Why are the National Election Commission and the Democratic Party showing such signs of anxiety? What exactly have they been doing behind the scenes to try and silence every single citizen?

Do they not realize that the very threat of imprisoning someone for up to 10 years for a single misspoken word ironically exposes their true identity and intentions to the world?

This is happening at a time when, in relation to the revelations of fraud in the 2020 US presidential election, Korean terms such as A-Web, Miru Systems, Seongnam City, and Korean Air are constantly being mentioned in the US investigation.

One might speculate that they have become more desperate as the details of election fraud begin to be revealed on a large scale in the US. If this is the case, their usual tactic of dismissing citizens who point out election fraud as mere conspiracy theorists or maladjusted individuals will no longer be effective.

Spreading False Information about Voting Faces Up to '10 Years in Prison' – "Election Commission is Putting a Nail in the Mouths of the People"

This is the content of the amendment to the National Referendum Act proposed by the Election Commission and the Democratic Party, which was reported by the media on the 24th. The amendment was hastily passed through the National Assembly's standing committees, including the Public Administration and Security Committee and the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Opposition parties point out that while it would have been sufficient to amend the National Referendum Act to guarantee the voting rights of overseas citizens, as per the Constitutional Court's unconstitutional ruling in 2014, the Democratic Party has taken an irregular approach by adding supplementary provisions.

The added provisions concern penalties for 'obstruction of national referendum freedom.' It stipulates that individuals who continuously disseminate false information regarding early voting, national referendums, and vote counting through information and communication networks with the intent to disrupt the normal operations of the Election Commission or undermine the credibility of law enforcement will be punished with imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine of 5 million to 30 million won.

So, what constitutes "false information" as they define it? And what is meant by "intent to undermine credibility"? The specifics are unknown. It seems to imply that if the Election Commission deems something as false information or an intent to undermine credibility, then it is so.

Another peculiar aspect, beyond the arbitrary nature of these regulations, is the Election Commission's intention to assume the roles of prosecutors and investigators, in addition to its election management duties. According to the amendment, if the Election Commission determines there are grounds for suspicion or receives a report regarding a national referendum, it can conduct an investigation and request the submission of materials.

While they may argue that this is merely investigative authority and not investigative power, the extent of coercion in demanding the submission of materials, the sanctions for non-compliance, and the potential for abuse depending on the connection to criminal prosecution, suggest that it could indeed be interpreted as de facto investigative power.

What if the demands are not met? The next step is obvious. In essence, this is a threat to the public, stating that citizens must not utter a word about the Election Commission's actions, and that as soon as they speak, retribution will follow.

As far as I understand, this would encompass any attempt to point out errors in voting, criticize them, or investigate and ascertain facts related to any such errors. Simply put, isn't this a declaration of infallibility?

A System That 'Undoubtedly Inspires Trust' Must Be Established

Article 5 of North Korea's "Ten Principles for the Establishment of the Party's Monolithic Leadership System" states: "The principle of unconditional adherence must be thoroughly upheld in implementing the last wishes of the great Comrade Kim Il-sung and Comrade Kim Jong-il and the Party's line and policies." This is also a declaration of infallibility.

However, such actions and words represent a serious strategic error by the Election Commission and the Democratic Party. If the Election Commission truly wishes to end distrust in national referendums, instead of creating laws to imprison critics, it should establish a 'system of management that undoubtedly inspires trust,' as seen in Taiwan and Japan.

This would involve gaining public trust through transparency and evidence, such as real-time CCTV monitoring and improved ballot stamping methods, rather than relying on control and punishment. The votes cast on a given day should be counted on the same day, at the polling station. Why do they seem intent on ignoring such straightforward methods?

Do they not understand that the harsher the penalties become, the more the general public will inevitably develop suspicions, asking, "What are they trying so hard to hide?"

The suspicious movements of the Election Commission do not end there. The Election Commission is currently attempting to elevate its own records to a level comparable to that of the Presidential Office, through amendments to the Act on the Management of Public Records or by strengthening internal regulations.

The Election Commission assiduously emphasizes its status as an independent body under the Constitution. While doing so, it openly reveals its intention to directly manage the records it produces through its own permanent record management institution, such as a 'Ballot Record Center,' rather than transferring them to the National Archives like other general administrative agencies.

Just as presidential records are uniquely managed by a separate Presidential Archives, the Election Commission intends to manage its records independently, without external interference. This is a typical way of bypassing the public. Since when has the Election Commission begun to rule over the public with an authoritarian stance?

The justification for this is interesting: to protect 'the fairness of elections' and 'the objectivity of job performance.' Are these not the very core of the accusations against them? It's a tragicomedy.

Will the Election Commission truly be able to escape the unfair(?) accusations against it through these actions? Or will it fall into a deeper mire of distrust? What's the use of covering oneself with bulletproof armor? Even Achilles, a seemingly invincible god, could not hide his own heel.

It is said that if the government has policies, the people have countermeasures. In today's terms, this translates to: if internet access is blocked by telecom providers, there is Starlink. In some quarters, a backlash has already begun.

At the 'Rally Denouncing Election Fraud' held on the 21st, hosted by the "National Movement to Expose Servers" (Seo-Beok-Ka), Dr. Jang Jae-eon and political commentator Lee Sang-ro publicly announced that they would report 15 Election Commission members involved in allegations of treating "brick ballots" as legitimate ballots to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

According to media reports, the individuals mentioned at this rally are the Election Commission chairpersons from regions where allegations of "brick ballots" arose during the △2022 Incheon Gyeyang-eul by-election, △2024 general election, and △2025 presidential election.

Seo-Beok-Ka has designated these 15 individuals as the "instigators who trampled on the right to participate in democracy in the Republic of Korea" and added that they will soon compile specific details about these individuals and formally report them to the CIA. Will the public's resistance truly end at this point?

"The Election Commission is silencing the people."

Former Editorial Advisor, Munhwa Ilbo