Reportage

The opposition parties’ filibuster or unlimited parliamentary relay speech, against the anti-terrorism bill ended on March 2 after a record-breaking time of 192 hours and 26 minutes. While lawmakers in the opposition party spoke continuously both night and day for eight days inside of the National Assembly Building; at the same time, a filibuster was conducted by the public outside of the building. To listen to the ideas of the lawmakers and the public about the anti-terrorism bill, The Argus visited the National Assembly on Samiljeol, the Independence Movement Day on March 1.

Before entering the National Assembly Building

Early in the Morning
In the early hours of March 1, news articles announcing a news conference at which the end of the filibuster would be declared were placed on online portals. Even though The Argus reporter was not invited as a professional journalist, the writer rushed to the National Assembly with a camera slung over the shoulder to attend the conference in the early morning. Although it was a holiday, there were so many broadcasting centers’ vehicles camped out around the building.

9:00 a.m.
People who were not authorized had to go to the back of the National Assembly Building and go through a security check. After undergoing the process, The Argus reporter asked clerks at the front desk whether it is possible to attend the news conference. Unfortunately, the answer was no; the conference was only open to a select group of journalists. However, thanks to the kindness of the front desk clerks, The Argus reporter got an admission ticket to the main conference hall, which should have been booked at least three days before through the Internet, but the tickets had run out early due to a flood of requests.

10:00 a.m.
When the hour drew close to 10:00 a.m., the time National Assembly opens its door to the public, the lounge was packed with people. They were standing in line, preparing to hand in their identification cards, smartphones and other digital devices in turns. When they reached the fourth floor of the building where the entrance to the conference hall is, they had to go through a security check again similar to the one they had done on the first floor.


Entering the main conference hall

10:10 a.m.
When The Argus reporter entered the hall, HUFS alumna and Minjoo Party Rep. Lim Su-kyeong was standing behind the podium. Lim was relaying speaking as the 30th runner of the filibuster that had been commenced by Rep. Kim Kwang-jin of the same party on Feb. 23.

Rep. Lim recited the “3.1. Declaration for Saving a Democratic Country,” which was declared outside of government buildings by politicians including ex-presidents Kim Dae-jung and Yeun Bo-sun, professors, priests and people from all walks of life who hoped to restore democracy on March 13, 1976 when President Park Chung-hee’s military regime seized power. Rep. Lim pointed out that not a single advance in democracy had been made over the past 40 years. In response, Rep. Kim Jong-hun, a member of the ruling Saenuri Party, jumped up from his seat and yelled at her, “That is irrelevant to the topic!”

After asking Rep. Kim not to interrupt her speech, Rep. Lim kept discussing the potentially dangerous consequences of the bill by discussing the judicial murder case committed by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA), now the NIS; the judicature in 1974; the “Committee for the Re-establishment of the People’s Revolutionary Party (PRP) Incident”; and the “NIS spy fabricating scandal” in 2013.

12:00 p.m.
For two and a half hours, Lim continued to speak while lawmakers went in and out of the hall. The total number in the huge hall did not exceed seven. People sitting in the center of the hall, who were in charge of the conference, seemed to be exhausted due to the seven-day-long filibuster. One man kept massaging his eyes and another dozed off, letting his head drop and finding himself incapable of waking back up for quite some time.

The atmosphere in the public seats was completely different. The seats were packed with over 110 people. Surprisingly and unexpectedly, there were many people who had come with their family members. From high school students to elementary school students who did not seem to understand politics, everyone was taking their seats and listening carefully to what the speaker was talking about.

A student who is going to enter high school, Bae Joong-yeon, visited the place after watching live coverage of the filibuster via YouTube. He had this to say: “I was so impressed with the speakers who threw their heart and soul into efforts to stop the bill. I wanted to see it for myself, so I asked my father to bring me here.”

Lee Mi-ra, a mother of three schoolkids, undertook a five-hour-long journey from Gwangyang City to watch the filibuster. She said, “My daughter in high school told me that she is afraid of the bill because it may result in the government monitoring us,” she said. “I thought taking a seat in the hall was one way to express my opposition to the bill.”

Over 100 citizens were voicing their opinions in the National Assembly Building that morning. Until the moment The Argus left the building, crowds of people were going into the building to watch the filibuster. Meanwhile, the angry voice of a man was echoing outside.


