주요 콘텐츠로 건너뛰기

[Statement] Urge Political Reform to Reform the Election System

지역

[Statement] Urge Political Reform to Reform the Election System

익명 (미확인) | 화, 2015/03/03- 13:17

South Korean Civil Society Urges the Special Committee on Political Reform to Reform the Election System

AW20150303_정개특위관련기자회견.jpg

 

The Center for National Assembly Watch of People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) has supported political reform movements by monitoring and evaluating activities of the members of the National Assembly, urging reforms to the political system and organizing voter campaigns during elections. The center has filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court asserting that the current electoral system infringes electoral rights by failing to lower the voting age and restricting voter campaigns. More- over, the center has provided comprehensive political reform bills, filed petitions with the National Assembly, and launched nationwide campaigns to push through these reforms.

 

On 3 March 2015, the National Assembly of South Korea passed a resolution to form a Special Committee on Political Reform to discuss ways to improve the political system including plans for demarcating constituency. The civil society, which has insisted during the past few years on increasing the number of seats of proportional representation and on guaranteeing voters' freedom of expression, held a press conference to deliver its demands to the Special Committee on Political Reform. Its major demands are as follows:

 

Increase the number of seats allocated by proportional representation to reflect voices of various groups and preferences of voters.

 

The current electoral system in South Korea distorts the allocation of parliamentary seats and does not fully reflect voter preferences, especially those of minorities and various vocational groups. Therefore, it is urgent to push through constituency demarcation reforms and to raise the number of seats allocated by proportional representation. Nevertheless, certain voices among politicians even claim the number of proportional seats should be lowered to maintain the number of seats for their local districts. The Special Committee on Political Reform should discuss electoral reform in ways that resolve not only regionalism but also underrepresentation of various vocational groups, sexual minorities, immi- grants and women.

 

Reform the current Constituency Demarcation Committee, which only is an advisory body to a permanent and independent committee

 

In order to ensure fair constituency demarcating, it is required to change the system in which the Constituency Demarcation Committee, which is composed of external experts, submits a bill on constituency demarcation to the National Assembly, which only needs to "respect" the constituency demarcation bill. Thus, currently, the constituency demarcation bill submitted to the National Assembly is not legally binding, and as a result, the National Assembly has been distorting the constituency demarcation proposed by the Commit- tee in favor of their interests. Given that both the ruling and the opposition parties have recently promised to increase the authority of the Constituency Demarcation Committee and to allow its independent operation, the bill on reforming the Constituency Demarcation Committee should be passed without delay.

 

Guarantee the fundamental political rights of voters

 

The current Public Official Election Act restricts voters' rights to freedom of opinion and expression by stipulating a vague standard of "defamation" and applies comprehensive regulations to offline election campaigns. The National Assembly should revise the Public Official Election Act so as to guarantee voters' rights to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition, voters who voluntarily organize political associations are currently restricted by rules containing excessive requirements to establish a political party and allowing only nationwide parties. Grassroots parties should be allowed in order to prevent the monopoly of a particular political party in certain areas. It is required that the Special Committee on Political Reform collects opinions of civil society and hold responsible discussions on this matter.

 

Lastly, it must be noted that the discus- sions on political reform should not hinge on the interests of members of the National Assembly from local constituencies and the major political parties. Selection of members of the National Assembly representing the voters' voices and enactment of elector- al reforms regarding the right to vote are issues not only for politicians but also for all voters. South Korean civil society organizations demanded the National Assembly, the institution representing the will of the people, initiate political reforms through pan-national discussions and preparation of plans to accomplish reform.

시민들의 의견

댓글 달기

Plain text

  • 웹 페이지 주소 및 이메일 주소는 자동으로 링크로 전환됩니다.
  • 줄과 단락은 자동으로 분리됩니다.
  • 사용할 수 있는 HTML 태그: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
이미지
무제한 수의 파일을 이 필드에 업로드할 수 있습니다.
50 MB 한계입니다.
허용된 유형: png gif jpg jpeg.
Enter the YouTube URL. Valid URL formats include: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SqBdS0XkV4 and http://youtu.be/1SqBdS0XkV4.
CAPTCHA
스펨 사용자 차단 질문

Police Raided the Citizen’s Network for General Election of 2016 for alleged violation of Public Official Election Law

21 June 2016

1. Background 
On 16 June 2016, offices and staffs of the Citizen’s Network for General Election of 2016 (Change 2016) were seized and searched by the police, for the alleged violation of Public Official Election Law. The investigated organisations include People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), an NGO with ECOSOC consultative status, and South Korean Civil Society Organizations Network, which consists of more than 500 South Korean NGOs. They were leading organisations of the Change 2016. Below is the list of police confiscation. 


During the General Election of April 2016, more than 1,000 South Korean civil society organizations collectively established Change 2016 to conduct online blacklist campaigns and to encourage voters to participate in the election. Change 2016 conducted online campaign where voters could identify 10 worst candidates and choose 10 most urging pledges during election. Also, Change 2016 held a series of press conferences in front of the offices of the worst candidates selected by the voters. Below is the list of police confiscation.

