[National Assembly Advancement Act 2.0]①Hwang Woo-yeo: "Constant Final Battles? Neither Laws nor Administrations Last Long... Time to Rethink the Electoral System"

The Spirit of the Advancement Act Is "Consultation"

A "Stable National Assembly" Without Extreme Seat Concentration Is Needed

Editor's NoteSince the implementation of the National Assembly Advancement Act, the so-called 'animal parliament' has disappeared in South Korea. However, dialogue and compromise have also vanished. The majority party’s unchecked passage of contentious bills, and the minority party’s obstruction, have become routine. In this five-part series, we revisit the reality of the Advancement Act—through the proposals of its architects and the current concerns of key legislative negotiators—and seek grand principles to restore a National Assembly built upon dialogue and compromise.

Former Saenuri Party leader Woo-Yeoh Hwang is being interviewed by The Asia Business Daily. Photo by Dongjoo Yoon

"The biggest issue with both ruling and opposition parties is that every session turns into a decisive confrontation. If legislation is forcibly passed, the law’s effective lifespan becomes short, and it even affects the administration’s fate. The Kim Young-sam administration collapsed following public resistance after a railroaded labor law. That law was eventually revised. If you walk alone, you may go fast; but if you walk together, you will go far."

In an interview with The Asia Business Daily on September 20 at his office in Seocho District, Seoul, former Saenuri Party leader Woo-Yeoh Hwang stated, "National laws must be made with a hundred-year perspective. If we build and demolish them like summer beach bungalows, the life of the law will be short. Above all, the original intent of the National Assembly Advancement Act, which is 'consultation,' must be restored."

Former leader Hwang, alongside former National Assembly Speaker Jinpyo Kim, was the architect of the Advancement Act (2012) that ended the era of the ‘violent parliament’. At that time, despite being the floor leader of the ruling party, Hwang pushed through key features of the act such as restrictions on the speaker’s authority to bring bills directly to the floor, the fast-track process, and unlimited debate (filibuster).

Hwang recalled, "Back then, using crowbars was common, and even tear gas was deployed. We even joked that only atomic bombs were left to be used." He continued, “The Advancement Act began at the request of young lawmakers like former lawmaker Se-yeon Kim, and was crafted with thoughtful deliberation, with agreement from then-opposition floor leader Jinpyo Kim, resulting in a substantial achievement."

The very spirit that Hwang attributes to the Advancement Act is 'consultation.' "According to Kant, humans cannot perceive absolute truth, and must rely on conclusions drawn from sincere contemplation and consensus," he explained. "The same applies to the National Assembly—through the dialectical process of consultation and synthesis, majority opinion is codified into law."

On the ruling party’s forcible amendment to shorten the fast-track period from 330 days to 90 days, citing the "vegetative parliament," he said, "It took 20 years to revise the Early Childhood Education Act. Stretching the fast-track to 330 days doesn’t slow the process. The system must be interpreted in good faith," he emphasized.

Regarding the opposition's use of parliamentary procedures, he added, "Simply reading news articles is not a filibuster. Only earnest, substantive speeches will earn the attention of the public and the opposing party. There have even been cases where filibusters have resulted in the repeal of bills. If used wisely, the procedure can have its own merits."

On amendments to the Advancement Act, Hwang said, "There are limits to revising the National Assembly Act. In fact, the more detailed the act becomes, the more it reflects underlying issues in the assembly. The British Parliament relies on centuries-old customs and precedents rather than a codified law. We need to establish a political tradition in which custom performs the same function."

He further advised that the two main parties turn their attention to reforming the electoral system. The current single-member district, first-past-the-post structure has, amid increasing polarization, led to an overwhelming concentration of seats. "One thing Jinpyo Kim and I both agreed on was that if a single party holds more than 180 seats, that is not a normal National Assembly," he said. "A supplementary measure is required to create a stable parliament without such extreme swings."

The following are excerpts from the Q&A with former leader Hwang.

▲ Why did you pursue the National Assembly Advancement Act?

- Just before running for floor leader in 2011, a group of 12 young lawmakers, including former lawmaker Se-yeon Kim, approached me. They said, "We don’t even know why we’re serving as lawmakers in this animal parliament. Please advance legislation to eliminate parliamentary violence. If you agree, we will support your candidacy for floor leader." When they promised their vote, what could I say? (laughs) That’s when I declared I would push for the Advancement Act.

▲ How was conflict between the ruling and opposition parties in the past?

