[Open World] The Advisory Committee of the National Assembly Special Committee on Pension Reform Concludes Prematurely (2026.05.19.)

(This column has been written from

an entirely different perspective from the [Open World] column by former

First Vice Minister Lee Ki-il of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, which was posted earlier

in the Expert Columns section under the Insights category

of the Pension Future Forum.

We wish to emphasize

that the content of this column represents

the position of the Pension Future Forum.

Readers are encouraged to carefully compare and examine the two columns.)

 

At 10:00 a.m. on March 20 of last year, just before the amendment to the National Pension Act was passed,

"Is this pension reform — where the older generation receives more while the young and future generations pay more?" Under this banner, the Pension Future Forum held a press conference at the National Assembly Press Center.

"The amendment proposed for passage today contains many issues that require careful scrutiny and must be reviewed over time."

This remark by Rep. Park Su-young, then-chair of the ruling party's Special Committee on Pension Reform, who attended the background briefing following the press conference, prompted media reports suggesting the legislation might not pass that same day.

Whether in response to this atmosphere, the floor leaders of the ruling and opposition parties held an emergency meeting and confirmed that the law would pass that day.

The bill passed on a plenary vote, though with a substantial number of dissenting votes.

An uncommon occurrence took place in Korea's reality of acute partisan polarization: a joint press conference was held by members of the Democratic Party of Korea, the People Power Party, and the Reform Party. Representatives Kim Jae-seop, Woo Jae-jun, Lee Ju-young, and Jeon Yong-gi labeled the measure 'a regressive deterioration that shifts the burden onto the young' and sharply criticized it.

(Excerpt omitted)

As the backlash intensified, younger cohorts were appeased with promises to establish a Special Committee on Pension Reform to pursue additional pension reform — namely, structural reform.

The launch of the advisory committee established to support the activities of the 22nd National Assembly Special Committee on Pension Reform, formed in this manner, was accompanied by considerable difficulty.

Political disagreement over a specific individual — objecting not only to that person's role as co-chair of the advisory committee but also to participation as a member — caused delays of several months, with the first advisory committee meeting only taking place in November of last year.

The following is what the author presented at that first meeting.

"This is a change for the worse disguised as reform — put bluntly, it is a fraud perpetrated on the public.

This is because the burdens on the young and future generations have been increased in exchange for entrenching the pension entitlements of those aged 50 and above. The pay-as-you-go (PAYG) cost rate of the National Pension — that is, the monthly contribution burden level after fund depletion — which had been assessed as unsustainable at 36.6% — has in fact risen to 39.4% following the reform.

If the retirement age is raised, the PAYG cost rate will climb to 41.1%, and the cumulative deficit arising after fund depletion will increase by an additional 179 trillion won.

If anyone would call this 'reform,' let them raise their hand and explain the basis for such a claim! I am prepared to engage in an all-night debate in this very room to determine the truth."

Voices are growing louder that deny the need for structural reform, arguing that sound fund investment management will preclude any concern about depletion through 2090.

Some argue that 'difficulty in reaching a consensus' should serve as grounds for declaring advisory committee activities futile — a position that leaves one utterly at a loss for words!

This is precisely because the advisory committee's inherent purpose is to "properly convey the substantive truth of the pension reform debate and a forward-looking reform agenda to the members of the National Assembly Special Committee on Pension Reform."

This is all the more so given that "political consensus" — a task belonging to the National Assembly — has been passed off to the advisory committee, only for the response to be "it seems consensus will be difficult, so let us conclude quickly."

The following is the view of Rep. Woo Jae-jun of the Special Committee on Pension Reform, who recently co-hosted a policy forum with the Pension Future Forum.

"When I indicated that I wished to attend advisory committee meetings in order to understand the details, I was told that participation by National Assembly members would be difficult. Having heard expert voices at today's forum, I feel even more strongly the necessity of such participation."

This is why the decision to conclude the advisory committee's activities prematurely — a decision that diverges from the voices of the Special Committee's own National Assembly members — must be reconsidered.

https://n.news.naver.com/article/081/0003644912?sid=110