[Initial Reaction] National Assembly Hit Hard by Board of Audit and Inspection, Needs to Change Budget Review This Time

Board of Audit and Inspection Points Out National Assembly Budget Review
Issue with 'Sosowi' Reviews Not Being Recorded in Minutes
Fundamental Solution Requires Overhaul of National Assembly Budget Review Process

Recently, the National Assembly received an unexpected “blow” from the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI). The audit report on the “Status of National Treasury Subsidy Budgeting and Management,” released by the BAI on the 26th, laid bare the problems in the National Assembly’s budget review process. Although the nominal target of criticism was government ministries such as the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the actual focus of the scrutiny was the National Assembly. It is unusual for the BAI to criticize the National Assembly, which is not a government ministry.

The BAI pointed out issues such as the central government budget being allocated to projects that should have been transferred to local governments according to relevant laws, and criticized the budget review process for its lack of “transparency.” The particularly problematic point was the National Assembly’s “increase review”, which corresponds to the final stage of the budget review process.

Although this year was somewhat different, until now, the increase review was discussed in an informal committee called the “small subcommittee,” consisting of the chairperson of the National Assembly’s Budget and Accounts Special Committee, the ruling and opposition party floor leaders, and the Budget Office director of the Ministry of Economy and Finance. If no agreement was reached there, the budget was decided through negotiations in a 2+2 or 3+3 negotiation body involving the floor leaders of both parties. Once it entered this unofficial behind-the-scenes negotiation stage, there were no “minutes” to determine responsibility. As the budget was decided haphazardly amid the push and pull between the National Assembly and the government, projects in the constituencies of powerful ruling and opposition party lawmakers often became a kind of compromise. The BAI criticized the Ministry of Economy and Finance for not restraining the National Assembly through the increase consent authority granted to the executive branch by the Constitution. Furthermore, the BAI demanded that the increase review process, which was conducted in a haphazard manner, be made more transparent with proper procedures and that supporting documents be retained.

The BAI’s criticism is shaking the framework of the National Assembly’s budget review. Until now, the Budget and Accounts Committee has reviewed the budget with a small number of ruling and opposition party lawmakers as members of the Budget Adjustment Subcommittee, who are mainly selected by each party considering regional representation. Because of this, in the regions, subcommittee members were treated as “problem solvers” for regional budgets, but this year, regional-related complaint projects are not being addressed.

The Budget and Accounts Committee and the National Assembly have taken great offense at this series of events. They argue that the National Assembly, representing the people, tried to reflect public opinion in the budget, and that the BAI’s criticism was wrong. The mention of an “apology” from the BAI within the National Assembly is also influenced by this logic.

However, the National Assembly needs to reflect on the causes of this series of events. Every year during the budget review, the National Assembly has repeatedly been criticized for “blind review.” Despite the Budget and Accounts Committee rushing to review the budget every November, the reliance on informal negotiation bodies such as the small subcommittee is not only due to disagreements between the ruling and opposition parties but mainly because of a “lack of time” to process the budget through normal review methods. As a result, they have no choice but to rely on unofficial behind-the-scenes bargaining.

Those responsible for the budget review often shook their heads after the budget was processed, saying, “This method won’t work.” However, because the chairperson and floor leaders change every year, the same play was performed on the same stage with the same costumes but different actors. Reviewing nearly 9,000 projects in just over ten days is a problem beyond mere diligence. Park Jung, chairperson of the Budget and Accounts Committee (Democratic Party), said, “To review this vast amount, it would take one to two or three months,” and added, “The Budget and Accounts Committee should be open all year round so that reviews can be conducted as needed.” At this time, when the opaque budget review process is being halted, the National Assembly should not only protect its pride but also consider ways to renew the stage.