 

900ba87ad839050c3f2ab55e96401ea8.jpg

 

On 24 April 2016, Seoul Election Commission filed a complaint against Change 2016 for violating Article 93(1) and Article 108(1) of Public Official Election Law. The search and seizure of 16 June were conducted based on this complaint with search warrant. The latest attack on Change 2016 in the form of sudden police search and seizure is rather arbitrary and clearly has the ulterior political motive of threatening and repressing the works of the South Korean civil society. On 21 June 2016, the Commissioner General of Korean National Police Agency, Sin-myeong KANG, said as below at the press briefing: “Regarding allegations of violating Public Official Election Act, it is important to identify conspiracy and joint principal offenders, who actually initiated and instigated such an action. Therefore, we searched and seized relevant people’s house and offices as a minimum measure to find out abovementioned issues.”. 

 

2. Relevant Domestic Laws 
In the Republic of Korea, freedom of expression offline during the election campaign period (180 days before election) is not fully guaranteed. Initially, the law even prohibited freedom of expression both offline and online, but in 2011, the Constitutional Court ruled that this article is partially unconstitutional, and freedom of expression online during the election campaign period should be guaranteed. The law was then revised according to the ruling, but freedom of expression offline is still restricted. Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act reads as follow.

Public Official Election Act Article 93(1) Prohibition of Unlawful Distribution or Posting, etc. of Documents and Pictures
(1) No one shall distribute, post, scatter, play, or run an advertisement, letter of greeting, poster, photograph, document, drawing, printed matter, recording tape, video tape, or the like which contains the contents supporting, recommending or opposing a political party (including the preparatory committee for formation of a political party, and the platform and policy of a political party; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or candidate (including a person who intends to be a candidate; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or showing the name of the political party or candidate with the intention of influencing the election, not in accordance with the provisions of this Act, from 180 days before the election day (the time when the reason for holding the election becomes final, in case of a special election) to the election day: Provided, That the same shall not apply to acts falling under any of the following subparagraphs: <Amended by Act No. 5412, Nov. 14, 1997; Act No. 5537, Apr. 30, 1998; Act No. 6663, Mar. 7, 2002; Act No. 7189, Mar. 12, 2004; Act No. 7681, Aug. 4, 2005; Act No. 9974, Jan. 25, 2010>
1. Cases where any candidate or any person falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 60-3 (2) (including the chief of an election campaign liaison office, in cases falling under subparagraph 2, and, in such cases, "preliminary candidates" shall be deemed "candidates") personally hands out the name cards of a candidate under Article 60-3 (1) 2 during the election campaign period;
2. Ordinary political party activities under Article 37 (2) of the Political Parties Act during a period, other than the election period.

 

Also, the Public Official Election Act Article 108(1) prohibits a public opinion poll as follows:

 

Public Official Election Act Article 108(1) (Prohibition, etc. of Publication of Public Opinion Poll)
(1) No one shall publish or report, by quoting, the details or results of a public opinion poll (including a mock voting or popularity poll; hereafter the same shall also apply in this Article) that makes it possible to predict the approval rating of each political party or the successful candidate in an election, during a period between six days before the election day and the closing time of balloting on the election day. <Amended by Act No. 5412, Nov. 14, 1997; Act No. 7681, Aug. 4, 2005>

3. Alleged violations raised by the Election Commission
1) Violation of Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Law

The Election Commission argues that Change 2016 violates Article 93(1) of Public Official Election Act because we held series of ‘protest’ condemning specific candidates in front of the candidate’s office. However, it was not a protest but a press conference, and we never specified the candidate’s name or used his/her picture during this press conference. To avoid violating this law that prohibits voter’s freedom of expression during the election period, we used a board with a hole replacing the candidate’s name rather than explicitly mention candidate’s name. During the press conference, we used a board with a hole, so that we can effectively express our view without explicitly mentioning the candidate’s name, within the boundaries of law. 

 

2) Violation of Article 108(1) of Public Official Election Law
Legal and polling experts have confirmed that the online campaign that Change 2016 conducted was indeed not a public opinion poll. Unlike the usual opinion poll targeting specific constituencies, the online campaign on the Change 2016 website allowed people to voluntarily visit the website and reply to the online campaign, and it was a legitimate exercise of voter’s freedom of expression. Therefore, it is not appropriate for Election Commission consider it a public online poll. 

 

4. Human Rights Violations 
1) Freedom of Expression during Election Campaign Period
Although the Public Official Election Act in its present form severely inhibits voters’ freedom of expression, Change 2016 has been organizing its campaigns within the boundaries of the law in compliance with the opinion of the National Election Commission. Legal and polling experts have confirmed that the online campaign that Change 2016 conducted was not a public opinion poll. Moreover, Change 2016 never displayed the names and photographs of the candidates in front of their campaign offices. Although the present Public Official Election Act restrains voters’ freedom of expression, Change 2016 operated within the boundaries of the law. The latest attack on Change 2016 in the form of sudden police search and seizure is rather arbitrary and clearly has the ulterior political motive of threatening and repressing the works of the South Korean civil society.

 

2) Collection of information which was not specified in the warrant
While confiscating the office of the South Korean Civil Society Organizations Network, the police extensively collected information, which was not even specified in the search warrant. They seized two hard disks and one external hard drive which were not used during General Election period therefore irrelevant to the current complaint. Also, the police confiscated four bank accounts related to the works of South Korean Civil Society Organizations Network without specifying the search period. Also, the tablet PC of the Secretary-General of South Korean Civil Society Organizations Network was seized as a whole without specifying relevant files. 


 

화, 2016/06/21- 14:54
178
0