"I'll Do Both Minister and Lawmaker" Refuses to Resign... Why 7 Years Ago's 'Animal National Assembly' Is Summoned

1. "Animal National Assembly"
Do you remember this scene? Profanities, grab-by-the-collar, and violent physical clashes. This was the day the term "Animal National Assembly," which had largely faded away after the enforcement of the National Assembly Advancement Act, resurfaced. Around 200 lawmakers and aides tangled and fought inside the parliament building, with people collapsing or fainting one after another from exhaustion during the overnight brawl. As you may have heard often, even iron crowbars, commonly called "parus," appeared to break open doors.

[Clang! Clang!]

Even today, "paru" has become a term symbolizing the chaos of that time.

[Sim Sang-jung / Former Justice Party Lawmaker & Chair of the Special Committee on Political Reform (April 2019): The floor leader of the main opposition party turning the place into a lawless world! Representative Na Kyung-won, step forward!]

[Na Kyung-won / Former Liberty Korea Party Floor Leader (April 2019): Obey the National Assembly Act properly! What is there to say? Shut up, Democratic Party's second-string party!]

This extreme standoff had several reasons, but it was driven by the "semi-mixed member proportional representation system" pursued by the then-ruling Democratic Party and four minor parties. April 2019 was exactly one year ahead of the general election, meaning they wanted to change the rules for electing lawmakers. The system is a bit complex, but when you elect lawmakers, you choose local constituency representatives and vote for proportional representation based on political parties, right? Well, the idea was to change it to a structure where parties with more constituency winners receive fewer proportional seats. Since major parties usually take most constituency seats, the purpose was to give minor parties a breathing room through proportional representation. However, from the perspective of the Liberty Korea Party, the predecessor of the People Power Party, they fiercely opposed it, arguing that calling it consideration for minor parties was nonsense since they were all on the same side and that they could not accept it, leading to this chaos. Eventually, at the end of that year, the bill containing these changes to the general election rules was passed through the joint forces of the then-ruling Democratic Party and four minor parties. At that time, the National Assembly went through severe turmoil.

[Moon Hee-sang / Former National Assembly Speaker (December 27, 2019): Moon Hee-sang dies twelve times a day these days. He is already dead. Only the hollow shell is left, and all the substance is gone.]

2. "Competition of Gimmicks"
To reiterate just the core of the changed system, the more constituency lawmakers a party wins, the more their proportional representation seats decrease in an interlocking structure, right? Eventually, an expedient method called a satellite party was mobilized. The Future Korea Party, the predecessor of the People Power Party, preemptively created a satellite party. It worked in a way where they fielded only constituency candidates, while the satellite party fielded only proportional representation candidates. Since they were legally separate parties, the constituency and proportional seats would not interlock with each other, right? And once the election ended, the two parties would simply merge back together. The Democratic Party strongly criticized this, but as they watched closely, they figured they would lose a lot of seats this way. Defying their own criticism, they hastily concocted a satellite party of their own. However, to make it slightly different from the People Power Party, they created a platform allied with minor parties. After the election ended, everyone would return to their respective parties. The Basic Income Party also participated in this platform, and won a single proportional representation seat in both the penultimate and the last general elections. Candidate Yong Hye-in was elected as a proportional representative both times, becoming a second-term lawmaker.

3. "Dual Office Controversy"
This is exactly where the problem began. As Representative Yong Hye-in was nominated as the candidate for Minister of Gender Equality, she signaled her intention to retain both positions as a minister and a proportional lawmaker. While constituency lawmakers have traditionally held both roles when appointed as ministers, it had been customary for proportional representatives to step down from their lawmaker seats upon becoming ministers. Instead, the next person in line on the proportional list from their political party would succeed them. However, as mentioned earlier, Candidate Yong became a proportional representative through a "platform" created by an alliance of multiple parties. Therefore, the next person in line is not from the Basic Income Party. As it turned out, it belongs to the Democratic Party. Ultimately, if Candidate Yong resigns from her lawmaker seat, the Basic Income Party would lose its only seat in parliament and be reduced to an extra-parliamentary party. This means they would no longer receive political party subsidies estimated at 1.1 billion won per year, and funding for aides' salaries and office operations would all be cut off.

[Yong Hye-in / Candidate for Minister of Gender Equality and Family: Since the hearing process is a process of communicating together with our citizens, I will prepare well for the hearing so that I can organize my thoughts well and convey them to you.]

4. "Remaining Questions"
In the end, this special political structure—created because she entered through a satellite party platform—serves as the background and main point of criticism forcing her to cling to holding dual offices. In the past, Candidate Yong even held a press conference arguing that party subsidies are breeding parasitic parties and must be abolished, but interpretations are now emerging that she is clinging to holding dual offices precisely because of the subsidies. On the other hand, counter-arguments have also intersected, asking whether the opportunity cost of giving one seat to a major party versus a minor party is different. The core issue of this controversy is the "structural dilemma spawned by the satellite party system," where following custom causes the parliamentary status of minor parties to extinguish, while protecting seats faces controversies over proportional representation dual-office holding. There is another question. A fundamental question has also been raised about whether holding the dual roles of lawmaker and minister is even valid in the first place. There has merely been tacit tolerance due to the reason of being a constituency lawmaker, but awareness of the problem regarding the practice of legislative lawmakers concurrently serving as executive cabinet members remains persistent. When someone is elected as a local representative and then becomes a minister, it becomes difficult to meticulously take care of their local district. This inevitably gives rise to the question of why they were elected in the first place. Ultimately, this controversy poses heavy questions on the outdated rules of our politics, ranging from the flaws of the election system and the validity of the practice of lawmakers holding ministerial posts, not just as a personal issue for Candidate Yong Hye-in. With a year and a half left until the next general election, if the semi-mixed member proportional representation system and the practice of lawmakers serving as ministers are deliberated in the National Assembly, and constructive alternatives emerge, couldn't the current controversy surrounding Candidate Yong Hye-in remain as tuition fees toward better politics?

(Reported by Lee Gyeong-won | Produced by Shin Hee-sub | Video Reporting by Seol Min-hwan | Video Editing by Na Hong-hee | Design by Lee Jung-joo | Writer: Kim Hyo-jin, Intern: Kim Jung-won | Produced by SBS Digital News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.