- Before the Advancement Act, the Speaker had broad authority to bring any bill directly to a vote if party negotiations stalled. This allowed the majority party to push bills through, resulting in severe confrontation. At that time, caucus leaders would delegate specific disruptive tasks to junior lawmakers—some would block the chamber doors, others would physically restrain the Speaker, or seize the dais. Chains, sledgehammers, crowbars—these tools were regularly used to blockade or smash open chamber doors. Later, tear gas was even deployed (referencing the incident where former lawmaker Kim Seon-dong threw a tear gas canister in the chamber). We used to joke, "All that's left is to bring in nuclear weapons." (laughs) These scenes were picked up by foreign media and became an international laughing stock. It was humiliating for the nation, and the public was deeply concerned.

▲ How did the opposition react to the Advancement Act’s legislative process?

- During the 18th National Assembly, Jinpyo Kim—then floor leader of the Democratic Party—immediately said "OK," for which I was grateful. The late lawmaker Sang-cheon Park, a senior at my university, also agreed wholeheartedly. We formed a 20-member bipartisan committee, and spent an entire year refining the Advancement Act. With support from both floor leaders and media coverage, senior lawmakers also contributed various proposals. We even reviewed materials outlining the evolution of the U.S. Congress for reference. Drafting this bill was a truly significant undertaking.

▲ It seems your relationship with former Speaker Kim contributed to the bill’s passage.

- Former Speaker Kim is truly an outstanding figure. During the 18th National Assembly, he had served as both Deputy Prime Minister for Economy and Deputy Prime Minister for Education, returning to the Assembly with unparalleled experience, scholarship, and dignity. On a personal note, we were also both alumni of Seoul National University’s School of Law, with a close rapport. Even without words, he read my intentions and offered a grand vision. Even in times of sharp partisan strife, he served as a buffer. Most importantly, that was a time of rapid national growth with many legislative reforms essential to economic expansion. The excitement of participating in such historic lawmaking certainly influenced us.

▲ When the Saenuri Party unexpectedly became the majority in the 19th National Assembly, was there any opposition to the Advancement Act from within?

- Before the election, since no one could predict the outcome, all parties went ahead and committed to it. Then, after the Saenuri Party achieved a narrow victory, the mood among lawmakers turned uncertain and shaky. Senior members, especially those representing the party’s main base in the Yeongnam region, began to object, saying, "That’s not what we agreed to before." They questioned how to govern without the Speaker’s fast-track. But the Advancement Act was a pledge to the public and a bipartisan agreement. Then-presidential candidate Park Geun-hye also supported it. I told them I would take full responsibility—let’s keep our promise and pass the Advancement Act.

▲ Was it a heavy burden to push the bill as the floor leader?

- To this day, I still face criticism that the Advancement Act should not have been passed. When I informed former Speaker Kim that I would advance the bill, his reaction was, "Are you really going to do it?" and he was shocked. For me, that decision was almost fateful. It closed off all possibilities for positions like Assembly Speaker. (Although I was regarded as part of the pro-Park faction, I lost the race for the next Assembly Speaker to Jeonguihwa Jeong of the pro-Lee faction.) Still, political positions are fleeting, but law remains. Although the act is still being revised, its underlying intent and framework will endure.

▲ If you had to sum up the legislative intent behind the Advancement Act, what would it be?

- It’s ‘consultation.’ Consensus means everyone is in full agreement, but that can’t be demanded or expected from the National Assembly. Borrowing from philosopher Immanuel Kant, humans cannot apprehend things-in-themselves (noumena). Ultimately, we pour all our experience and knowledge into earnest reflection and call that which the most people agree on as truth or justice, and act upon it. That’s law. Parliament is the same. Since no one can be right in the absolute, we consult, and ultimately, decisions are determined by majority will. The process of majority rule emerges from the dialectic synthesis of consultation, from thesis-antithesis-synthesis. That is the very spirit emphasized in the Advancement Act.

▲ Do you believe the spirit of the Advancement Act still lives on today?

- I don’t think so. Even in the ancient Silla-era Hwabaek council, there was hardly ever unanimity. In the end, decisions were made at the point of ‘not enthusiastic agreement, but not outright opposition.’ National laws should be framed with a centennial vision. Laws built and torn down like beach huts in summer won’t last. The spirit of consultation in the Advancement Act must be restored. Only then can laws endure for 1,000 or even 2,000 years, like the canon law of the Roman Curia.

▲ The number of bills unilaterally pushed through by the ruling party went from zero in the 19th Assembly to 320 in the 22nd.

