Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SOUTH KOREA: Defamation against an activist by intelligence agency

SOUTH KOREA: Defamation against an activist by intelligence agency

October 9, 2009

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-134-2009



9 October 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH KOREA: Defamation against an activist by intelligence agency

ISSUES: Freedom of opinion and expression; defamation
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that on September 14, 2009 the National Intelligence Service (NIS) sued Mr. Park Won-Soon, a human rights lawyer and civil activist, for civil defamation requesting a huge amount of money in damages. The AHRC is concerned that defamation will be used by public authorities against activists in future to discourage criticism leaving the door open for the illegal activities of government institutions without proper investigations, which in turn will eventually result in restricting freedom of opinion and expression.

CASE DETAILS:

Mr. Park Won-Soon, a human rights lawyer and civil activist has been working for a non-government organisation (NGO) recognised as a social enterprise by the government in 2007. He was awarded the Magsaysay Award for public work in the Philippines in 2006. He is currently an executive director of a NGO called, "The Hope Institute".

According to the information received, Mr. Park alleged that the National Intelligence Service (NIS) had carried out surveillance and inspections in violation of the National Intelligence Service Act while Mr. Park was doing interview with a weekly magazine, Weekly Kyunghyang on June 10 2009.

The NIS, in response to Mr. Park's comments made during this interview, sued him for civil defamation on September 14. In the statement, the NIS stated, "(the) NIS has been accused of carrying out inspections which is an abuse of its authority due to Mr. Park's false remarks". The NIS claimed that he must pay KRW 200 million (around USD 170,000) in damages.

However, there has been no investigation into these allegations raised by Mr. Park but instead he now faces a defamation suit by the NIS.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

After the case was filed, Mr. Park held a press conference on September 17 and provided details of the allegations of the illegal operation by the NIS. They are as follows:

1. Local public relations centre: The Ministry of Public Administration and Security and the Hope Institute were under a three years bona fide contract, however, the agreement was terminated in a year due to budget cuts. At the meeting of the board members held after the termination of the contract, upon closer examination of the termination of the contract and approved budget plans, the amount assigned for the following year appeared to be greater than the amount for the current year. After attempting to find out through various channels, including attempting to ask the director and vice-minister of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, and even the secretarial office of Cheongwadae (the Korean presidential residence) as to why such was the case, the response received was that due to the fact that the decision was made at senior levels, they were not aware of the details.

2. Hana Hope Foundation: The government (The Ministry of Strategy and Finance & the Financial Services Commission) and Hana Bank were, with the cooperation of the Hope Institute in the midst of preparing funding support for small sized companies, and Hana Bank decided to fold the business of the Hope Institute. A few days later, it was announced that this business would be operated with Donga-Ilbo, a newspaper. Around two months later, senior officers from Hana Bank claimed that NIS officers started to intervene, and cooperation with the Hope Institute officers broke down. Mr. Park also heard this news via alternate avenues, and it became known that the NIS had indeed played a significant role in the intervention.

3. Details of the investigative inspection concerning Mr. Park and his associates:

a) One director of a foundation reportedly told Mr. Park that "investigators from the NIS were relentlessly questioning him for detailed information."

b) Mr. Park heard from a person associated with a foundation that the NIS contacted the foundation registered under his name and asked about his salary, his role etc. at the organisation.

c) The NIS officers enquired into the activities of Mr. Park outside the scope of his official work.

4. A series of illegal inquiries by the NIS about Beautiful Store which is a social enterprise working for vulnerable groups that Mr. Park used to work with:

1) A branch of Beautiful Coffee Shop at a University: On April 2009, two days after the opening of the coffee shop at the University, NIS officers came to the general office of the University and asked as to why the university was supporting Beautiful Store. In particular, they inquired more about why the university supported the Beautiful Store providing money to a leftist group and whose staff were former student activists.

2) A bank supporting the Beautiful Store as a social activity: During June of 2009, an individual claiming to be part of the NIS contacted a representative at the Bank and asked "what kind of relations do you share with Beautiful Store for you to provide such a hefty sum of money over a long period of time?"

3) Mutual event in Gyeonggi province for lifetime educational centre: In May 2009, a spectator at a charity event meeting claimed that he "received a call from the NIS, and asked to refrain from proceeding with Beautiful Store's festivals."

