Separate National Assembly and City Council 'Rubber Band Interpretation' Democratic Party's Hypocrisy Regretted

Seoul City Councilor Ok Jae-eun (People Power Party · Jung-gu 2) Issues Statement on 23rd, Focuses Criticism on Democratic Party's Double Standards

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Jong-il] On the 22nd, the People Power Party in the Seoul Metropolitan Council expressed deep regret and rebutted the Democratic Party of Korea’s claim in a statement that the passage of the amendment motion was anti-democratic and that the council was being operated arbitrarily.

Ok Jae-eun, Seoul Metropolitan Councilor (People Power Party, Jung-gu 2), issued a statement on the 23rd, focusing on refuting the Democratic Party’s claims.

The logic is as follows.

Regarding the Democratic Party of Korea’s claim that “amendment motions must be submitted before the plenary session,” Article 24 of the Seoul Metropolitan Council Meeting Rules stipulates that amendment motions must be ‘submitted to the chairperson in advance,’ but the exact timing of ‘in advance’ is not specified. The National Assembly considers it possible ‘from the time the committee’s review report is submitted to the chairperson until the conclusion of the plenary debate on the bill,’ given the nature of amendment motions. (Explanation of the National Assembly Act, p. 461, National Assembly Secretariat, 2021)

As a related case, on April 27 of this year, before the unlimited debate on the partial amendment bill to the Prosecutors’ Office Act (bill number 2115408) submitted as an alternative by the Chairperson of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee ended, an amendment motion was submitted by Representative Jin Sung-jun and 31 others (April 27, 2022). For reference, this amendment was passed at the plenary session three days later on April 30.

Considering that Article 24 of the Seoul Metropolitan Council Meeting Rules is identical in legislative intent and form to Article 95 of the National Assembly Act, there is no reason to interpret it differently from the National Assembly. Therefore, the Democratic Party’s claims that the amendment motion was submitted later than the scheduled opening time of the plenary session or that the plenary session was deliberately delayed to submit the amendment motion are groundless.

Since the opening time is unrelated to the deadline for submitting amendment motions, there is no need to discuss intentionality. The chairperson, as the president of the National Council of Chairpersons of Metropolitan and Provincial Councils, had already sought understanding from both party negotiation groups and the executive agency heads in advance due to unavoidable delays caused by a meeting held in Yongsan.

They argued that saying they understand beforehand but later raising suspicions of intentional delay and demanding explanations is a shameless act that shows no respect for the other party.

The People Power Party in the Seoul Metropolitan Council, despite holding the majority of seats, has always strived to operate the council based on consultation at every moment. The delay in the schedule due to the mayor’s overseas trip was a result of the Democratic Party’s claims.

Since the opening of the 11th Seoul Metropolitan Council, during the 311th extraordinary session (July 15?29), while handling the urgent supplementary budget, the Democratic Party proposed delaying the plenary session’s resolution due to the mayor’s absence caused by an overseas trip, and insisted on rescheduling despite no regulation requiring the mayor’s attendance. The fact that the 312th extraordinary session, which lasted only one day, was held on August 5 and passed the 2022 Seoul Metropolitan Government’s 2nd supplementary budget was precisely because of the Democratic Party’s proposal.

The procedural progress related to the submission of the amendment motion this time was also the result of consultation. After the amendment motion was submitted, the Democratic Party spoke about the procedural progress without permission. According to Article 31 of the Seoul Metropolitan Council Meeting Rules, ‘if a council member wishes to speak, they must notify the chairperson in advance and obtain permission.’ Despite the procedural violation, the chairperson respected the representative council member, declared a recess, and allowed the representatives of both party negotiation groups to consult. The processing of this amendment motion was based on the result of that consultation.

Finally, the fact that the 11th Seoul Metropolitan Council secured a majority of seats is due to the solemn choice of the citizens. The Democratic Party’s claim, which defines the citizens’ mandate as ‘tyranny of the majority’ and obstructs progress, is a self-serving and dogmatic stance that prioritizes a minority of politicians over the ten million citizens of Seoul. The Democratic Party’s behavior, which insists that amendment motions must be submitted before the plenary session in the Seoul Metropolitan Council while the National Assembly introduces and votes on amendments during debates, is a typical example of double standards.

The People Power Party in the Seoul Metropolitan Council has always strived to operate the council based on consultation and principles. The Democratic Party’s claim that submitting amendment motions during debates is acceptable in the National Assembly but a violation of meeting rules in the council is a double standard.

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