Lee In-young: "Not a 'Meoktwi'... Very Regrettable" Internet Banking Act Likely to Move to 21st National Assembly

United Future Party to Attend Plenary Session on 6th Following Apology from Floor Leader Lee In-young
Both Parties Agree to "Handle in Next Session," but Difficult to Process in 20th National Assembly
Result Foreseen as 'Free Vote' Rather Than Party Line...Low Attendance from United Future Party Also a Factor

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporters Wondara and Jeon Jinyoung] The 'Internet Bank Act rejection incident' seems to be concluding with an official apology from Lee In-young, the floor leader of the Democratic Party of Korea. Although the United Future Party collectively left the plenary session, accusing the Democratic Party of breaking the bipartisan agreement, they have decided to participate in the plenary session that will handle the 'Tada Ban Act (Amendment to the Passenger Transport Service Act)' and other bills.

On the morning of the 6th, at the election countermeasures meeting held at the National Assembly, Floor Leader Lee said, "The amendment to the Internet Specialized Bank Act was rejected during the plenary session," adding, "Although the result was produced by each member's free conscience vote, I deeply apologize for the confusion caused during the plenary session."

He continued, "It is ultimately very regrettable that the bipartisan agreement made in the Political Affairs Committee was not kept," and said, "After this extraordinary session, a new session will begin, and we will find a way to pass the bill according to the original spirit then." He also clearly stated, "I want to emphasize that the 'eat-and-run backlash' and intentional interference misunderstandings by some opposition members are not true."

In the previous day's plenary session, the amendment to the Internet Specialized Bank Act, which relaxed the qualification requirements for major shareholders of internet banks, was rejected. Out of 184 members present, 75 voted in favor, 82 against, and 27 abstained.

Following the bill's rejection, United Future Party members left the plenary session, claiming that the bipartisan agreement was broken. They argued that the Democratic Party broke its promise to handle the Financial Consumer Protection Act and the Internet Bank Act together. This raised concerns that the handling of the Tada Ban Act and the passage of the electoral district reorganization bill, scheduled for the plenary session at 4 p.m. that day, might become difficult.

However, after Floor Leader Lee's official apology, United Future Party Floor Leader Shim Jae-cheol told reporters, "We demanded an official apology from Floor Leader Lee, and agreed that the bill will be passed as is in the next session," adding, "We will participate in today's plenary session." Regarding the Tada Ban Act, he also stated, "We expressed support," and about the electoral district reorganization bill, he said, "It will pass today."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

In related industries such as KT, attention is focused on the 'possibility of passage in the next session' mentioned jointly by the floor leaders of both parties. However, realistically, it is expected that even if the next extraordinary session is held within the 20th National Assembly, passing this bill will be impossible.

A Political Affairs Committee official said, "A bill that has been rejected once cannot be brought back to the plenary session," adding, "If it is brought back, a revised bill must be submitted, and since the standing committee review period takes time, it is impossible to pass it before the general election unless the Speaker of the National Assembly exercises his authority to bring it up directly." Another official pointed out, "If the Democratic Party leadership designates the same bill as a party bill again and pushes it forward, the party will be seen as a mere rubber stamp for the Blue House leadership, which would be ridiculous."

Meanwhile, the rejection incident that caused controversy the previous day was considered predictable. Democratic Party lawmaker Park Yong-jin, who gave the opposing debate, told reporters right after the plenary session, "Approval was not decided as a party stance, and it was decided to have a free vote." Usually, when a bill is designated as a party stance, members of the same party vote in unison, but when left to a free vote, members vote according to their individual conscience.

A Democratic Party official said, "There were many voices of opposition among Democratic Party lawmakers to the Internet Bank Act, to the extent that even the party leadership had opposing opinions, so it was not designated as a party stance," adding, "We expected it to pass by a narrow margin, but due to the low attendance of United Future Party members, the unexpected result came out, creating a bewildered atmosphere."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.