Survey of 178 National Assembly Members: 93% Say 'Constitutional Amendment Needed'

The Timing of Constitutional Amendment: 'Within the New President's Term' and 'Referendum Aligned with Next Year's Presidential Election'

Speaker of the National Assembly Park Byeong-seok, marking his first anniversary in office, holds a press conference at the National Assembly on the 21st. Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Cheol-eung] In a survey of 178 members of the National Assembly, about 93% said constitutional amendment is necessary. Opinions in favor of switching to a 4-year presidential two-term system also reached 70%.

The Political Subcommittee of the National Assembly's National Integration Committee announced on the 17th that it conducted a survey jointly with SBS on the occasion of Constitution Day, with 178 out of 300 members participating (response rate 59.3%). Among them, 116 were from the Democratic Party of Korea (response rate 67.8%), 46 from the People Power Party (response rate 44.7%), and 16 from minor parties and independents (response rate 61.5%).

Among the 178 responding members, 93.3% (166 members) answered that constitutional amendment is necessary (very necessary 57.3% (102 members) + somewhat necessary 36.0% (64 members)).

Among the 166 who responded that it is necessary, the highest proportion (71.1%, 118 members) selected the reason "to reflect the realities that have changed over the 30 years since the 1987 constitutional amendment."

Other reasons included "to resolve political, economic, and social conflicts through constitutional amendment" (16.3%, 27 members), "because constitutional amendment can contribute to the development of popular sovereignty and democracy" (6.6%, 11 members), and "because they agree with the overall content of constitutional amendments discussed so far" (4.8%, 8 members).

Regarding the most important contents to be reflected if the constitution is amended (up to two multiple responses), "supplementing and reorganizing the current power structure where excessive authority is concentrated in the president" (62.7%, 111 members) was chosen most frequently. This was followed by "new fundamental rights and strengthening human rights guarantees such as the right to life, safety, and environment" (44.1%, 78 members), "reforming the parliamentary, party, and electoral systems to effectively reflect the will of the people" (33.3%, 59 members), "expanding local autonomy such as legislative and fiscal autonomy" (29.4%, 52 members), and "amending the preamble of the constitution to reflect new era realities" (18.7%, 33 members).

In response to the question about the preferred power structure (form of government) reform plan, "introducing a 4-year presidential two-term system and dispersing the powers of the president and the Blue House" (70.5%, 124 members) was selected most frequently.

Other options included "introducing a mixed government form where a prime minister elected or recommended by the National Assembly jointly operates state affairs with the president" (13.6%, 24 members), "introducing a parliamentary system where the prime minister from the majority party in the National Assembly operates state affairs" (8.5%, 15 members), and "maintaining the current presidential system" (4.5%, 8 members).

Regarding the most appropriate timing for constitutional amendment, among 175 responding members (3 did not answer), many chose "pursuing constitutional amendment within the term of the new president elected next year" (44.6%, 78 members) and "forming a special committee on constitutional amendment this year and promoting a national referendum aligned with next year's presidential election" (34.9%, 61 members). Other responses included "pursuing constitutional amendment over the mid-to-long term with more than 5 years" (14.3%, 25 members) and "constitutional amendment is not necessary" (2.9%, 5 members).

In response to the survey question about the age limit of 40 years for presidential candidacy, the most selected answer was "lower than the current limit" (56.3%, 99 members), followed by "maintain the current limit" (24.4%, 43 members), "abolish the age limit for presidential candidacy" (18.8%, 33 members), and "raise the current limit" (0.6%, 1 member).

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