Park, parties rapped for no compromise

By Jun Ji-hye

The failure to produce a compromise between the ruling and opposition parties over the government restructuring bill is drawing fierce criticism from the public. Citizens said Monday the people will be the victims of politicians’ inability to reach an agreement.

People demanded both the ruling Saenuri Party and the main opposition Democratic United Party (DUP) reach an immediate compromise on the bill.

Foreigners based in Seoul also said the current impasse could impact on government credibility.

Citizens attributed the deadlock at the National Assembly over the bill to both sides’ incompetence. Due to the parliamentary stalemate over the bill, the Park Geun-hye administration has remained in a state of de facto anarchy a week after her inauguration.

“I think both parties are responsible for the current impasse. None of them have attempted to listen to the other,” said Kim Hee-jin, 27, a university student who lives in Seoul.

“President Park Geun-hye is not listening to the opposition’s opinions as she is just clinging to her initial plans. At the same time, the DUP seems to oppose Park’s plans for the mere sake of opposition.”

Kim and many others said they do not understand why the two sides are fighting over such a matter that does not look significant enough to cripple the launch of the new government.

“I doubt if the issue related to the broadcasting policy is serious enough to impede the smooth management of state affairs,” Kim said.

Chun Bu-in, 49, an office worker, said, “It’s so ridiculous to see such a minor issue holding the new government from starting.”

The two parties are still at odds over the issue of transferring control of broadcasting promotion policy from the independent Korea Communications Commission (KCC) to the tentatively named Ministry of Future Planning and Science.

The ruling party argues that the KCC’s broadcasting oversight functions ― except control of news channels ― should be moved to the new ministry, while the DUP claims the move could affect the fairness of broadcasting.

Because of the issue, all of Park’s government restructuring bills including establishing and renaming ministries have been stalled.

Kang Hyang-mo, an office worker in Gyeonggi Province, said the opposition party should make a concession because Park’s government is just beginning.

“The DUP has to let Park just get to work properly first. And then they can criticize if she goes wrong. I am not saying I don’t understand the opposition’s opinions. But I don’t think it is right to block the smooth launch of the new administration as it will only harm the public,” the 48-year-old said.

Lee Dong-won, 31, an office worker in Incheon, claims the current deadlock is due to Park’s lack of leadership.

“Park did not discuss the bill with the DUP before she announced it. And still, she does not show a sign of compromise. I think these things angered the opposition and her lack of leadership should be blamed,” he said.

A foreign correspondent based in Seoul agreed with Lee, saying on condition of anonymity, “Park is the president. So it is unlimitedly her responsibility.”

He raised concerns over the overdue passage of the bill.

“In the short run, I suppose it could be a matter of government credibility, which is bad for everyone, especially when there are problems with neighboring countries,” he said.

Robert Kelly, associate professor at Department of Political Science and Diplomacy in Pusan National University, said the opposition’s concerns are understandable, but Park should be allowed to configure the government as she believes right.

“There is fear and concern that she will govern aloofly, that Park is ‘distant’ or ‘cold’ is a fairly common criticism. So I am not surprised that the left would drag its feet on something major like a cabinet-level restructuring,” he said.

However, the professor stressed, “She did win, and, in my opinion, executives should be allowed to structure the government as they see fit, unless there is some major problem with core constitutional values.”