- Of course, final decisions are made by majority vote. But the problem is, now every session turns into a ‘final showdown.’ Husband and wife do not engage in a showdown every time they disagree. Especially with laws pushed through in this way, their effective lives are short. It affects the administration's fate as well. During the Kim Young-sam administration, the government and ruling party forcibly revised labor laws. (In reference to the rushed 1996 labor law revision) I was a first-term lawmaker then, and the party praised our efforts. But when public opposition erupted, the administration fell. The Democratic Party underwent a similar experience—when Roh Moo-hyun was president, pushing through the private school reform and three other controversial bills cost them political support, and those bills were eventually revised later as well.

▲ The ruling party unilaterally shortened the fast-track period.

- People talk about a "vegetative parliament," but the "animal parliament" was a much bigger problem. Plants, after all, are successful if they are lush. People assume plants are inactive, but nothing is as industrious as a plant. Looking at statistics, before the Advancement Act, it took five years on average to pass a single bill. After the act, it was less than three years. Result: legislation is not delayed. It took 20 years to amend the Early Childhood Education Act. The 330 days designated for the fast-track isn’t slow, either. Following the Advancement Act’s procedures, a bill can be handled within a year. Instead of blaming the law, interpret it in good faith.

▲ There is criticism that filibusters have become ineffective as they proliferate.

- To share an amusing story, the filibuster system was actually proposed by the current Democratic Party. The late lawmaker Sang-cheon Park, who had studied in the U.S., came up with the idea. I remember saying at the time, "Why use English in our legislation? We’ve never even tried such a system." But Park used to say, this is precisely the charm of the filibuster. There are five- and fifteen-minute addresses on the floor tied to bills, but subcommittees aren’t visible to the public. Nowadays, filibusters make the National Assembly into a YouTube broadcast. Simply reading a newspaper is not a filibuster. Though it may be tough for the opposition, only statements made sincerely will be heard by both the public and the majority. There have even been cases where bills were rejected through filibuster. If used wisely, the procedure can be effective.

▲ There is also criticism that the agenda coordination committee is now just a formality.

- The committee was originally intended to escalate discussions among party elders when regular negotiations stalled. Thus, senior lawmakers must be placed on the committee. If only new and second-term lawmakers are assigned, it becomes a battleground of arguments. However, among elders and senior lawmakers, discussions must eventually take place. This allows the National Assembly to be operated more productively if the original intent is preserved.

▲ Are there any institutional improvements you would suggest?

- When the president is inaugurated, the oath is to “faithfully perform one’s duties pursuant to the Constitution,” but lawmakers swear to “执行 their duties according to their conscience.” In the end, what constrains lawmakers is their own conscience. That is why custom is more important than any rule in the Assembly. Revision of the National Assembly Act has its limits. The more detailed it gets, the more dysfunction it reveals. For example, there is no lengthy Parliamentary Act in the UK—centuries of custom and precedent serve the role. For instance, the budget is proposed in the name of the monarch and finalized with the monarch’s signature. These practices have endured for hundreds of years. Our National Assembly should, likewise, operate by such customs. If we do so, we could build a political tradition beloved by the people, just as in Britain.

▲ So, is there no way to enforce dialogue and compromise institutionally?

- The next step should be electoral law reform by both parties’ parliamentary negotiation groups. When Jinpyo Kim and I discussed the Advancement Act, a key agreement was the threshold of 180 seats, at which the Act could be overridden. Allowing any one party to control over 180 seats and dominate lawmaking means the parliament is not functioning normally. Yet in recent times, single-party control beyond 180 seats has continued. This isn’t the voters’ fault. It’s a symptom of our inadequate electoral system. Therefore, what’s necessary is a supplementary measure to ensure that no party controls more than 180 seats, achieving a stable parliament. For example, adopting a medium-to-large constituency system, even in some metropolitan areas, could help reduce the distortion in seat distribution.

▲ What advice would you give to the ruling and opposition parties?

- If legislation is always forcibly passed, then only the party with 51% of the vote should govern and those with 49% should just go fishing at home—why receive their pay? This cannot be admissible, and it is precisely why the Advancement Act was introduced. No matter how large the majority, there must be institutional devices to reflect minority opinion. The opposition shouldn’t object to everything, but should select one or two core issues to address. Former President Park Geun-hye, too, focused the party’s strength on the reform of private school law during Roh Moo-hyun’s presidency. Parliamentary systems such as the filibuster should be used sincerely and genuinely.

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