice of a general meeting, but also sideline the information disclosure function by implication of shareholder proposal in §172-1, because the court hold that the shareholder are entitled to move an extemporary motion to call a meeting to make a resolution on exclusion items in §172(5), or any amendment under the same subject. Thus shareholders are unable to vote without sufficient information, especially who cast their vote through writing or electronic transmission without participating in person in advance of the meeting. In case of extemporary motions or amendments, shareholders who cast vote through writing or electronic transmission shall be deemed to withhold their voting power. This result would bring some issues of manipulation of voting power and whether shareholders who have cast their vote through writing or electronic transmission should participate in person afterwards or not. However, extemporary motions and amendments with surprising nature shall be or shall not be, that is the question. In order to deal with this problem, the main component or general nature of items in the agenda of a general meeting shall be stated in the notice, and only the items stated in the notice could be validly passed at the general meeting by referring to the Company Act of the U.S., Japan, Germany, U.K., Hong Kong, South Korea, and Mainland China. If shareholders are willing to express their opinions, they should propose to ask to put in the agenda in advance of the meeting, instead of moving extemporary motions and amendments to surprise the others. This study suggests that no extemporary motion or amendment shall be allowed to move at the general meeting.

我國於2005年時，為促進我國公司治理之發展，提升股東行使表決權之便利性以鼓勵股東參與股東會之議決，落實股東民主與股東行動主義之精神，並因應我國上市櫃公司股東會開會日期過度集中之問題，引進於國外行之有年之通訊投票制度，使股東除得選擇親自出席或委託他人出席股東會外，尚得選擇使用書面或電子投票方式行使表決權，立意甚為良善。然此制引進至今，實務上自願採用之公司甚少，使此制度之優點無法充分發揮。 　　為檢討我國通訊投票制度使用率偏低之問題，本文先自公司治理原則之觀點，探討股東參與對公司治理原則而言之意義，並建立通訊投票制度與公司治理原則之關聯，突顯通訊投票制度之價值。其次，介紹美國、英國、日本、歐盟等之通訊投票法制與實務運作情形，以了解國際脈動、發掘我國制度之現存問題，並藉由國外實施通訊投票制度之經驗，反思我國通訊投票制度未來之發展方向。 　　另就我國通訊投票之法制與實務部分，與股東資訊權有關之規範，如我國召集通知之發送或公告時點、召集通知之記載與臨時動議、召集通知之電子化、議事手冊及會議資料之製作與周知方式等，應朝更透明化之方向發展，並應使股東得以更直接之方式獲取相關資訊。另一方面，亦應使符合一定條件之公司負有提供英文版召集通知與議事手冊之義務，以利機構投資人妥適行使表決權。 　　其次，就通訊投票之規範上，公司法第177條之1與第177條之2之規範內容，有諸多過度遷就股務作業之規定，有所不妥，書面或電子投票之方式與作業程序規範密度亦有不足。另在電子投票制度上，未能顧及電子投票方式之即時性與互動性，僅採「事前的」電子投票制度，亦過於保守。此外，與通訊投票相關之制度，如分割行使表決權制度、董監候選人提名制、股東提案權制度等，亦宜一併檢視。 　　本文認為，為符合現今國際潮流、提升我國公司治理、促進電子投票制度之使用，前揭我國規範之未盡之處，未來皆有進行全盤檢討並加以修正之必要。