"No Abuse of Non-apprehension Privileges and Privileges of Speech”

Amid strong criticism for abuse of the National Assemblymen’s privileges of exemption from apprehension and liability for their speech, more than sixty percent of assembly members polled revealed that they think those privileges should be limited.

When a news reporting team from Dong-A Ilbo posed questions to one hundred National Assemblymen from the ruling party and the opposition party by phone, 63 and 67 agreed with limitations on non-apprehension privilege and limitations on the privilege of speech, respectively.

In addition, having rejected all motions for apprehension eleven times in the 16th National Assembly, 61 of them admitted that it was an “example of undeveloped politics that lean toward paternalism.” Only seven thought that it was a “fair exercise of the National Assembly’s rights against the powers of oppression.”

Meanwhile, when the team posed same question to fifty professors of law, 27 (54 percent) and 26 (52 percent) agreed with limitation of non-apprehension privileges and limitations on the privilege of speech, respectively, which represents a lower percentage compared to assembly members

The professors were divided into two groups: those who think that the quality of national assembly members should be improved prior to any revision of law, and those who think that their privileges should be limited immediately by a constitutional amendment.

The lawmakers from the Uri Party, which is the practical ruling party, showed a positive attitude about limitation of privileges, while those from the Grand National Party (GNP) were relatively passive.

Seventeen lawmakers from the Uri Party out of one hundred agreed with the limitation of the privilege of speech, and sixteen of the seventeen agreed with the limitation of non-apprehension privileges.

Meanwhile, of 57 lawmakers from the GNP, 26 and 31 agreed with limitation of non-apprehension privileges and the privilege of speech, respectively.

Of 26 lawmakers from the Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) 21 and 19 agreed with non-apprehension privileges and the privilege of speech, respectively.

In regard with the measure to limit non-apprehension privileges, 45 out of 100 proposed limitations of the non-apprehension privilege in cases of personal illegal conduct or taking bribes. Meanwhile, 15 insisted that the non-apprehension privilege should not be applied to illegal conduct unrelated to national administration.