The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) said on the 1st that it conveyed to the National Assembly speaker its view that expanding the definition of terrorism to the political realm in connection with a pending amendment to the Anti-Terrorism Act raises concerns of infringing constitutional fundamental rights and requires careful review.
The amendment adds "the purpose of obstructing the democratic organization and activities of political parties" to the definition of terrorism, aiming to include threats and acts of violence targeting parties or politicians within the category of terrorism.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) determined that, because the Anti-Terrorism Act involves the exercise of powerful state authority—such as immigration control, financial transaction and communications-use information collection and analysis, and preventive measures—its scope of application needs to be defined clearly and strictly.
In particular, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) assessed that if the concept of terrorism is expanded to the political realm, even criticism of party policies or protest rallies could be deemed terrorism.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) said, "There is a concern that state agencies, citing terrorism risk assessments, may excessively collect and analyze information related to political activities, such as an individual's social relationships, participation history, and political tendencies," adding, "It could restrict the freedom of privacy and the right to informational self-determination."
It added, "The concern that one's political expression or assembly and demonstration activities could be evaluated as terrorism may lead to a so-called 'chilling effect' that discourages individuals, thereby restricting fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association."
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also said that it should be reviewed whether the principle of clarity is met, given that the concept of "the purpose of obstructing the democratic organization and activities of political parties" included in the amendment is abstract and open to broad interpretation, making it difficult to exclude the possibility of arbitrary interpretation by investigative and intelligence agencies.
It also viewed that, because acts of violence or threats against parties or politicians can be addressed under the current Criminal Act or Public Official Election Act, expanding the concept of terrorism to grant state agencies the authority to broadly collect citizens' sensitive information could risk violating the principle of prohibition of excessive restriction.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) explained, "Taking into account, in a comprehensive manner, the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution (secrecy and freedom of privacy) and Article 21 (freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association), and the requirements for restricting fundamental rights under Article 37(2), we expressed the opinion that sufficient and prudent legislative deliberation is needed on the amendment."