[Inside Chodong] Is the Ruling and Opposition Parties' Pension Reform Agreement a Deterioration or a Hope?

Calls for Reconsideration Surge Over Pension Reform Agreement on the 20th
A Valuable Consensus Achieved Amid Extreme Political Confrontation
Restoring Political Function Through Dialogue Must Open the Way Forward

There is strong backlash within the political sphere over the pension reform agreed upon by the ruling and opposition parties. Claims have even been made that it is a collusion exploiting future generations. Some politicians have raised their voices, saying that the government should exercise its right to request reconsideration (veto) regarding this agreement, which was discussed jointly by the government and both parties.

Is the pension reform bill passed by the National Assembly really just a collusion among the established political circles?

"This is the first time I have become the Speaker and signed an agreement together with both parties." On the 20th, after agreeing on pension reform, Speaker Woo Won-shik calmly expressed his thoughts on reaching the agreement, suppressing a smile that spread beyond his lips.

Since the 22nd National Assembly began, the ruling and opposition parties have shown extreme confrontations without being able to write a single joint statement on major decisions. Given the worst political crisis, finding a breakthrough in the difficult issue of pension reform inevitably stirred mixed emotions.

Since the emergency martial law on December 3, the political scene has been chaotic. The extreme confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties over the presidential impeachment was even described as a political civil war. In this crisis, it was unexpected that the political circles resolved the pension issue, which was considered a difficult problem likened to "putting an elephant into a refrigerator." It is the first revision of the pension system in 18 years, and if measured by the increase in insurance premium rates corresponding to the contributions, it is the first in 27 years.

The National Pension Act requires the government to establish a plan regarding the overall operation of the national pension every five years and report it to the National Assembly. In a presidential system with a single five-year term, the intention is for each government to analyze the situation to ensure the pension's sustainability and to responsibly promote reform. The failure of past governments to reform is closely related to the nature of the issue, which is politically disadvantageous no matter how it is reformed. There is no fundamental way to reform other than raising insurance premium rates, which increase the money deducted from salaried workers and self-employed incomes, or cutting promised pensions. Reforms that lighten the public’s wallet are hardly welcomed.

Despite the countless reasons why reform is difficult, the breakthrough this time was possible because of the political circles’ sense of duty and the operation of the existing political grammar of dialogue. Kwon Seong-dong, floor leader of the People Power Party, said to reporters after the pension reform, "I judged with the creed that if it is something that helps the people even a little, we must make a decision despite criticism." Joo Ho-young, deputy speaker of the National Assembly from the People Power Party, unusually climbed up to the podium instead of the speaker’s seat to appeal for support for the pension reform.

Future structural reforms will be handled by the Special Committee on Pension Reform. The current reform has bought some time and finances through parametric reform. Now, the task is to solve issues such as intergenerational equity, social integration, and pension sustainability.

The call for a fundamental re-examination stems from concerns that after this parametric reform, the political circles might shelve the fundamental reform issues again. The proposal to nullify the matters already agreed upon by the government and political circles and start discussions anew seems irresponsible. It could be perceived as political division exploiting intergenerational interests. A more genuine way to take responsibility is to use political grammar to draw out a resolution for the next structural reform.

This pension reform agreement has confirmed the possibilities of politics. Taking the first step is always difficult. That difficult first step has been taken. If we continue to move forward step by step without losing focus or giving up, both pension reform and the recovery of politics can find hope.