The main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy this week proposed a bill requiring government approval to send propaganda leaflets to North Korea.

Under the revision to the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act submitted to parliament, leaflets and any printed materials would be added to the list of items that can be sent across the border only after getting the green light from the unification minister. It would also oblige the minister to put a ban on sending items that might undermine inter-Korean exchange and cooperation.

The liberal opposition party has argued that the measure is needed to help improve ties between the two Koreas and protect residents in border areas from possible retaliatory actions by Pyongyang. Its proposal, however, misses the bigger picture and lacks fundamental considerations.

Pyongyang has reacted sensitively to the leaflets sent by conservative activists and North Korean defectors here, who sharply criticize the oppressive regime’s harsh rule and human rights abuses. Last month, North Korean frontline troops fired antiaircraft machine guns at balloons carrying anti-Pyongyang leaflets floated from a site south of the inter-Korean border.

The North aborted a high-level meeting with the South, which was scheduled to be held in early November at the latest, finding fault with Seoul’s failure to block activists from sending leaflets.

While Seoul has said it has no legal grounds for preventing such activities, NPAD lawmakers say the revision would give the government a regulatory tool.

Activists and defectors might have provoked the North unnecessarily by sending balloons with leaflets in a conspicuous manner ― in front of a throng of reporters on designated days. But placing a blanket ban on their leaflet campaign would go too far. If appealed, the measure might be ruled as an attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution of South Korea.

At a news conference in Seoul last week, a group of North Korean defectors said they would send leaflets in a discreet way if the North refrained from making provocative acts. Days later, they floated balloons with leaflets criticizing Pyongyang’s hereditary dictatorship without giving prior notice, as they had pledged. It is necessary to maintain this low-key approach if the purpose of the leaflet campaign is to let North Korean residents know the truth, not to draw public attention here.

As some critics note, it may be too naive to expect the leaflets to encourage ordinary North Koreans to stand up against the oppressive regime. But it is unreasonable to ignore defectors’ belief that the flier messages will affect their uninformed former neighbors in some form.

If anything, opposition lawmakers may be too naive if they believe the revision could lead to a thaw in inter-Korean relations and induce the North to engage more actively in talks with the South. Meaningful reconciliation and cooperation with Pyongyang is possible only when it realizes that its adherence to nuclear weapons programs is incompatible with its attempt to end its international isolation and internal hardship.

The opposition party should adopt a more balanced stance on the North by joining efforts to improve the dire human rights situation in the communist state. The prevalent public sentiment here is that the party should have dropped its objection to a North Korean human rights bill, the passage of which opposition lawmakers have blocked since 2005, before moving to ban the leaflet campaign.

Their call for cautiousness in addressing the issue is irrelevant as Pyongyang has shown signs of changing its recalcitrant attitude after facing the possibility of a U.N. committee adopting a resolution calling for referring its officials to the International Criminal Court for human rights violations.