Assembly ends filibuster, passes DP-led broadcasting bill
The amendment to the Broadcasting Act, which seeks to expand the board of directors at KBS, passed the Assembly with 178 votes in favor and 2 against. A total of 180 members participated in the vote, which People Power Party lawmakers boycotted.
This followed the National Assembly's vote to end the filibuster Tuesday morning, with 187 votes in favor. Ending a filibuster requires votes from at least three-fifths — or 179 — of the current 198 parliament members, according to the National Assembly Act. The conservative party lawmakers walked out of the parliamentary chamber in protest of this vote as well.
The Democratic Party currently holds a parliamentary majority with 167 out of 298 seats.
The revision to the Broadcasting Act is one of three proposed bills aimed at limiting the government's and politicians' power to name directors to the boards of public broadcasters, KBS, MBC and EBS. The other two bills in the set are revisions to the Foundation for Broadcast Culture Act and the Korea Educational Broadcasting System Act. These propose similar changes to the governance structures at MBC and EBS, while the Broadcasting Act affects KBS.
The conservative People Power Party has repeatedly denounced the bills as a means to appoint more liberal-minded officials as board members of the broadcasters.
People Power Party floor leader and interim leader Rep. Song Eon-seog, in an intra-party meeting held ahead of the plenary session, threatened to file an adjudication with the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the law.
Several other contentious bills were tabled by the Democratic Party during Monday's plenary session, including the revision to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. These are expected to be put to a vote at the next earliest plenary session scheduled for Aug. 21.
The revision focuses on restricting companies from claiming damages against legitimate disputes involving labor unions. The bill's nickname, the 'Yellow Envelope' bill, stems from the donations that the public sent to support SsangYong Motor workers in 2014, after they were laid off and faced court orders to compensate their employer for the damages made to company properties during a strike.
South Korean business lobby groups, the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, and the European Chamber of Commerce have all voiced concerns that the passage of the bill could prompt foreign companies to withdraw from the Korean market.
The three broadcasting bills and 'Yellow Envelope' bill were previously vetoed by former President Yoon Suk Yeol. Yoon worked with the Assembly with the Democratic Party as the parliamentary majority throughout his term, before he was impeached after his failed attempt to impose martial law on Dec. 3, 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Korea Herald
20 minutes ago
- Korea Herald
Special counsel questions Assembly speaker as witness in martial law probe
National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik appeared before special counsel Cho Eun-suk's team Thursday to be questioned as a witness about former President Yoon Suk Yeol's martial law declaration. "As the speaker of the National Assembly, I'll do my utmost to establish the legal and political justice related to the martial law," Woo told reporters before entering the special counsel office in southern Seoul at 9:40 a.m. Woo is expected to be asked whether the conservative People Power Party systematically obstructed the National Assembly's vote during the process of lifting the martial law. Following Yoon's martial law imposition on the night of Dec. 3 last year, the 300-member National Assembly passed a resolution in the wee hours of Dec. 4 demanding that Yoon lift the martial law. All 190 lawmakers present voted in favor. Under the Constitution, martial law must be lifted when a parliamentary majority demands it. Woo presided over the special parliamentary session Dec. 4 and managed the National Assembly for about 155 minutes until the resolution was passed. The special counsel team suspects the PPP leadership may have changed the meeting places of party lawmakers several times to obstruct them from participating in the Assembly vote at that time under an instruction from Yoon. (Yonhap)
Korea Herald
5 hours ago
- Korea Herald
[Editorial] Legislation at will
DP railroads broadcasting bill, raising concerns about news reporting bias The ruling Democratic Party of Korea processed the Broadcasting Act amendment unilaterally in the National Assembly plenary session Tuesday. It is the party's first bill to pass the Assembly under its newly elected chair, Rep. Jung Chung-rae. According to the bill, the number of directors of several broadcasting networks will increase from 11 to 15, and the Assembly will recommend 40 percent of them. The rest will be recommended by employee representatives, audience committees, academia and groups of lawyers. On the surface, the bill seems to make it difficult for a political party to control broadcasts directly, but it arouses concerns that news reporting could become unduly influenced, depending on how it is implemented. Left-leaning labor unions, civic groups and lawyers are expected to influence the composition of boards and the selection of chief executives. So far, chief executives have been recommended by the Korea Communications Commission and appointed by the president. Under the bill, a broadcasting enterprise should create a CEO search committee consisting of 100 or more people that will recommend candidates to the board. The bill will take effect immediately after promulgation. The chief executive and all the other board members should be replaced within three months of proclamation. This applies not only to KBS, Korea's primary public service broadcaster, but also to YTN and Yonhap News TV, which are private companies. Chief executives and executives in charge of news at the news channels should practically resign within three months of the law enforcement. Experts say this by-law possibly violates the constitution in that it infringes on the rights of shareholders in a private enterprise. Broadcasting networks have run CEO search committees autonomously. However, the bill obligates broadcasters to "agree" with their labor unions on the committee composition. This means that the companies should select