[Early Perspective] Will Ending the Filibuster Reduce COVID-19 Cases?

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy, reporter Lee Jieun] The filibuster (a legal parliamentary obstruction tactic) carried out by opposition lawmakers in protest against the Democratic Party’s unilateral legislative “steamrolling” was halted on December 13 by a closure vote led by the ruling party. The Democratic Party then proceeded to pass the National Intelligence Service Act and the Anti-Leaflet Act in quick succession, demonstrating the power of the supermajority ruling party. With even their last means of resistance neutralized, the opposition has effectively been rendered powerless.

The filibuster exists to guarantee speaking rights for parties with relatively less power. However, even this tactic can be stopped at the will of the majority. The reality of the parliament is disheartening: the filibuster is used to protest the strength of a “180-seat majority,” but with 180 seats, that same majority can end the filibuster at any time. This highlights the need for future institutional improvements.

The Democratic Party’s reasoning for ending the filibuster is unconvincing. The party argues that, due to the COVID-19 crisis, the filibuster is a waste of national resources and should be stopped. However, as recently as December 10, the Democratic Party had stated that it would not forcibly end the filibuster. Was there no COVID-19 crisis then, and did the crisis suddenly emerge on December 12? This only raises questions.

According to the Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasures Headquarters, there were 689 confirmed cases on December 10. That is a difference of about 300 compared to December 12. Does an increase of 300 cases suddenly constitute a crisis, while 300 fewer does not? Is the situation not a crisis at social distancing level 2.5, but only becomes a crisis when considering raising it to level 3? The Democratic Party halted the filibuster citing a crisis, yet on December 13, the government did not decide to raise the alert to level 3, saying only that it would consider it. Claiming a crisis seems to be nothing more than a convenient excuse.

There is no guarantee that ending the filibuster will reduce the number of confirmed cases or resolve the crisis. While the ruling and opposition parties disagree on the causes of rising case numbers, the rapid increase in cases with unknown infection routes clearly indicates that the virus has spread deeply into local communities. Unless measures equivalent to a “lockdown” are maintained for some time after raising the social distancing level to 3, it is obvious that even if case numbers temporarily decrease, a resurgence can happen at any time.

Among the bills the Democratic Party rushed to pass despite criticism of being “unilateral,” none are directly related to resolving COVID-19. If the party truly viewed the situation as a crisis, instead of pushing through bills such as the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials Act amendment or the National Intelligence Service Act amendment-which have little impact on ordinary people’s lives-they should have joined forces with the opposition to focus the National Assembly’s efforts on helping self-employed people and non-regular workers suffering due to COVID-19. In the first place, it was the Democratic Party’s unilateral actions that prompted the opposition’s filibuster, which would not have been necessary otherwise. Before criticizing the waste of national resources during a crisis, the ruling party should reflect on how well it has managed parliamentary affairs.

If the ruling party intended to feign indifference, it might have been better to maintain that stance until the end. When there were 689 cases, they showed no intention of ending the opposition’s filibuster, but suddenly decided to halt it when the number exceeded 1,000, citing a crisis. This could give the public the impression that “the opposition must have been doing something right.”

The opposition should not be complacent just because they believe the filibuster was effective. People’s Power Party lawmaker Yoon Heesook, known as the “Iron Lady,” drew significant attention by setting a new record for the longest filibuster at 12 hours and 48 minutes, but she had already captured the public’s attention with her “tenant speech” during a five-minute address in the previous session.

The reality that only Representative Yoon stands out within the People’s Power Party is disappointing. Although all first-term lawmakers participated in the filibuster, demonstrating strong determination, their efforts were undermined by reckless remarks such as “sex crimes are caused by stress.” To avoid being seen as a party reliant solely on Representative Yoon’s individual performance, the other first-term lawmakers need to make greater efforts to communicate with the public. Making excuses for sex crimes by blaming stress-especially when the entire nation is outraged over the Cho Doo-soon case-is extremely careless. The party should seriously consider why, despite the Democratic Party’s reckless actions and the government’s failures on real estate policy, the public still does not support the People’s Power Party.

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