A Terrorism Prevention Act to protect the people and secure public safety, but one that poses great risks of a state agency abusing its powers and violating human rights, has been proposed by the chairman of the National Assembly. Chairman Chung Ui-hwa proposed the bill, motioned by the Saenuri Party, at the plenary session on grounds of a national emergency. However, whether the bill will pass is uncertain as The Minjoo Party of Korea engages in filibuster, blocking the bill with marathon speeches.

It is doubtful as to whether the Terrorism Prevention Act will be effective in preventing terrorism, yet the bill has the risk of infringing the people's human rights and freedom. First, the concept of terrorism is vague and comprehensive. The bill identifies "activities that endanger a person's life through injury for the purpose of interfering with the state from exercising its authority," as terrorism as well. Given that our government has an allergic reaction to demonstrations, there is no guarantee that this bill will not be abused when a person is injured in an accidental collision during a normal rally.

A more serious problem is that this bill allows the government to gather information concerning immigration, financial transactions, and communications services used by a person suspected of being a terrorist. If the National Intelligence Service suspects a person is involved in terrorism, anyone can be a target of surveillance. The bill includes a problematic clause that allows the government to briefly explain to the person in question of the information gathering and send him a written notice after they have collected the intelligence in an emergency situation. The bill allows the government to omit even the least of written procedures to monitor its citizens. The bill also grants the government the authority to request the deletion of a post or picture on the Internet that incites terrorism, and this poses the risk of violating the freedom of expression.

According to this bill, the government would establish a national counter-terrorism committee chaired by the prime minister and a counter-terrorism center under its authority, but the actual authority will be in the hands of the National Intelligence Service. It is difficult to trust an intelligence agency, which allegedly hacked the cell phones of civilians, fabricated a spy case, and intervened in the presidential election by posting online comments, to use such authority only in preventing terrorism. It is very dangerous to tell the intelligence agency to implement the Terrorism Prevention Act. What's more, the intelligence service is not subject to democratic control in its budget and activities. The NIS is an agency that should reflect on its past as the servant of those in power and undergo reforms, not one that should be given even stronger powers. The chairman of the National Assembly proposing the Terrorism Prevention Act itself raises legal issues. Chung stated a "national emergency" according to the National Assembly Advancement Act, but this lacks logical reasoning. The nation is not in an emergency situation now and the nation's situation does not make it impossible for politicians to discuss the bill. We cannot tolerate a procedure with such legal flaws.