In addition, Mr. Pak also alleged that progressive organisations were taken off the government's list of supported organisations, and the NIS pressurised senior executives of a company to withdraw membership from it and further demanded key public institutions not to engage in work with lawyers from MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society. With these examples, he further alleged that the NIS has systematically been involved in carrying out inspections.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please send a letter to the government authorities listed below, asking them to ensure the withdrawal of legal action against Mr. Park and for an investigation into the allegations of illegal activities of the NIS.

Please be informed that the AHRC has also sent a letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression calling for intervention in this matter.

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear _________,

SOUTH KOREA: Please immediately drop defamation case against Mr. Park Won-Soon and investigate the allegations of illegal activities of the NIS

Name of accused: Mr. Park Won-Soon (54 years old), a lawyer, executive director of a permanent committee of the Hope Institute, non-governmental organisation
Plaintiff: Republic of Korea by way of National Intelligence Service (NIS)
Date & Case: 12 September, 2009; civil defamation

I am shocked to hear that the National Intelligence Service (NIS) on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Korea has sued Mr. Park Won-Soon for civil defamation on 12 September 2009 based on the remarks he made during an interview in a weekly magazine.

According to the information received, during the interview, Mr. Park alleged some examples of the NIS conducting inspections of private personnel and organisations in violation of the NIS Act. After the defamation case was filed, he held a press conference and offered more examples how systematically the NIS has been involved in illegal activities.

With regards to Mr. Park's case, I strongly oppose the defamation case against any citizen in the territory by any government institution. Whereas it is the first case ever that a government institution has sued an individual for defamation in the Republic of Korea, a question still remains as to whether the government can be a plaintiff as a legal subject in this case. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Commission on Human Rights, the former Human Rights Council as well as Human Rights Committee and special procedures have already called for the abolition of the offence of "defamation of the State" since 1999. A number of courts such as, in India, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States and Zimbabwe have also refused to allow public authorities to sue for defamation. Defamation lawsuits have been used in countries with bad human rights records.

The allegations raised by Mr. Park include the termination after a year of three-year bona fide contract with the Ministry of Public Administration and Security due to a decision made by a higher authority; NIS's illegal intervention to pressurise a bank to stop a project that was supposed to work with the Hope Institute; NIS's illegal inquiry about him through his associates such as his salary, his role and other activities; NIS's illegal investigation into a university supporting 'Beautiful Store' that Mr. Park used to work with; NIS's illegal inquiry about a relationship between a banker having supported and Mr. Park; NIS's illegal pressure on an organiser of a charity event to refrain from proceeding with Beautiful Store's festivals; NIS's illegal pressure on a senior executives of a company to withdraw membership from Mr. Park's organisation, and; NIS's illegal pressure on key public institutions not to engage in work with lawyers from MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society.

I urge you to immediately investigate allegations that the NIS agents have indeed inspected him and his friends in violation of article 3 of the National Intelligence Service Act.

I also urge you to immediately drop the defamation case against Mr. Park and investigate as to whether the agents of the NIS have acted illegally so that those involved are properly prosecuted and punished in accordance with law. If the case goes on, it will only demonstrate to the international community that the limitation of the freedom of opinion and expression in South Korea is getting worse, and how the existing law has been arbitrarily used to attack individuals and organizations despite the fact that the law and order has been reemphasized by the President himself. 

I further take this opportunity to remind you of the need for a thorough and impartial investigation into the allegations of illegal inspection and surveillance by several information agencies including the NIS and Defense Security Command, which have reportedly increased.

Yours sincerely,

----
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Lee Myeng-Bak
President
1 Sejong-no, Jongno-gu
Seoul, 110-820
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Fax: +82 2 770 4751
Tel: +82 2 770 0018
E-mail: foreign@president.go.kr or president@cwd.go.kr or president@president.go.kr

2. Mr. Lee Gui-nam
Minister of Justice
88 Gwanmon-ro, Gwachon-si
Gyonggi Province 427-760
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Tel: +82 2 503 7023
Fax: +82 2 2110 3079 / 503 7046
E-mail: webmaster@moj.go.kr 

3. Mr. Kim Joon-gyu
Prosecutor General
Supreme Prosecutor's Office
1730-1, Seocho3-dong
Seocho-gu, Seoul
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Fax: +82 2 3480 2555
Tel: +82 2 3480 2000

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-134-2009
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.