'Shut-up act': Korea moves to criminalize challenges to NEC, absentee voting |
Heo Chul-hoon, secretary general of the National Election Commission, answers questions at the National Assembly on Feb. 23. Yonhap
Another piece of legislation widely viewed as an attempt to silence critics is nearing approval at the National Assembly, just weeks after controversy erupted over the so-called Network Act, which calls for punitive damages against media outlets accused of spreading fake news.
This time, the target is individuals who raise suspicions about absentee voting or the vote count announced by the National Election Commission. If the proposed amendment to the Referendum Act passes the National Assembly, violators could face up to 10 years in prison.
Critics have derided the measure as a “Shut-up Act,” arguing that it is inherently repressive.
The amendment, sponsored by two lawmakers from the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), Reps. Kim Young-bae and Kwon Chil-seung, along with seven co-sponsors, cleared the National Assembly’s Interior and Safety Committee on Feb. 23. It was then sent to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee for final review before being put to a plenary vote. The judiciary committee approved it the same day.
The revised bill will be put to a vote when the plenary session opens. The main opposition People Power Party (PPP) has opposed the measure. Nevertheless, given the DPK’s majority control of the Assembly, its passage appears likely.
Rep. Shin Dong-uk of the PPP warned that the bill, if enacted, would pose a grave threat to democracy.
“There is no doubt that it will significantly restrict freedom of expression,” he told reporters.
Shin also accused the DPK of employing a “fraudulent tactic” to push the bill through.
“When a revised bill is sent to the judiciary committee, it is usually accompanied by a detailed report comparing the amended and existing provisions,” he said. “But this time, we were given only a summary of the key points, without a side-by-side comparison of the old and new versions.”
Shin suggested that some judiciary committee members may not have scrutinized the bill closely, possibly because they believed there was bipartisan consensus on the revision.
The Referendum Act amendment itself is meant to address a long-standing issue. In 2014, the Constitutional Court ruled that certain provisions of the Act unconstitutionally restricted the voting rights of overseas Koreans. The court ordered the legislature to revise the law to allow overseas citizens to participate in referendums. However, the Act has remained unchanged for more than a decade, largely because no referendums were held following the ruling.
Momentum for revision gained traction last year when some DPK lawmakers proposed a constitutional amendment to allow a sitting president to seek reelection. Under the current Constitution, presidents are limited to a single term. Any constitutional amendment must be approved in two stages: first it must pass the National Assembly, followed by ratification by voters in a national referendum. At least half of all eligible voters must participate, and a majority of those casting ballots must vote in favor for the amendment to pass.
Shin said PPP members of the judiciary committee later discovered what he called a “toxic clause” in the bill — Article 97, Clause 4 — which would criminalize challenges to absentee voting or officially announced election results.
“If anyone raises doubts about the vote tabulation process or absentee voting results repeatedly at rallies or online, they could face up to 10 years in prison,” Shin said. “I was stunned to learn that such a clause had been inserted without properly informing other members.”
He argued that the intent to silence critics was clear.
The Referendum Act is widely expected to pass once the plenary session convenes, as it is among the bills the ruling DPK has pledged to enact. If approved, President Lee Jae Myung would sign it into law.
The controversy surrounding the bill has also exposed shortcomings within the National Assembly. The contentious clause drew little attention from PPP members during deliberations in the Interior and Safety Committee, as lawmakers were preoccupied with broader concerns — including allegations that the revision could pave the way for a constitutional amendment allowing presidential reelection.
Rep. Yong Hae-in of the minor Basic Income Party criticized the PPP for refusing to cooperate in advancing the Referendum Act. She argued that the party’s opposition suggested it was not fundamentally different from jailed former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who had defended his declaration of martial law as a last resort to address alleged flaws in the election system.
“The PPP members prove that they are conspiracy theorists,” she said.
Her remarks drew a sharp response from PPP lawmaker Rep. Suh Bum-soo.
“There are no PPP members in this committee who believe election fraud allegations,” Suh said, condemning Yong’s characterization of his party. His response, however, suggested that PPP members were aware of Article 97 but failed to address it during earlier deliberations.
PPP lawmakers on the judiciary committee later expressed regret over what they described as a misjudgment. “I don’t understand how such a problematic bill was approved,” Shin said.
Rep. Kwon Chil-seung of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) is one of the two sponsors of the controversial Referendum Act amendment. The other is DPK lawmaker Kim Young-bae. Yonhap