[Reporter’s Notebook] Grain Act Controversy Flares Up Again... Will Plenary Passage and Veto Be Repeated?

The controversy over the amendment to the Grain Management Act has flared up again. There is a high possibility that the case of the opposition party passing the bill alone and the president exercising the veto power will be repeated in the 22nd National Assembly. Including the case where the bill failed to be submitted at the last plenary session of the 21st National Assembly in May this year, similar situations have been repeated three times under the current administration.

The main point of the Grain Act amendment is to make it mandatory for the government to purchase surplus rice. This amendment also adds the introduction of the 'Grain Price Stabilization System,' which requires the government to pay the difference if the market price of grain falls below the average price. The government’s position is that the amendment will further entrench the structural oversupply of rice, continuously lowering rice prices and causing enormous fiscal burdens. It also expresses concern that it will block the transition to cultivating other crops instead of rice, thus failing to fundamentally resolve the oversupply of rice.

The government is concerned that the current Grain Act controversy is progressing faster than previous cases. On the 21st, the opposition party unilaterally approved four amendments, including the Grain Act, the Agricultural Security Act, and the Disaster Insurance and Disaster Countermeasures Act, at the National Assembly’s Agriculture, Forestry, Livestock, Food, and Maritime Affairs Committee. The government worries that after the Legislation and Judiciary Committee meeting on the 27th, the bill will be submitted to and passed by the plenary session. There is not much time left to block the bill’s passage in the plenary session.

Reflecting the tight schedule, Minister Song Mi-ryeong of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs made stronger remarks about the Grain Act amendment than before. On the 25th, standing before reporters at the Sejong Government Complex, Minister Song criticized the four bills as the 'Four Agricultural Ruin Laws' that destroy the future of agriculture, especially condemning the Disaster Insurance and Disaster Countermeasures amendments as being at a 'disaster level.' Earlier, Minister Song had faced strong criticism from the opposition party for using the term 'Agricultural Ruin Laws' at the Agriculture, Forestry, Livestock, Food and Maritime Affairs Committee meeting in July this year, but this time she evaluated the amendments as being at a 'disaster level' in addition to that expression.

Minister Song’s somewhat harsh expressions seem to reflect the judgment that there is 'virtually no time to persuade the opposition party' at present. A Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs official said, "Given the tight schedule with the Legislation and Judiciary Committee on the 27th and the plenary session on the 28th, it is realistically difficult to persuade the opposition party that pushed through the Grain Act. Instead, it seems the minister used expressions that allow people to feel the problems of the Grain Act amendment." Previously, in the 21st National Assembly, the opposition party directly submitted the Grain Act amendment to the plenary session. According to the National Assembly Act, if the Legislation and Judiciary Committee does not review a bill within 60 days, it can be directly submitted to the plenary session with the approval of three-fifths of the members of the relevant committee. However, this time, since the opposition party holds the chairmanship of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, rapid review is highly likely.

Minister Song plans to recommend exercising the veto power if the Grain Act amendment passes the plenary session again. For the ruling party and the government, the president’s veto exercise will leave only the opposition party with the stain of pushing through a reckless bill without bipartisan agreement. It is time to stop the exhausting political strife. Instead of repeating political conflicts, it is necessary to gather opinions through public hearings involving all stakeholders, including the opposition party, ruling party, government, academia, and farmers.