[Exclusive] How Inactive Were Standing Committees Chaired by Opposition Lawmakers?

Exclusive Control of Committee Chairs: What the Data Shows
Legislation and Science, ICT, Broadcasting Committees Held 90 Sessions, Foreign Affairs Only 34
Committees Chaired by Opposition Lawmakers Hold Fewer Meetings

Regarding the second half of the 22nd National Assembly, Jeong Cheongrae, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, has repeatedly stated his intention for the party to take all standing committee chair positions. He argues that key issues, such as the review of livelihood-related bills, are not being addressed because the opposition is not convening standing committee meetings. There are concerns that legislative delays are inevitable, as standing committee chairs, who hold the authority to conduct proceedings, are reluctant to convene meetings.

At the general meeting of lawmakers on the 22nd, Leader Jeong stated, "For the composition of the second half of the National Assembly, the Democratic Party, which works 100%, will take full responsibility for the chairmanships." Earlier, President Lee Jaemyung had pointed out delays in legislation at the National Assembly's Political Affairs Committee, saying, "If you have a majority, you should debate according to the seats, and if that doesn't work, you should put it to a vote. How can you refuse to do anything at all? If the opposition holds the chair, does that mean nothing can get done?"

An emergency hearing regarding Bithumb is being held on February 11 at the National Assembly's Political Affairs Committee. 2026.2.11 Photo by Hyunmin Kim

Does the leadership of a standing committee by a particular party affect its operations? The Asia Business Daily examined the performance of all-standing and subcommittee meetings of the 17 standing committees of the 22nd National Assembly (including the change from the Planning and Finance Committee to the Fiscal Economy Planning Committee, from the Environment and Labor Committee to the Climate, Energy, Environment and Labor Committee, and from the Gender Equality and Family Committee to the Gender Equality and Family Committee) based on National Assembly minutes compiled up to the 24th. The analysis found that standing committees chaired by members of the People Power Party (Political Affairs Committee, Fiscal Economy Planning Committee, Industry, Trade, Resources, and SMEs Committee, National Defense Committee, Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, Gender Equality and Family Committee, Intelligence Committee) had low meeting frequency.

Standing Committees That Meet Most Frequently: Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Committee

Current National Assembly law stipulates that ordinary standing committees, excluding those held concurrently, should be convened at least twice a month (Article 49-2, Section 2). Considering that the 22nd National Assembly has been in session for nearly 23 months as of now, at least 46 full committee meetings should have been held.

The committee with the most meetings was the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and the Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Committee, each recording 90 meetings. Next were the Public Administration and Security Committee (65 meetings), Education Committee and Climate and Labor Committee (49 meetings each). All these committees are chaired by lawmakers from the Democratic Party of Korea.

The Political Affairs Committee, recently criticized for infrequent meetings, held 48 meetings along with the Agriculture, Food, Rural Affairs, Oceans, and Fisheries Committee, ranking sixth. The Fiscal Economy Planning Committee and the Health and Welfare Committee each held 47 meetings, ranking eighth. The Industry, Trade, Resources, and SMEs Committee and the Land, Infrastructure, and Transport Committee each held 43 meetings, jointly ranking eleventh. The Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee (34 meetings) and the National Defense Committee (31 meetings) ranked thirteenth and fifteenth, respectively. Considering that concurrent standing committees such as the Steering Committee, Intelligence Committee, and Gender Equality Committee typically have fewer meetings, the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee and the National Defense Committee have, in effect, met the least.

Subcommittees, which are the practical venues for discussing bills and budgets, also had relatively poor performance when chaired by the opposition. Subcommittees of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee (chaired by the ruling party) met 55 times; Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Committee subcommittees met 50 times; and Public Administration and Security Committee subcommittees met 46 times. The Political Affairs Committee subcommittee met 30 times (ninth), and the Industry, Trade, Resources, and SMEs Committee subcommittee met 29 times (tenth). The National Defense Committee subcommittee met 19 times (thirteenth), and the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee subcommittee met 18 times (fourteenth). The relatively low number of subcommittee meetings is thought to result from the infrequent full committee meetings where bills are introduced. The Fiscal Economy Planning Committee subcommittee, chaired by a People Power Party lawmaker, met 40 times, ranking fourth. This high frequency is likely influenced by the year-end tax subcommittee meetings for tax law review.

However, frequent meetings do not guarantee a high bill passage rate. Currently, out of 17,255 bills in the National Assembly, 4,427 have been processed, resulting in a passage rate of 25.6%. In this regard, the Political Affairs Committee (17.0%), Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee (19.0%), and Intelligence Committee (13.6%), all chaired by People Power Party lawmakers, showed low rates. However, the Gender Equality and Family Committee (37.2%), Industry, Trade, Resources, and SMEs Committee (35.5%), Fiscal Economy Planning Committee (33.0%), and National Defense Committee (29.6%) recorded above-average rates. On the other hand, committees chaired by Democratic Party lawmakers, such as the Steering Committee (9.6%), Legislation and Judiciary Committee (19.9%), Land, Infrastructure, and Transport Committee (20.1%), and Public Administration and Security Committee (23.0%), also had low passage rates.

Professor Ha Sang-eung of the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Sogang University said, "I do not think dividing standing committee chairmanships between the two major parties is a beautiful tradition. In principle, the largest party should hold the chairmanships, but if they do not perform well, there needs to be accountability through elections. Only then can we prevent legislative gridlock and the tendency to shift blame." Professor Ha added, "However, it is awkward to use the argument that the Democratic Party should take all chairmanships simply because the standing committees are not functioning."

Opposing views also exist. Professor Shin Yul of the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Myongji University stated, "The government and ruling party are wielding their legislative power to pass everything as they wish, and now they want to speed up the process. I wish there would be greater adherence to democratic procedures, which involve persuading the opposition, making concessions, and spending significant time to achieve compromises."

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