their chief executives based on consensus with their unions. The clause clears the way for labor unions to exert an enormous influence on company management and news reporting. It is not hard to guess why the party sought to involve the labor unions and civic groups, which broadly support it, in the process of forming the governance structure of broadcasters. The party apparently wants to mold public opinion in their favor by making broadcasters trumpet what they are doing well, while watering down reports on their blunders. But it is hard to state categorically that it is only a Democratic Party problem. Ruling and opposition parties have both tried to control broadcasting networks whenever they came to power, by appointing loyalists to top posts. Biased news reports used to be commonplace. The Democratic Party said the bill aims to strengthen the independence and fairness of broadcasting. Then, controversial partisans must not be recommended. In screening director and chief executive candidates, examination standards and evaluation results must be disclosed transparently. It is desirable to shortlist candidates through consensus if possible. Media labor unions demanded the revision of the Broadcasting Act, and the pro-labor Democratic Party processed the bill unilaterally. Though the bill affects the foundation of broadcasters, there have seldom been discussions since it was unveiled on July 1. The outnumbered People Power Party voiced its opposition, but it was treated like a scarecrow. Even when it was an opposition party, the Democratic Party railroaded bills as they pleased, with only a presidential veto to stop them. Now that it has taken power, it can pass whatever bills it wants without opposition input. Jung visited leaders of minor opposition parties to greet them after being elected chair of the Democratic Party on Aug. 2, but he has not visited the main opposition People Power Party. He said that 'only humans can shake hands with each other.' The Democratic Party said it would handle the "yellow envelope" bill — which business circles bitterly oppose — and the second revision of the Commercial Act at the plenary session this month. Its new leadership has begun a tyranny of legislation, ignoring almost half of the people completely.
Korea Herald
a day ago
- Korea Herald
[Editorial] Tax reform misstep
Misguided tax policies threaten to derail South Korea's fragile market rebound The Lee Jae Myung administration's first major tax reform was intended to tackle rising fiscal pressures and address long-standing structural imbalances in South Korea's tax regime. Instead, it has rattled markets, drawn criticism from global financial institutions and exposed fractures within the ruling party. On Friday, just a day after the blueprint's release, the benchmark Kospi and tech-heavy Kosdaq indices each fell by around 4 percent, a sharp reversal for markets that had only recently begun to regain momentum. Investor sentiment, already tentative, swiftly deteriorated. At the heart of the controversy are two measures: raising the top corporate tax rate by 1 percentage point to 25 percent and lowering the threshold for capital gains taxation on large shareholders from 5 billion won ($3.6 million) to 1 billion won. These proposals would reverse cuts introduced under the previous Yoon Suk Yeol administration and are projected to raise 8.2 trillion won in additional revenue next year. Yet the backlash has been swift and pointed. Critics have highlighted the reform's poor timing, lack of strategic coherence and a clear disconnect from the government's stated goal of capital market revitalization. CLSA described the measures as 'only sticks, no carrots.' Citigroup downgraded Korean equities in its emerging markets portfolio, citing misalignment with Korea's "value-up" initiative. JPMorgan similarly warned that any credible rerating of Korean stocks would require more than cosmetic shifts in policy. The irony is difficult to overlook. An administration that campaigned on market revitalization — pledging, no less, to drive the Kospi to 5,000 points — now finds itself accused of undermining its own narrative. Markets reacted unequivocally. Within a single trading session, 116 trillion won in market capitalization was wiped out. This erosion of household and institutional wealth is not merely symbolic; brokerages estimate it could shave more than 8 trillion won off future consumption. Political consequences have been just as swift. At least 13 lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Party of Korea have raised objections, while senior party figures have contradicted one another over whether the capital gains threshold should be reconsidered. Compounding the confusion are mixed signals from the presidential office, which have further heightened investor anxiety. Such incoherence is particularly damaging in a market where foreign investors account for nearly a third of all trading volume. These stakeholders depend not just on fundamentals, but on clarity, consistency and credible policymaking. Many observers argue the reforms stray from international norms. The dual imposition of capital gains and transaction taxes is widely viewed as excessive, particularly in comparison to major markets that opt for one or the other. The revised threshold for large shareholders is also seen as overly aggressive. Meanwhile, long-promised dividend tax relief has proved underwhelming, as it is narrowly targeted and still capped at a steep 35 percent, well above the 25 percent ceiling proposed in April by Democratic Party lawmaker Lee So-young. More fundamentally, the reform poses a critical question: Must fiscal consolidation come at the expense of market stability? In an open, export-driven economy exposed to global volatility, US tariffs and rising geopolitical risk, abrupt shifts in tax policy could alienate the very investors South Korea seeks to attract. President Lee is right to stress the importance of fiscal discipline. But credibility rests not only on budget arithmetic — it also depends on coherence. South Korea needs tax reform. What it does not need is a policy lurch that unsettles markets, contradicts strategic priorities and undercuts investor trust. If the Lee administration is serious about building a more dynamic, investment-friendly economy, it must steer clear of ad hoc reversals and restore clarity to its reform agenda.
