The ridicule and degradation of the candidates for Pusan National University (PNU) General Students’ Association (GSA) election is going too far. It has been pointed out that it is inappropriate to have a lot of controversy irrelevant to the election, such as military service status or attending campus. 

On November 9th, in PNU 56th GSA election, Election Campaign Headquarters (ECH) No.1, “Da-one,” and No.2, “PNew,” cast their votes. A heated debate has erupted on the PNU online anonymous community, “Everytime,” regarding the qualifications of the candidates in the PNU GSA election, which took place after a six-year hiatus. Students have been referring to No.1 Vice Presidential Candidate Han Seong-Ik (Dept. of Applied IT Engineering, 19), who belongs to the Miryang campus, is called “Mil-Cam”, No.2 Presidential Candidate Lee Chang-Jun (Dept. of Geological Sciences, 22), who has no military history, is called “Mi-pil.” This is a mockery of both candidates.

After the candidates registered, discussions on “Everytime,” have sparked widespread engagement, with debates surrounding the qualifications of both candidates. Topics such as “Why is Miryang University running for PNU GSA?,” “Impressive Match: Mi-pil vs. Mil-cam,” and “Won't there be issues if someone without military service experience becomes the GSA?” have gained considerable attention and generated numerous responses. In the comments, there was no mention of the candidates’ policy directions and commitments, such as “Do not pick up a College of Social Sciences,” “What is a College of Natural Sciences,” and “Is the activist group included?”. Since November 16th, as the election campaign progressed, the frequency of posts discussing these topics increased, and the intensity of personal attacks and criticisms towards the candidates escalated. 

There are also reactions that resonate with such debates. In community posts, the number of endorsements consistently exceeds dozens, and comments are filled with speculative condemnations mixed with discussions about both candidates. There was no information anywhere that would actually help voters. When a good evaluation of a candidate comes out, criticism and slander comments about the candidate run in just a few seconds. The situation is characterized by a mixture of indiscriminate derogatory remarks or actions towards the candidate, referred to as “black propaganda” and malicious disclosures about the candidate, known as “negative campaign.” PNU Student A (Dept. of Oceanography, 22) said, “With two candidates in the running, it seems like unnecessary conflicts are being stirred up over trivial matters. Most students are likely not interested in such malicious content.”

Of course, not everyone agrees. In response to posts questioning how a candidate from the Miryang campus can become the GSA, there are replies asking, “Why shouldn’t they?” In cases where the candidate’s military service history is criticized, there are responses urging constructive discussions, such as “Even if he hasn't served in the military, it does not mean that he is not qualified.” But it could not stop all the slander and ridicule of each candidate. Son Young-Gi (Dept. of Applied IT Engineering, 21) said, “Both candidates seem to have prepared various policies for communication and development of the campus. It is regrettable that the constructive future presented by the candidates is not conveyed because of the controversy over their qualifications.”

The reason why the GSA election flow is shifting to negative campaigns and black propaganda is attributed to the reflection of established politics and the absence of student autonomy, due to COVID-19. Students imitated the black propaganda of established political circles, and furthermore, COVID-19 pandemic created a gap in student autonomy, preventing the delivery of democratic student autonomy. Kim Jin-Young (Prof. of Political Science and Diplomacy, PNU) said, “The election should be like a feast where the GSA collects students’ voices and presents constructive measures and policies, rather than just competing. Voters should reflect on the progress of public opinion in the form of a negative campaign and create a self-purification mechanism to eliminate negative public opinions.”

Reporter Jo Seung-Wan

Translated by Lim Chae-Kyung