[News Terms] The Reintroduction of the 'Yanggok Management Act'

After President Yoon Suk-yeol exercised his right to request reconsideration (veto), the revised 'Grain Management Act (Amended Grain Act)' was rejected again in the National Assembly's reconsideration vote, and the Democratic Party of Korea has announced plans to reintroduce it after the opening of the 22nd National Assembly, sparking controversy.

On the 6th, Park Chan-dae, the floor leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, announced plans to reintroduce eight bills that President Yoon vetoed, including the '250,000 KRW per citizen livelihood recovery support fund' proposed by party leader Lee Jae-myung, the special prosecutor law for Kim Geon-hee, the three broadcasting laws, the Yellow Envelope Act, the Grain Management Act, and the Nursing Act, in the 22nd National Assembly.

Park Chan-dae, floor leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is speaking at the floor strategy meeting held at the National Assembly on the 7th.
[Photo by Kim Hyun-min]

On the same day, when asked on MBC radio about which bill would be introduced first after the opening of the 22nd National Assembly, Floor Leader Park said, "We may prioritize and reintroduce the eight bills, and if necessary, we could submit all the bills as a package." He also hinted that in the negotiations for the organization of the 22nd National Assembly, the Democratic Party could secure the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and the Steering Committee, and depending on the situation, consider taking all the chairmanships of standing committees.

The 'Grain Management Act' was enacted in 1950 to prevent overproduction of rice (grain) by the government and stabilize farmers' income by mandatorily purchasing rice. After the government purchases a certain amount of grain, if there is a shortage causing supply instability, the government releases grain to balance demand, price, distribution, and consumption.

The problem with the amended Grain Management Act lies in mandating the government's 'unconditional intervention.' In the past, the government purchased grain exceeding demand based on situational judgment, but the amended act requires the government to intervene unconditionally to stabilize rice prices. If grain prices plummet or soar for farmers' welfare, the government is obligated to purchase the excess production of grain or compulsorily establish and implement measures to sell the grain under government management.

The opposition party argues that the amended Grain Management Act aligns with the background of introducing the Grain Management Act as it guarantees farmers' income and right to livelihood, and it is a law that protects the health of all citizens who rely on rice as a staple food. They also claim that since the international agricultural market is unstable and reliant on imports, it can address food security.

On the other hand, the ruling party opposing the amended Grain Management Act counters that purchasing excess rice production encourages overproduction, which could lead to a long-term decline in rice prices, that excessive funds for grain purchase could be diverted from investments in future agriculture, and that it could impose a serious burden on national finances.