National Election Commission building [Photo=Yonhap News] 

Political debate is intensifying as the articles of the bill to fully revise the Referendum Act, which would allow criminal punishment for continuously spreading false information related to early voting and national referendums, have been disclosed. 

This is because, contrary to the stated purpose of expanding voting rights for overseas citizens, it has been pointed out during discussions in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee that clauses on expression regulation and expanded authority are heavily concentrated in the latter part of the bill.

Establishment of 'Obstruction of National Referendum Freedom Crime' - Silencing through Criminal Punishment

According to the proposal submitted by the Ministry of Interior and Safety, Article 96 of the revised bill newly establishes the 'Obstruction of National Referendum Freedom Crime,' stipulating criminal punishment for those who obstruct voting freedom by continuously spreading false information about early voting, national referendums, and vote counting through information and communication networks.

The clause groups these acts with offenses like assault, threats, coercion, and obstruction of the National Election Commission's duties, distinguishing it by establishing a severe penalty system rather than a simple administrative violation.

The controversy does not end here. The explanation of the revised bill explicitly states the establishment of provisions for the deletion of illegal posts using information and communication networks and the authority to investigate national referendum crimes related to communication, along with new penalty clauses. This has led to the interpretation that the legal basis for direct intervention in online expression has been expanded at the legislative level.

Regulations on national referendum campaigns have also changed significantly. The revised bill includes "actions that persuade support for one of several matters" within the scope of campaigning and allows campaigning on all days except the national referendum day.

While this is presented as an expansion of participation, it is simultaneously being evaluated as a 'dual structure' where an expansion of campaign freedom and strengthened expression regulation occur simultaneously, due to the enhanced penalty provisions for spreading false information.

The avenues for legal recourse after the fact have also been narrowed. The revised bill includes provisions to strengthen the requirements for filing a lawsuit to nullify a national referendum. While this can be explained as preventing abuse of process, criticism has been raised that when combined with the expression regulation clauses, it could operate to limit opportunities for post-vote verification of results.

Controversy over Concentrated Authority of the National Election Commission

In the general provisions, regulations that strengthen the duty of cooperation with the National Election Commission are also noteworthy. The inclusion of a clause stating that government agencies and public institutions must prioritize requests for cooperation from the National Election Commission, when combined with the clauses on post deletion and the establishment of investigative powers, raises concerns about the potential for concentrated authority.

The provision to expand the scope of recipients for copies of voter rolls to include political parties eligible for subsidies is also generating political interpretations regarding the scope of data access. In political circles, the analysis suggests that behind the publicly stated revisions of expanding voting rights for overseas citizens and introducing early voting, there was a concurrent design of expression regulation and changes to the structure of authority.

Ultimately, many assess that the true point of contention in this revised Referendum Act is not whether constitutional amendments will be made, but the boundary line concerning what can be said and up to what extent one is subject to punishment. If the bill proceeds to the plenary session, it is anticipated that, separate from the constitutional amendment debate, clashes over the 'rules of public opinion warfare' will intensify, both within and outside political circles.

By Reporter Kim Young