Key Activities E. ‌Opinion to Guarantee Foreign Prisoners’ Right to Communicate with the Outside World On October 17, the Commission expressed an opinion to the Minister of Justice that it would be desirable to examine foreign prisoners’ exercise of right to communicate with the outside world and propose specific ways to give them more access to phones as getting family visits is practically difficult. Communicating with families and friends is a basic human desire. Especially for prisoners who are cut off from the society, keeping in touch with families not only gives them a sense of assurance but also bridges them to the outside world. Families can also be a safe mechanism against unjustified treatments in the facility and a channel through which prisoners can call for legal assistance. However, most foreign prisoners do not have their families in Korea. And because family visit is practically impossible due to the geographical separation, they can only rely on phone communication to reach their families. As of August 31, 2019, there were a total of 55,110 prisoners, of which 2,310 were foreigners (approximately 4.2%). The size of the foreign inmate population, which reflects the multi-cultural aspect of the society, is expected to increase. The Commission concluded that foreign prisoners should be given better treatment in terms of phone use considering the unique circumstances they face. F. ‌Opinion Regarding Politician Statements that are Disparaging against Persons with Disabilities On November 25, the Commission urged the Chairman of the National Assembly to warn its members against the use of statements or expressions that are disparaging and/or discriminatory of persons with disabilities, and to come up with a plan to prevent such statements in the future. A petition was filed with the Commission that, in December 2018, the leader of a political party disparaged persons with disabilities by saying “when you hear politicians talk, there are so many mentally ill politicians who say things that are not normal” and “some are even worse than persons with physical disabilities.” The Commission dismissed the petition on the ground that the case did not meet the criteria for an investigation under the NHRCK Act because no 44