Filibuster by the public

1:00 p.m.
Despite a fierce cold snap with a low of 15 degrees Fahrenheit, the filibuster podium for the public was open. Unlike the warm and well-equipped main conference hall in the National Assembly Building, the podium for the public was very humble. There was a mic, an amplifier, and a chair only. And there were only three people: one giving a speech; the other two keeping their seats.
On the right of the podium, a conservative activist was also giving a speech in favor of the anti-terrorism bill with a much more effective sound system. The speaker standing on the podium shouted himself hoarse, denouncing the government’s inappropriate responses to social issues from the bill in question to the Sewol Ferry disaster and the so-called “Comfort Women” agreement, but his words were drowned out by the loud sounds of the conservative speaker and the roar of the nearby traffic.

The filibuster by the public was undertaken by civic organizations. “Jinbo Network” and the “People’s Solidarity for Participatory (PSP),” a civic organization that aims to construct a truly democratic country, made its way to the podium for a public filibuster against the anti-terrorism bill a day after Minjoo Rep. Kim Kwang-jin commenced the filibuster in the National Assembly. Like the opposition filibuster, the public filibuster was also conducted all day and all night long.

After the public filibuster podium was built, the press covered it, with an accord, as if it is an embodiment of democratic politics in which citizens freely express their own ideas and discuss about issues. And on the Internet, thousands of netizens supported public filibusters on their Twitter feeds, Facebook status updates and other social network services. But the reality was far from the way it was displayed by mass media or through the Internet.

2:00 p.m.
Within an hour of The Argus’ arrival, only a few people had visited the podium. Several people came and handed out hot drinks, but no one stepped onto the platform. Over 10 police officers who were there to guard the speakers seemed to be putting the unfrequented scene to shame.

An elementary school teacher in his fifties, Jeong Gwang-hoon, visited the National Assembly to ask lawmakers not to stop filibustering, and he stopped by the platform on his way home. He had this to say: “I stopped by here to support these young people who are laboring on this freezing cold day.” Jeong also did not step onto the platform. “I think I do not have the courage to give a public speech,” said Jeong.

In contrast to the low participation in the public filibustering, over 300,000 people participated in the signature campaign organized by 46 progressive civic groups.

Ahn Gi-seok, a member of PSP, a prominent civic group involved in the signature campaign said, “When something happens, I can see lots of people expressing their ideas about the issue online; however, I cannot see that many people who are willing to leave the Internet and continue to express their opinion.” To The Argus’ question about the low participation rate, Ahn answered, “About eight years ago, hundreds of thousands of people came out and participated in candlelight vigils, but things have changed. Personally, I think that might be because people no longer have room to express their opinions nowadays.”

4:30 p.m.
Until The Argus left the scene, only the lonely, strained voice of the man echoed across the field.


“Arguing that you do not care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you do not care about free speech because you have nothing to say,” said Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the U.S. Government who revealed the details of classified U.S. government surveillance programs.
The filibusters inside and outside of the National Assembly Building ultimately came to an end, and the bill in question was passed onto the National Assembly plenary session the day after The Argus visited the scene; however, the controversy over the bill is still simmering in the minds of many.

 


What is the ‘Anti-terrorism Bill’?

The purpose of the Anti-terrorism Bill is to fight terrorism by setting up a counterterrorism center inside the Prime Minister’s Office as well as to give the National Intelligence Service (NIS) the authority to collect information, access financial data, and eavesdrop on or wiretap possible terror suspects. As threats from North Korea and the jihadist militant group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) continue to escalate, a discussion about the bill has been carried on throughout Korea.

One of the well-known anti-terrorism laws worldwide is the USA PATRIOT Act. The Act itself was proposed after the Sept. 11 attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., and it was signed into law by President George W. Bush. However, the Act did not last long. The law was criticized due to its potential for political abuse in that it enabled the gathering of intelligence information on potential terrorist targets, and the act was ultimately scrapped.
 
What is a “Filibuster”?

The term “filibuster,” derived from the Spanish “filibustero,” meaning “privateer, pirate, robber,” refers to a parliamentary procedure where debate over a proposed piece of legislation is extended, allowing members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on the proposal. The record-breaking nature of the recent filibuster in South Korea is of great significance in that politicians conducting a filibuster in Korea are not allowed to talk about irrelevant topics, unlike congressmen in the United States.

 

저작권자 © The Argus 무단전재 및 재배포 금지