21st generation, if this continues, pension reform will be achieved | Seoul Newspaper

‘Pay more, receive more’ chosen by the public deliberation committee
與 “reform” 野 “promote”… There is no party line
It is unclear whether an agreement will be reached within the remaining month of the term.
If you go beyond the 22nd generation, we have to discuss it from the beginning.

The ‘time for the National Assembly’ has come as the public deliberation committee under the National Assembly’s Special Committee on Pension Reform (Pension Special Committee) has selected the ‘pay more and receive more’ income guarantee pension reform plan, but the two major political parties have taken political action before even starting the discussion, saying, ‘If it fails, it will be your fault.’ There is a battle going on. There is about a month left in the term of the 21st National Assembly, but the two parties have not even decided on a specific party platform. When we move to the 22nd National Assembly, we will have to start from scratch again. Criticism is growing that the old practice of no one making decisions and no one taking responsibility could be repeated.

Rep. Yoo Gyeong-jun of the People Power Party, secretary of the ruling party on the National Assembly’s Pension Special Committee, said in an interview with the Seoul Shinmun on the 24th, “The national pension is not public assistance like the basic pension operated with taxes, but social insurance,” and “The basics of insurance are borne by the beneficiary, but the public opinion committee “The first plan decided by the government is a deterioration that will worsen the fiscal balance,” he said.

Kim Seong-ju, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea and a member of the opposition party, said, “The original purpose of the pension system is to guarantee the retirement of hard-working people,” and added, “In the Public Opinion Committee, at first, there were many responses that financial stability was more important than income security, but after learning, this was overturned. “Now it is the National Assembly’s turn to receive it.”

The Public Debate Committee chose an income guarantee plan that changes from the existing ‘9% insurance premium rate, 40% income replacement rate’ to ‘13% insurance premium rate, 50% income replacement rate’, but it is not mandatory. However, it is possible if the Democratic Party that supports this unilaterally creates an agreement and pushes through it. Currently, among the 13 pension special committee members, the pan-opposition party (6 from the Democratic Party, 1 from the Green Justice Party) meets the quorum (7) for voting. Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party, said at the Supreme Council meeting that day, “The ruling party must speed up the discussion so that it can be concluded in the 21st National Assembly.”

However, the opposition party is also negative about ratifying the party line or handling it independently in a special committee due to political burden. A party official said, “Once the Public Opinion Committee’s investigation results come out, the basic process is to respect them and legislate them,” and added, “If it is not passed, the responsibility lies with the People Power Party.”

The ruling party agrees in principle with the pension reform, one of the three major reforms (pension, education, and labor) of the Yoon Seok-yeol government, but expressed rejection of the public deliberation committee’s income guarantee plan. An official in the National Assembly said, “Pension reform requires sufficient deliberation, but is it right to rush through it with only a month left? “If it was such an urgent issue, it should have been properly discussed from when the government bill was released last year,” he said. He continued, “It is doubtful whether the fact that the Democratic Party has now come out in favor of pension reform is in order to deal with other controversial bills.”

Legislation on which the ruling and opposition parties are sharply opposed must be resolved through agreement between the leaders of both parties. Chairman Kim Jin-pyo also reportedly requested that “the floor leaders of both parties discuss (on pension reform)” at a meeting between People Power Party floor leader Yoon Jae-ok and Democratic Party floor leader Hong Ik-pyo the day before. However, pension reform is not a priority for the two major parties in the midst of a ‘last-minute political fight’.

In fact, even if the Pension Special Committee creates and passes a pension reform bill, it must pass the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and go to the plenary session, but even the opening of the extraordinary National Assembly in May is unclear. The Democratic Party’s position is that plenary sessions should be held on May 2 and 28 to handle the ‘Special Prosecutor’s Office Act on Corporal Chae’, the new Grain Management Act, and the Act on Treating Persons of Democratic Merit, which were directly referred to it by the standing committee. The People Power Party is countering that the plenary session itself cannot be held if controversial bills on which the ruling and opposition parties do not agree are passed. An official from the People Power Party said, “We can hold an extraordinary National Assembly if only the people’s livelihood bills, such as pension reform, are passed, excluding bills on which the ruling and opposition parties have different opinions, such as the Corporal Chae Special Prosecutor Act.”

The pension reform, which has been in vain for the past two years, is currently likely to be passed on to the 22nd National Assembly. In this case, the composition of the special pension committee must be reorganized, and the special committee may not be created. In addition, among the 13 members of the Pension Special Committee, only 6, including Chairman Joo Ho-young, survived, and the remaining members were defeated or disappointed, which may act as an obstacle to discussion.

Although the Yoon Seok-yeol government presented pension reform as a key task among the three major reforms, both the government and the National Assembly were reluctant to take the lead on unpopular reform tasks ahead of the general election. The Ministry of Health and Welfare, the responsible ministry, announced the ‘National Pension Comprehensive Operation Plan’ (government plan for pension reform) in October last year, but it was criticized as being too much. There were no key elements of parameter reform, such as adjustments to insurance premium rates and income replacement rates. The pension special committee planned to come up with a pension reform plan by October last year, but failed to meet the deadline. Previously, the private advisory committee composed of experts had been focusing on parameter reform, but upon receiving a request from the Pension Special Committee, they turned to structural reform, including integrating the four major pensions (citizens, civil servants, military, and private school pensions). There is criticism that there is no law preventing the same situation from recurring in the 22nd National Assembly.

Reporters Lee Min-young and Kim Joo-hwan

2024-04-25 Page 1