Suggestion of veto when passed in plenary session
While four agriculture-related bills, including the amendment to the Grain Management Act (Grain Act), were independently passed by the standing committee led by the opposition party, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Song Mi-ryeong said, “(The four bills) are the ‘four agricultural laws’ that will ruin the future of agriculture.” He criticized it strongly.
Minister Song held an emergency press conference at the Sejong Government Complex on the 25th and said, “(All four bills) have problems, so we said we would discuss alternatives, but they were held alone at the level of ‘answer is decided, so all you have to do is answer.’ “It was decided,” he said, adding, “It’s unfortunate and regrettable.”
Previously, on the 21st, the opposition party independently passed four bills at the National Assembly’s Agriculture, Livestock, Food, Oceans and Fisheries Committee, including the Grain Act, the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products (Farm Safety Act), the Agricultural and Fishery Disaster Insurance Act, and the Agricultural and Fishery Disaster Countermeasures Act.
Regarding the amendment to the Grain Act, Minister Song said, “We are concerned that the side effects of rice overproduction will increase by adding the ‘grain price stabilization system’ to the ‘surplus rice compulsory purchase law’.” He added, “Overproduction may become entrenched and cause a decline in rice prices.” “He criticized. It was also predicted that the agricultural security law, which aims to introduce a minimum price guarantee system for agricultural products, would lead to a concentration of production of certain items, which would lead to instability in the supply and demand of agricultural products and cause prices of some agricultural products to skyrocket. He pointed out that the remaining two disaster laws are “disasters in themselves” and that they are impossible to operate because they have the potential to conflict with existing laws.
When asked whether he would suggest the president exercise his right to reconsider (veto), Minister Song said, “I will explain as much as possible to prevent it from going to the plenary session, and if a situation arises where it passes the plenary session, I have no choice but to take the same position as the minister (as before).” I answered. The Grain Act was abolished in the 21st National Assembly due to President Yoon Seok-yeol’s veto.
the year, including reducing rice cultivation area, improving rice quality, and diversifying rice consumption.
Sejong = Reporter So Seol-hee [email protected]
- I’m angry
- 0dog
- I recommend it
- dog
Hot news now
– What are the main concerns regarding the proposed agricultural bills in South Korea?
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Agricultural Policy Expert
Time.news Editor: Welcome to our interview. Today, we’re diving into a pressing issue in South Korea’s agricultural sector. With us is Dr. Lee Jung-hwan, an expert in agricultural policy. Dr. Lee, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Lee Jung-hwan: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss such an important topic.
Editor: To set the stage, can you provide some context around the recent developments in the National Assembly involving the four agriculture-related bills? Minister Song Mi-ryeong has expressed strong concerns about these bills, labeling them as “the four agricultural laws that will ruin the future of agriculture.” What’s your take on this?
Dr. Lee: Absolutely. Minister Song’s critique highlights significant anxiety within the agricultural community. The bills, particularly the amendment to the Grain Management Act, aim to stabilize prices and manage surplus production, but the Minister believes they could exacerbate existing problems. For example, the “grain price stabilization system” could lead to overproduction and a subsequent decline in rice prices, which is exactly what we’ve been trying to avoid.
Editor: It’s a complex situation for sure. You mentioned overproduction. Can you elaborate on how the proposed price guarantee systems might impact various agricultural sectors?
Dr. Lee: Certainly. Implementing a minimum price guarantee may create an environment where farmers focus heavily on certain crops that benefit from this protection, leading to a concentration of production. This might worsen supply and demand imbalances, causing price volatility for other agricultural products that don’t enjoy the same protections.
Editor: That’s fascinating. And you mentioned that two of the disaster-related laws could also be problematic. What do you think Minister Song meant when he referred to them as “disasters in themselves”?
Dr. Lee: Minister Song seems to be indicating that these laws could create contradictions with existing legislation, leading to operational challenges. If the new laws can’t complement or enhance current systems, they could not only fail to provide assistance during actual disasters but might also complicate the recovery efforts. Essentially, they risk being unworkable in practice.
Editor: It seems like there’s a significant divide between the government and the opposition on how to proceed. Given that the opposition has passed these bills in committee, do you foresee any potential for reconciliation?
Dr. Lee: Reconciliation could be challenging at this stage. The opposition likely feels empowered by their committee success, yet the Minister’s strong objections indicate that negotiations will need to be robust and productive to address these concerns. Perhaps, a bipartisan effort to re-examine certain aspects of the legislation could lead to a more viable path forward.
Editor: Minister Song has suggested that he may urge the President to reconsider these bills if they reach the plenary session. In your opinion, how likely is a presidential veto in this case?
Dr. Lee: It really depends on the President’s stance towards agricultural policy and the political climate at the time the bills are assessed. If there’s strong public sentiment backing the Minister’s concerns, or if the administration prioritizes agricultural stability, a veto is certainly within the realm of possibility. However, we have to remember that politics can be unpredictable.
Editor: That’s a good point. As a concluding thought, what do you believe is the most critical step that needs to be taken to secure the future of agriculture in South Korea amidst this legislative turmoil?
Dr. Lee: The most critical step would be creating a collaborative dialogue among all stakeholders—government, farmers, and policy experts. Open, constructive conversations that consider the needs of farmers while also addressing policy goals are essential. This kind of engagement can reveal alternative solutions that might not have been initially considered and ultimately lead to a more stable and prosperous agricultural sector.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Lee, for your insights on this complex issue. It’s crucial that we keep the discussion going as these developments unfold.
Dr. Lee: Thank you for having me. Let’s hope for a positive resolution that prioritizes the farmers and the sustainability of agriculture in South Korea.