Joo Ho-young "Giving up the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and securing 1-2 more seats? Breaking the principle"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hye-min] On the 11th, Joo Ho-young, floor leader of the United Future Party, drew a line on the possibility of negotiating by conceding the chairmanship of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee to the ruling party and securing 1 to 2 more standing committee chair positions, saying, "We have never broken the framework of dividing seats according to the ratio of seats. It is a principle that has been almost without exception, so we cannot do that."

On the morning of the same day, on MBC's 'Kim Jong-bae's Focus,' Joo responded to the question, "Have you ever considered giving up the chairmanship of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and practically gaining 1 to 2 more standing committee chair positions?" with the above statement.

He said, "When the number of lawmakers is 176 to 103, the standing committee chairs come out as 11 to 7, and we have never broken this framework. If we break the framework, there will be no standard, so negotiations cannot progress in the future," adding, "Asking for 1 to 2 more seats makes it difficult to set a standard, and the seat ratio is a principle that has been almost without exception, so we cannot do that."

Joo reiterated his position that the list of standing committee members cannot be submitted before the distribution of standing committee chairs between the ruling and opposition parties is decided. He said, "It's not that we are refusing to submit out of stubbornness, but our party has a process where once it is decided which standing committee chair we will take, we announce it and hold a primary election, but since that cannot be done, we cannot submit the list," adding, "The ruling party roughly submits and elects, and if it changes, they say let's adjust, but they do not speak clearly about this."

He expected the ruling party to hold a plenary session on the 12th to vote on the standing committee chairs but believed the Speaker of the National Assembly would not forcibly assign opposition party standing committee members. Joo said, "As far as I know, there is no precedent for forcibly assigning standing committee members, and there are concerns about backlash, so I believe they will assign and elect only Democratic Party members without forced assignment," adding, "It is unthinkable for the Speaker to forcibly assign our party's standing committee members, but assigning only Democratic Party standing committee members without assigning ours and electing from them would violate the rule that the chair is elected after the standing committee members are assigned."

Regarding the possibility that the ruling party will elect all 18 standing committee chairs on the 12th, he said, "They always say that, but there are also talks about electing only the few standing committees necessary for the supplementary budget bill and leaving the rest," adding, "Since they do not reveal their true intentions, even that is unclear."

Regarding his earlier remarks suggesting that the right to recommend the head of the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (HOCI) be given to the opposition party, he said, "Even when our party opposed the establishment of the HOCI, I was someone who supported it. However, the precondition has always been that the head of the HOCI should be recommended by the opposition party," adding, "The reason the HOCI is necessary is that the prosecution cannot properly investigate the president and those around the president, and the prosecution tends to cover up crimes committed by its own members. Therefore, the head of the HOCI must be free from the president's appointment rights to solve these problems."

He said, "Many people agreed with this claim, and in fact, the then Democratic Party floor leader once said they would give the recommendation right to the opposition party," adding, "However, during the lawmaking process, the probability of being appointed under the ruling party's influence increased, and then establishing the HOCI would be a redundant institution that does not correct these problems at all." Joo argued, "How can a head of the HOCI appointed under the president's influence properly investigate the president and those around him?" and explained, "If the president's statement that the HOCI was created to investigate those around the president is true, then the recommendation right should be given to the opposition party."

Regarding the criticism that the opposition party has effectively been guaranteed veto power, he said, "Even if veto power is guaranteed, it will take a lot of time," adding, "Rather, if the opposition party nominates the person they want, they can give up veto power in exchange for recommendation, and if the ruling party accepts, the recommendation process could be much faster. If such a head of the HOCI is appointed, there would be no disputes about neutrality or accusations of favoring the president."

Joo said that he proposed the establishment of a Minister of Political Affairs at a luncheon meeting with the president and floor leaders of both parties, and that the Blue House has begun active consideration, but he said, "I was not preparing to formally propose it at all," adding, "When the Minister of Political Affairs was mentioned, I conveyed my opinion on the spot, but it seems the Blue House is making too much of it afterwards."

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