The National Assembly on Monday sent the National Assembly Law revision bill to President Park Geun-hye after making a change mediated by National Assembly Speaker Chung Ui-hwa.
When the parliament passed the bill, which allows the legislative body to “demand” changes to government ordinances, Park said in no uncertain terms that she would veto the bill if it ever came to her. Citing the potential to wreak havoc in government and its unconstitutionality ― Park insists that the revision would result in the legislative branch encroaching on the executive branch in breach of the principle of separation of powers ― Park has continued to resist the bill since it was passed at the end of May, along with the much sought-after civil service pension reform bill.
The compromise bill brokered by Chung replaces the word “demand” with “request.” The revised wording says the parliament could “request” a revision of government ordinances, instead of “demand” revisions. The word “request” removes any question of the constitutionality of the National Assembly Law revision bill, according to Chung.
Park has until June 30 to deliberate on the issue, either signing it into law or exercising her presidential veto and sending it back to the National Assembly for reconsideration. The ball is in her court.
A Blue House official speaking with reporters said that there was only a change of one single word in the compromise bill and, based on that, there is no change in Cheong Wa Dae’s position. It seems that Park is still adamant that the bill is unconstitutional.
Despite her loud objections to the bill, Park should carefully consider the consequences of vetoing it. If the bill is sent back to the parliament, the bill could either be abandoned or put to another vote by National Assembly Speaker Chung. It would be a huge slap in the face to Chung, who produced the compromise bill and managed to get both the ruling and opposition parties to agree to it.
Park’s veto will severely damage her ties not only with the opposition but with the ruling Saenuri Party as well, as the bill was passed with a majority vote. Her veto would also exacerbate the factionalism within the Saenuri Party by pitting the pro-Park legislators against those outside the pro-Park faction. In fact, the parliament will be forced to backtrack on the recent spirit of negotiation and compromise, a sign of mature parliamentary democracy.
Park, in the grand spirit of compromise, should consider signing the bill. She may have her reservations about the constitutionality of the bill, but that should be left up to the Constitutional Court to decide, if it should come to that. Park should think hard about whether the political storm that is sure to follow her veto is in the national interest at a time when there are many other urgent matters, such as the Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak and the sagging economy, that require the government’s close and undivided attention.
