(EDITORIAL from the Korea Times on Dec. 30)

Parliament or Battleground?

The unseemly occupation of the National Assembly by opposition lawmakers will likely
come to an end for the moment Tuesday.

Speaker Kim Hyung-o told sit-in strikers ??? legislators of the Democratic Party
(DP) and Democratic Labor Party ??? to end their siege at three Assembly halls by
midnight Monday. Kim then rightly asked the governing Grand National Party (GNP) to
refrain from railroading bills not urgent for the public's livelihood, and extend
discussion on them until the end of the current extra sitting on Jan. 7

We think Kim's compromise plan, though far from a fundamental solution, is a
realistic option that can finish the ongoing sorry state of the parliament, which
made headlines in foreign newspapers.

As expected, however, Kim is being attacked from both ends of the squabbling
political community. The GNP criticized its own former floor leader a year ago for
``sparing himself'' by avoiding directly tabling the bills, as is the speaker's
right, so that the majority party can pass them unilaterally. The DP, on the other
hand, suspects Kim's plan is just part of a process to rationalize his eventual
exercise ??? or abuse ??? of speaker's authority early next year.

It is this utter lack of will to meet halfway that makes Korean politics the
laughing stock of overseas media. They say democracy is a technique of compromise,
but it can only be seen in books, not in the real politics of Korea. In all previous
administrations since 1993, Assembly speakers from the majority party laid
controversial bills to debate on their own authority to help the governing party ram
them through. The only difference was the changes in the sides of offense and
defense.

This reflects a deplorable lack of democratic spirit and practice, considering the
process is sometimes more important than the outcome in a democracy.

GNP officials and some commentators say the governing party has only to use the rule
of majority given to them by voters though elections. They add the minority party
should follow the governing party's decision and undo it after five years.

If a majority is everything, why does Korea need a parliament instead of just
casting ballots every five years and sitting and watching what the government and
its party do until the next elections? Out of the 85 ``essential" bills earmarked by
the GNP for passage in 2008, there has not been sufficient debate on about 50. In
the United States, a bill often has to wait weeks or even months to persuade a
single opposing senator. The GNP is trying to ram through bills opposed by one third
of the parliament.

It's time for Korea to consider introducing the U.S.-style filibuster, which can
check the unilateral proceedings of the majority party, although it is skeptical the
system can take root in Korean politics, in which time-honored haste limits even
lawmakers' speech time.

That said, the DP needs to seriously reconsider its strategy of resorting to sit-ins
and street protests to make up for a shortage of Assembly seats. The liberal party
lost power due to its dubious administrative capacity and practical ethics, not due
to an insufficient struggle as a clear-cut opposition party.

President Lee Myung-bak is the person closest to resolving this stalemate by turning
toward more harmonious and democratic politics, which should be contained in his New
Year's address scheduled for Friday.

While Korean politicians are mired in a dogfight over domestic interest, they can't
help but watch Japan take away Dokdo islets.
(END)