[Reporter’s Notebook] Repeated Controversies Over Constituency Budget Allocation

"I was angry because they criticized it as just securing the constituency budget without even looking at the content. But then, the reporter who wrote the article said they thought they were helping, so I wondered what that meant."

This was something I heard from a member of the National Assembly a few years ago right after the budget bill was processed. He was a member of the subcommittee of the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts and was involved in the budget review until the very end. After struggling to pass the budget, he was initially quite hurt by the media criticizing the increase in projects related to his constituency as 'constituency budget grabbing.' However, after understanding the meaning behind 'helping out,' he eventually included that article as part of his legislative activity promotion materials.

This anecdote came to mind again after hearing news that influential lawmakers from both ruling and opposition parties had secured certain amounts for their constituency projects following the passage of next year's budget. In fact, this criticism is repeated every year. During the National Assembly's review process, the media eagerly points out the budget increases over the government's proposal and matches them with the respective constituency lawmakers, criticizing the influential lawmakers for securing budgets. While this criticizes the selfish behavior of lawmakers, those targeted by the criticism might secretly be smiling. What better way to promote themselves to voters than as 'selfish politicians who only care about their constituencies'?

Securing the constituency budget is not necessarily a bad thing. It is because the constituency lawmaker, who knows the difficulties and hardships of local residents better than the Ministry of Economy and Finance or other politicians, works hard for them. In some ways, budget review can be seen as a clash and adjustment process of these different priorities.

The problem is that this process is decided in an opaque manner, and the adjustment process is hidden. Although there is a review process in standing committees and the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, the actual review is ultimately concluded through unofficial 'behind-the-scenes negotiations.' This is why 'political power' is more important than public consensus or persuasion for the necessity of the budget. What exists in the negotiation process, which is not even recorded, is ultimately 'power.' Is it impossible to see a budget process where values and necessities are fiercely debated and the results of those debates are reflected? The way the budget bill is processed every year, breaking the law and rushed at the last minute, must change first.

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