[Hopes for the 22nd National Assembly] 21st Assembly Members Speak on "How the 22nd National Assembly Should Change"

① Subcommittee Review Time Should Be Reflected in Lawmaker Evaluations
② Workshops in Standing Committees and Other Platforms Should Be Activated for Ruling and Opposition Party Exchanges
③ Principles Such as First-In-First-Out Should Be Respected in Bill Reviews

The 22nd National Assembly must be different from the 21st National Assembly. Politicians leaving the National Assembly after the 21st term should engage in dialogue rather than extreme confrontation regarding the 22nd National Assembly. The quality of legislative review must be further improved, and both ruling and opposition parties should actively participate in dialogues to seek consensus.

1. Reflect the time spent in subcommittees in the evaluation of lawmakers

On the 29th, the last day of the 21st National Assembly's term, a banner congratulating the opening of the 22nd National Assembly is hung at the main building of the National Assembly. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

Many lawmakers who completed their terms in the 21st National Assembly pointed out issues with the quality of legislation. They noted that there are many rushed bills due to an obsession with the number of bills proposed. More seriously, the National Assembly’s bill review subcommittees, which are supposed to filter out rushed bills, are not functioning properly. Unlike plenary sessions or standing committees, subcommittee meetings are held behind closed doors, leading to frequent cases where members briefly attend and then leave or do not attend at all. Although the current National Assembly Act requires subcommittees to meet at least three times a month, no standing committee in the 21st National Assembly complied with this. Moreover, unlike standing committees, attendance at subcommittees is not disclosed through National Assembly public relations or other channels.

Currently, political parties incorporate quantitative indicators such as the number of bills proposed, plenary session attendance rates, and standing committee activities into the evaluation of lawmakers, which affects candidate nominations. This is why a record number of bills are proposed. If participation in the bill review process, especially in subcommittees, were reflected in evaluations instead of just the number of bills proposed, bill reviews would become more rigorous, deepening the quality of legislative review and filtering out many problems. This could also lead to more frequent subcommittee meetings. A former lawmaker said, "The focus of legislative activities should now shift to bill review."

2. We must return to a National Assembly with evenings

Political veterans who observed the 21st National Assembly expressed concern over the extreme confrontations where ruling and opposition lawmakers did not even share meals together. Hwang Woo-yeo, a political elder and emergency committee chairman of the People Power Party, frequently mentioned the idea of ‘politics with evenings.’ Even if the ruling and opposition parties argue during the day, they should be able to have dinner together at night and talk openly.

Within political circles, it is pointed out that the flow of dialogue between ruling and opposition parties was cut off due to the COVID-19 situation, which prohibited private gatherings. However, more fundamentally, the deepening polarization between the parties has played a major role. Several former lawmakers shared, "In the past, when we went to local government audits, we used to eat together, but now we eat separately."

Political circles have proposed solutions such as standing committee workshops, female lawmakers’ retreats, and activating bipartisan research groups on policy agendas to enable dialogue between ruling and opposition lawmakers. They emphasize the need to open channels for frank and sincere conversations between the parties.

3. The principle of first-in, first-out and other scheduling rules must be observed.

Although the so-called first-in, first-out principle, where bills submitted earlier are reviewed first, is mentioned in the National Assembly, the actual operation differs shortly after. Because the bills to be reviewed are decided through agreements between standing committee secretaries, getting a bill reviewed itself becomes a kind of ‘privilege.’ Only some bills among many are reviewed.

Moreover, because the principle of reviewing bills in the order they were submitted is not established, many bills are referred to standing committees but remain waiting indefinitely for review. If the first-in, first-out principle were strictly observed with tension, even the bill review process?which recorded the lowest processing rate in history at 36.7% (processed bills ÷ bills proposed)?could be conducted more thoroughly.

A former first-term lawmaker said, "If the first-in, first-out principle is observed, at least the opportunity to discuss the bills will be secured."