[ad_1]
Ho-Young Joo, the House Representative’s National Power, speaks at a sentencing contest that was held on the steps of Rotender Hall in the main office after the revised Bill of the House Bill was passed. Development of South-North Relations in the plenary session of the National Assembly on the 14th. News 1
After the introduction of the Law for the Promotion of the National Assembly in 2012, the re-institutionalized obstructionism (unlimited debate) appeared in the 21st ordinary assembly. It is a card that draws power from the people, the first opposition party with 103 seats, against the giant 174-seat ruling party. Obstructionism is a means by which the minority party can dissuade you within the framework of the law when the majority party pushes the bill using the numerical domain. Expectations arose in this ordinary assembly, when the number of seats among the opposition parties was increased. However, when I opened the lid, I couldn’t help criticizing that the meaning and purpose of the original had faded. Why did he do it?
① Ignoring the purpose of ‘expressing the opinions of minority political parties’ and forced dismissal
On the night of the 14th, members of the People’s Power left with a vote to end the obstructionism in the main hall of the National Assembly. News 1
The filibuster, which was reintroduced in 2012, has been the subject of much attention during the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2016. The Democratic Party, which was the opposition party at the time, used the Phillybuster to criticize the issue of the anti-terrorism law promoted by the ruling party, the Saenuri Party (now the people’s power). Although he was unable to stop the bill, it was an opportunity to sympathize with why Philibuster is a necessary system for minority opposition parties in the democratic system.
In 2016, in the filibuster, the ruling party watched him until the opposition Democratic Party, which was then the opposition party, was over. However, the Democratic Party, which became the ruling party in the regular National Assembly this year, did not see it. The situation has changed as the Democratic Party, which has an overwhelming number of seats, removes a provision for forced dismissal. The 174-seat Democratic Party persuaded the pan-passport-oriented minority party and independent lawmakers to forcibly end obstructionism in the plenary session on 13-14 and handled the bill it wanted. The opposition party’s claim that “the ultimate criterion of ‘consent of more than three-fifths of current members of legislators’ guarantees the right to speak as much as possible” is close to the purpose of the obstructionist rescission clause. but the ruling party has obscured it.
The filibuster B’Bitfire ‘, deviates from the basic values of democracy
On the 14th, in the main assembly hall of the National Assembly, Lee Jae-jeong and the member of the Democratic Party Lee Jae-jung held an unlimited discussion (Filibuster) on some amendments to the North-North War Prohibition Law. on the development of inter-Korean relations. , Ho-young Joo, the representative of the People’s Power, is arguing. Newsis
The fact that the majority ruling party actively debated in favor of and diluted the opposition of the minority opposition party was different than in 2016. The Democratic Party has already been responding to the opposition party with a counter-action strategy since the obstruction of the Act. of Criminal Investigations of High Level Officers last year. Participation in the discussion itself may not be a problem, but it seems difficult to avoid criticism that it goes against the purpose of the introduction. In fact, this atmosphere was detected at the end of the obstructionist amendment to the South-North Relations Development Act on the 14th. Although the power of the people predicted Ho-young Joo as the last debate, Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Jae -jeong, the debater just before, continued to speak until the closing vote, limiting the right to speak on behalf of the ‘minority opposition’. The time allotted to the hospital’s chief representative, who prepared a three-hour speech, was only 26 minutes. In response, Shinyul, professor of political science and diplomacy at Myongji University, said on the 15th: “It is contrary to the basic values of democracy for the ruling party to use obstructionism, which is a legitimate means of opposing the big party. ruler, for political purposes “.
③ The controversy over false arguments, regardless of the facts, has faded into the sense of obstructionism
Representative Lee Chul-gyu is holding an unlimited debate on the full revision of the National Intelligence Service Law in a plenary session of the National Assembly on the 10th. Newsis
Regardless of the opposition parties, the continuing controversy of false statements is also seen as a factor that dispelled the meaning of the filibuster. On the 10th, Congressman Lee Chul-gyu, who took over the first corridor of the airlift law filibuster, used the expression “ children ” to become embroiled in a controversy about “ discrediting women. ” The next day, the 11th, Democratic Party lawmaker Hong Ik-pyo raised the controversy with a comment: “I wish Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae would disband the legal journalists.” Even after that, ruling and opposition lawmakers went back and forth, climbing onto the cutting board with problematic comments. Park Sang-hoon, director of the Political Power Plant, advised: “If a large number of people can do something, it is like running the country with the administration alone without a parliament.” If obstructionism is the “last bastion” of the minority party within the limits of the law, the “purpose” itself must be consistently respected.
Park jinman reporter [email protected]
Subscribe to the Hankook Ilbo News Naver channel
Balance to see the world, the Hankook Ilbo Copyright © Hankookilbo
[ad_2]
