FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-STM-065-2009
March 20, 2009
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
SOUTH KOREA: How to express opinions without fear of ‘legitimate’ punishment?
According to the report in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Development Index recently released by the International Telecommunication Union, South Korea took second position following Sweden in terms of usage of and access to internet. The report further says that the country is outstanding, with a much higher than expectation ICT level. With regards to the various methods used to express their opinions and expressions, in fact, the country is reported as one of earliest countries to develop printing in the world. However, despite the advances, the people did not enjoy the freedom to speak, in particular against the King or upper classes at that time, because the government of the day controlled printing.
These days, hundreds of years later, more and more people in the country communicate and exchange information or views through the internet. The government of South Korea has been keen to listen to any sort of criticism against the President or government policies, but not in a way to allow for better or constructive discourse but rather in a way to oppress the people and discourage them from using the internet after the candle light vigil, last May 2008. It is because of the dysfunctional nature of two different government institutions: the National Assembly and the law enforcement agency. The former has become a place where bills sojourn not for an in-depth or appropriate discourse but only for the technical reasons.
With regards to the later, due to the fact that few of the police officers in charge of the demonstrators during the last May protest has been punished, the police have been given license to arrest or detain anyone. This is not according to the Criminal Code but rather the interpretation or understanding of the police. This has been encouraged by repeated remarks from high officials including the President, Police Commissioner, Prime Minister and Minister of Justice. All say that law and order must be established. However, their understanding of law is to rule by law not the rule of law. Since the last May protest, the police have illegally arrest demonstrators or people whose actions the police claim as illegal assembly.
Even though the President made public apologies twice during the last May protest, several organisers of the protest were arrested and detained for the trial. Some simple participants who received fines at the summary trial appealed against them. Mothers bringing their children to the site of candle light demonstration were publicly threatened with prosecution for child abuse. Twenty four internet users who made campaigns against buyers of advertisements to particular newspapers were prosecuted and found guilty. Mr. Park Dae-seong, 31, who wrote several articles in the cyberspace expressing his gloomy views on Korean economy, was arrested for making a false communication under article 47(1) of Framework Act on Telecommunications, which article have not been applied for the last 20 years, and is now detained. This has had a chilling effect on the internet users and several have stopped writing or disappeared, clearing all records of their work.
It is reported on March 17 that police are investigating three persons who wrote critical articles against the government over the internet portal ‘Daum’ for obstruction of business. These three increased the number of visitors by clicking those articles alike. However, it is questionable whether increase the number of visitors to those kinds of articles by clicking can constitute of criteria of obstruction of business. In addition, it does not even constitute obstacle of communication networks unless those clicking cause obstacles. Interestingly, the internet portal did not claim it or ask for an investigation by the police. It is also reported today that a man with intellectual difficulty, 24 was arrested on March 7, interrogated without his legal guardians being present and fingerprinted. This is contrary to the Criminal Code as well as the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination of Disabled Persons, Remedy against Infringement of their Rights, etc. Likewise, the police have given warnings to the people in general that legal action can be taken against people writing critical articles against the government over the internet or at demonstrations.
Three persons (Kim Cheon-wook, Lee Kyeong-hee, Kang Chang-deok) who criticised the government at press conferences and the candle light vigil held in Gyeongsangnam-do have been summoned by the police for illegal assembly. Last July, the Ministry of National Defence selected 23 books as seditious books. Some out of them had earlier been awarded as the book of the year. The book written by Noam Chomsky, ‘Year 501’ was also included. In October, seven military judicial advocates submitted a constitutional complaint alleging this selection violated the right to pursue happiness. In the process, two out of seven withdrew the complaint. On March 18, two were dismissed on the grounds of injuring army dignity, disobeying orders and defamation of honour and three received disciplinary action. However, their disciplinary dismissal is rather understood as punitive action for taking legal action.
Apart from the several bills introduced at the National Assembly, which have been highly criticised for possible violations, several cases relating to the restriction of the freedom of opinion and expression have already been exposed since the last May protest 2008, however, as the result of the government’s failure to address these problems, more and more people are going to be in a danger of limitations and restrictions to express their opinions. Rights violations or violence by the law enforcement agency under the name of ‘justifiable law enforcement’ will be out of control if appropriate action against the police that have breached the Criminal Code is not taken. The death of six men in Yong-san in the process of forcible dispersal by the police is indicative, which is not a separate incident but has continued since the last May protest due to the lack of punishment.
The Asian Human Rights Commission urges the government to look into the cases reported above and study the problems existing in the system that is supposed to guarantee the freedom of opinion and expression. The ‘cooperation’ with the international human rights institutions does not mean some delegations of the South Korean government take part in the session and make pointless speeches during the UN Human Rights Council as they have already pointed out. The government needs to study more about the discrepancies that exist between practices and what laws say in accordance with international norms and standards. The bills that have high possibilities to restrict rights are not the exception.
