Controversial Anti-Terrorism Bill Filibustered in South Korea

Battering rams and smoke bombs: Not exactly items one associates with democratic politics, but these were items deployed as tools in South Korea’s national assembly in the not-so-distant past. In 2011, for example, opposition lawmaker Kim Sun-dong ignited a teargas grenade in the National Assembly in a futile effort to stop the ruling Grand National Party (now Saenuri) from voting to ratify the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

Now, it seems, long speeches will replace more violent and undemocratic acts. On February 23, for the first time since 1969, a filibuster was used to oppose the passing of a controversial bill. In this case, a hotly contested anti-terrorism bill.

The bill would establish an anti-terror agency in the prime minister’s office and grant additional discretionary powers to the country’s national spy agency, the National Intelligence Service (NIS), to collect relevant information on persons and activities deemed a threat to public safety and national security. The bill, as its name suggests, is meant to address concerns about possible terrorist attacks – the sort of attack the NIS says North Korea is currently planning.

The bill was called to vote by the Assembly Speaker, Chung Ui-hwa, even though the ruling and opposition parties had yet to give the bill the required three-fifths approval. An amendment to parliamentary procedure was made in 2012 by the National Advancement Act, which requires bills to have three-fifths approval by the Assembly before being put to vote. The amendment is intended to prevent a majority party riding roughshod over a main opposition and other minor parties – to prevent a tyranny of the majority, in other words. The amendment specifies, however, that the assembly speaker can legally call to vote bills lacking three-fifths support if the public’s safety is at risk, that is, during conditions of war or natural disaster.

Citing a “national state of emergency corresponding to a war,” Chung exercised his authority to bring the bill to the floor. At this point, the main opposition Minjoo Party exercised its right to filibuster a bill lacking three-fifths support. Notably, the organized resistance didn’t involve smoke bombs or blunt instruments. Only words -- befitting a filibuster -- were used this time. Successive filibusters, the longest of which lasted 10 hours and 18 minutes, successfully blocked the bill, which as of this writing has yet to be voted on.

While the filibuster has united the main opposition for now, the ultimate outcome of the national security debate remains unclear. National security conservatives have the upper hand right now, following the supposed nuclear test and launching of a missile by North Korea. That North Korea may be planning a terrorist attack – according to the NIS – will not assuage extant fears or feelings of insecurity.

Indeed, security is a main concern for many South Koreans, and with elections coming up, no one – not even liberals – will want to come across as “soft on security.” Notably, the Minjoo Party’s interim chairperson, Kim Jong-in, is considered to be tougher on security issues, especially the country’s North Korean policy, than former chair, Moon Jae-in.

Whether a difference in opinion complicates the Minjoo Party’s opposition to the anti-terrorism bill is an open question. As close watchers of South Korean party politics and viewers of the popular KBS drama “Assembly” know quite well, intra-party factions drive party politics, and factions tend to be highly antagonistic in the liberal camp. Ahn Cheol-soo and several other moderate lawmakers have already defected from the main opposition to form a rival opposition party (the People’s Party).

Ahn and others didn’t defect over concerns about the party’s stance on security issues, per se, but rather over the inability of the party to chart an electable path. The two issues aren’t unrelated, however. That Ahn, speaking for his party, has publicly endorsed a middle-of-the-road position on the anti-terror bill (i.e., the Speaker should encourage compromise) is telling, and suggests that staunch opposition to bills perceived to be “anti-terror” may be electorally risky.

A Realmeter public opinion poll conducted on February 23 asked respondents whether they supported or opposed the filibuster. Results show that the public is, overall, split: 42.6 percent support the filibuster, 46.1 percent oppose it, and 11.3 percent don’t know. The support/oppose difference is within the margin of error (4.6 percent). As it goes for most security-related issues, there is a significant divide between age cohorts. The 60+ age cohort overwhelmingly opposes the filibuster (65.9 percent), while the 30s and 20s age cohorts are more supportive, with 68.6 percent and 56 percent supporting the Minjoo Party’s filibuster, respectively.