Nam Hyun-woo has worked as a staff writer at The Korea Times since 2013, mostly covering business and politics. He currently belongs to the Business Desk where he covers topics such as emerging tech, AI, ICT and Korea's chaebol community. Prior to joining the team, he was the paper's correspondent for the presidential office of Korea during the Yoon Suk Yeol and Moon Jae-in administrations.
Yoon vetoes revised bill requiring gov't to buy surplus rice
President Yoon Suk Yeol bangs the gavel during a Cabinet meeting at the presidential office in Yongsan District, Seoul, Tuesday. Yoon exercised his right to veto a revision of the Grain Management Act. Courtesy of presidential office
By Nam Hyun-woo
Relations between gov't, opposition party lapse into gridlock
By Nam Hyun-woo
President Yoon Suk Yeol vetoed a revision of the Grain Management Act, Tuesday, which was passed unilaterally by the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) last month to require the government to purchase surplus rice. This marks the first case of Yoon exercising his right to send a bill back to the National Assembly.
During a Cabinet meeting, Yoon returned the disputed bill to the Assembly, requesting lawmakers to reconsider the revision that the opposition claims is aimed at protecting farmers and stabilizing prices.
“(The revision) is a populist bill which goes against the national agricultural goal of improving productivity and farmers' income and does not help the progress of the rural community,” Yoon said.
“The revision is nothing more than a coercion that forces the government to spend taxpayers' money to purchase overproduced rice regardless of market consumption,” the president added. “So far, the government has been explaining to the Assembly the adverse impact, but it unilaterally passed the bill without proper discussions, which I regret.”
The revision is aimed at requiring the government to purchase surplus rice if the production of the staple surpasses estimated demand by more than 3 to 5 percent or if rice prices decline by more than 5 to 8 percent from a year earlier.
The Assembly passed the revision on March 23, buoyed by approvals from the main opposition DPK. Yoon has been opposing this, claiming that the revision may spur oversupply and cause the state budget to be wasted.
When the president requests the Assembly to reconsider a bill, it requires the attendance of more than half of all registered lawmakers and approvals by two-thirds of attending legislators for the bill to be passed again, thus becoming more difficult to get the green light. Due to this, demanding a reconsideration is widely considered as a veto by the president.
This is the first time that a Korean president exercised his or her veto rights since May 2016, when then-President Park Geun-hye rejected a revision to the National Assembly Act. There have been 66 cases of presidential vetoes in Korean history.
Following the veto, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Chung Hwang-keun told reporters that the bill will only encourage farmers to overproduce rice, thereby aggravating prices of the staple grain.
“The bill will only increase the rice inventory and jack up the government's expenditure for rice purchases to reach 1.4 trillion won ($1.06 billion) by 2030,” Chung said. “This will make rice prices drop further, weakening farmers' incomes.”
Main opposition Democratic Party of Korea floor leader Park Hong-keun, center, speaks during a rally in front of the presidential office in Yongsan District, Seoul, Tuesday, denouncing President Yoon Suk Yeol's decision to veto a revision of the Grain Management Act. Yonhap
In response, the DPK held a rally in front of the presidential office in Yongsan District and claimed that the president “disavowed the public's will” and ignored “farmers' cries for survival.”
“President Yoon disavowed the public's will by vetoing the 'rice price normalization law' which was supported by 66.5 percent of the public,” the DPK said in a statement during the rally, citing an Oct. 29 and 30 survey by Embrain Public of 1,005 adults.
“I urge the ruling party's agriculture committee members and other lawmakers whose constituencies are rural areas,” DPK floor leader Park Hong-keun said. “Please stop the practice of relying on the president and stay with the common sense of the people.”
Following the veto, relations between the government and the presidential office are expected to deteriorate further with the opposition party.
On Monday, DPK Rep. Ju Cheol-hyeon, an agriculture committee member of the Assembly, threatened to impeach Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, claiming that he asked Yoon to veto the bill based on “false analysis.”
“The Assembly passed the bill after changing some clauses from the initial version, but the prime minister lied to the public by using the analysis drawn from the initial version,” Ju said. “If he cited this data on purpose, it is equivalent to disrespect for the Assembly and the public, which constitutes grounds for impeachment.”
Initially, the DPK proposed stricter standards for obligating the government to purchase surplus rice, but the party changed its stance to the current version after National Assembly Speaker Kim Jin-pyo mediated between the two sides. Ju was saying that the analysis the prime minister used for his Assembly speech on the revision was based on the previous version.
Along with the harsh rhetoric, DPK Reps. Shin Jeong-hoon and Lee Won-taeg shaved their heads on Monday as a sign of protest against Yoon's anticipated veto.
Casting a gloomier outlook is the fact that a number of other revisions are likely to follow in the footsteps of the grain law revision.
During a March 23 plenary session, a bill on enacting a separate act for nurses, a revision of the Broadcasting Act and four other law revisions were decided to be put to vote at a general assembly without the ruling party's agreement to table them.
Also, the DPK is now seeking to directly table the so-called “Yellow Envelope Act” at a plenary session by bypassing the ruling party. The Yellow Envelope Act is the subject of heated controversy, because it is aimed at amending articles of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act to limit companies from demanding compensation from labor unions that stage strikes.