[Column] The Conflict Between the Ruling Party and Government Triggered by Loss Compensation

[Asia Economy Reporter Jang Sehee] The conflict between the ruling party and the government over the recipients of the 4th disaster relief fund shows no signs of abating. While the ruling party emphasizes that sufficient support should be provided not only to vulnerable groups but to the entire population, the financial authorities have opposed this, saying it is difficult to consider everyone. Eventually, within the Democratic Party, there is pressure for the resignation of the head of the authorities, with statements such as "Those who ignore the people's blood and tears have no right to be the stewards of the treasury."

The starting point of the conflict was the loss compensation system. Initially, the loss compensation system was proposed to help small business owners and self-employed individuals who suffered significant revenue declines due to government quarantine measures. However, no country has legally stipulated compensation for individual damages caused by state measures. Defining and setting standards for compensation by the ruling party and government is inevitably like ‘heading into the unknown.’ After conflicts surfaced with remarks like "The treasury is not a bottomless pit" and "Is this the Ministry of Strategy and Finance’s country?", the issue was deprioritized. With emotions running high on both sides, the ruling party presented the 4th disaster relief fund as an immediately usable option.

The problem is that the loss compensation system has only triggered conflicts, and it remains uncertain whether actual compensation will be made. The proposition of ‘providing compensation’ sounds grand, but countless obstacles can arise during the process of establishing the framework. Even if compensation is stipulated in law, there is a view within the ruling party and government that the enforcement decree to be prepared later will inevitably reflect ‘support’ instead. Ultimately, this has only created unnecessary conflict between the ruling party and government.

There is also no visible effort to reduce the conflict. Although senior officials from the ruling party, government, and Blue House have clashed to the point of heated arguments, no one is stepping forward first. Even the Blue House, which could play a coordinating role, is watching from the sidelines, saying, "If disagreements over the disaster relief fund persist until the end, it will be a serious problem."

Timing is crucial in policy decisions. It is best to resolve conflicts as soon as possible. If conflicts are escalated to produce a dramatic agreement for the upcoming April by-election, it may backfire. What the ruling party and government need to demonstrate is responsibility and trust.