[Yun Suk-myung’s Perspective] Constitute the Reform Committee Around Experts and Disclose the Full Text of the Minutes (2022.05.26.)

(On July 28, 2026,

the closing price of the KOSPI regular session

was 6,023.66, down 10.84%

from the previous day.

Compared with the 9,385.59

of June 2026,

that is a fall of 35.8%

from the peak.

Share prices can rise and fall.

There is every possibility that the opposite will occur tomorrow.

The problem is that the public’s retirement money

is exposed to shares

of such extreme volatility!

Since December 2025,

the Pension Future Forum has been

almost (!) the only voice in the Republic of Korea

to warn, again and again,

against political intervention in the National Pension!

Concerning the management of the public’s retirement money,

decisions of the utmost importance are made

at meetings

whose very minutes are not disclosed;

this may well be assessed as a colossal accident

brought about by

such fund management!)

“Having run the financial projections for the Government Employees Pension, the picture is appalling. Had it only been properly reformed ten years ago, it would not have come to this. It is astounding that the Government Employees Pension has been run so irresponsibly.” These are the words of a member of the Government Employees Pension who knows its true condition. The reason our pensions have come to this pass lies in the opaque operation of the schemes. It is a phenomenon produced when a small group monopolizes information, supplies only the information that suits its own taste, and constitutes and runs puppet committees made up chiefly of groups that champion that position. What was discussed in a league of their own has been passed off as though it represented the whole. As a result, vested interests were thoroughly protected, and the committee members who led the process prospered under particular governments.

'A League of Their Own’ — Opaque Operation of the Schemes

To understand this properly, let us summon up the discussions of the Government Employees Pension and the National Pension over the past 16 years. Let us begin with the Government Employees Pension, where the distortion of information in the course of reform discussions has been most severe. In 2009, two committees were set up to reform the Government Employees Pension scheme. In the case of the first committee, in 2006, there was a posture of discussing matters properly, and it was in fact run that way. Countless breakfast meetings were held, moving between the cabinet dining room at the Sejongno government complex and hotels downtown. Not only the experts who took part but also the government that supported them did their level best. Most of the materials requested by members were disclosed, and further materials needed were newly produced and provided. The reform proposal even included a provision that, if the National Pension reform then under discussion were carried out, the accrual rate would be adjusted downward further to reflect the content of that reform.

In July 2007, after twists and turns, National Pension reform was achieved, and it became necessary to revise the content of the first committee’s work. A second committee was launched. The first half of the second committee was run in a manner similar to the first. Abruptly, however, that first-half committee was dissolved and a new committee was organized. Compared with the earlier committee, the second half of the second committee was different — far too different. Many of the experts who had led the discussions were dropped and reduced to a minority, while stakeholders came to occupy more than half the committee. The direction of the discussion likewise became something else entirely.

At the outset the author, too, was excluded from the second half of the second committee. To those bent on defending vested interests, an author who called loudly for the financial stability of the pension must have been a thorn in the eye. Later, on taking up the post of head of the Social Security Research Division at the author’s own institute, it became possible to join the second-half committee belatedly. From the very first meeting attended, it was bewildering. The experts, reduced to a minority, kept silent, while the voices of stakeholders held forth like oratory. Any remark grounded in fact — that is, any call for strong reform — was attacked by a majority of stakeholders all at once.

A Public Hearing Question That Vanished Even from the Minutes

The outcome of such a committee structure was self-evident. A reform proposal wholly different from those of the first committee and the first half of the second was produced. The final meeting to decide the committee’s proposal was held at the Capital Hotel in Itaewon, Seoul. There must have been a great deal to hide: the venue was changed on the very day the meeting was held. Declaring that they could not accept the aberrant running of the committee, three experts from state-funded research institutes announced their resignation as members. As the room stirred, a recess was declared. Through the mediation of a member nominated by a civic organization, an agreement was reached: “The content discussed thus far shall be confirmed as the outcome of the deliberations of the second half of the second committee. Provided that the content of the first committee’s and the first half of the second committee’s discussions, as demanded by the three members who declared their resignation, shall be included as an appendix to the report of the second-half committee.” On condition that this agreement be kept, the committee closed without a rupture.

This is the author’s experience surrounding the 2009 Government Employees Pension Reform Committee. The reason for summoning up the course of that past committee is, above all, that the original agreement was not kept. Not only the materials the three experts demanded, but even the materials from the second-half committee’s discussions, cannot be obtained officially. In a reality where even a promise made by the government is cast aside like a worn-out shoe, what meaningful discussion can take place? This is why the precondition for pension reform is emphasized to be the transparent disclosure of materials.

That December, a National Assembly public hearing on the Government Employees Pension reform proposal was held. Back then, it seems, there were still politicians with convictions about pension reform: Dr. Moon Hyung-pyo of KDI, who had declared his resignation as a member at the Capital Hotel meeting, and the author were selected as witnesses for the hearing. In the for-and-against column of the hearing’s document collection, the author and Dr. Moon were recorded as opposing the government proposal. A year later, in December 2009, that government reform proposal passed without a single revision to the original text.

Five years further on, on February 26, 2015, a public hearing was held in the National Assembly to evaluate the 2009 Government Employees Pension reform. There was an issue the author raised in the presentation. Under the 2009 reform of the Government Employees Pension, about 56% of serving officials had not a single won cut from their pension. The issue raised was whether it was true that, since the amount might even increase, a supplementary provision had been added to prevent any increase.

At the time, Representative Kim Hyun-sook (now Minister of Gender Equality and Family) asked the Vice Minister of Personnel Management whether “it is true that the pension amounts of 56% of serving officials are not being cut.” After that question a recess was declared. When the hearing resumed, the Vice Minister of Personnel Management answered, “Yes.” The hearing was recorded and broadcast by National Assembly Broadcasting. In the course of preparing a National Assembly report in 2020, the author examined the minutes of that meeting closely. In writing this piece, the author looked at them again. That part alone is missing from the minutes. Is this not another current address of the Government Employees Pension reform process?

The 2018 National Pension Minutes, Still Undisclosed

The National Pension is similar, differing only in degree. This is what happened in the 2018 financial projection. On the ground that the content of the committee’s discussions had leaked, the presidential office confiscated the mobile phone of a Ministry of Health and Welfare official. It was said to have been confiscated with the official’s consent. What official could refuse a confiscation by the presidential office? The more serious problem is that the lengthy minutes of more than 20 committee meetings still have not been disclosed. Only when the minutes are disclosed can one know on what subjects, and how fiercely, the arguments were fought.

When even facts are contested, what flows is time and what goes out is the public’s taxes. Then, when the committee’s term ends, multiple proposals are drawn up anonymously, so that no one knows who proposed what, and submitted to a public hearing as the outcome of the committee’s deliberations. Despite fierce argument there is no conclusion, and no one takes responsibility — the line being that efforts were made but no single proposal could be arrived at. That is why the minutes cannot be disclosed. This is the background to the absence of results in National Pension reform discussions since 2007. If this method is followed, it will be hard to expect visible results under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration either.

Now that the President has declared a will to reform the pension, the first thing to be done is to disclose all pension-related information. If they are told to disclose at their own discretion, they will submit only material of no nutritional value. That is why a fact report must be produced. It should have been done at the transition committee stage. Even if it is late, it must be hurried from now on. The Yoon Suk-yeol administration must concentrate its capacity on producing that report properly — having neutral experts verify the draft prepared by the responsible ministry and the agencies, and adding what is missing. Doing this alone properly would be as good as half a success.

Members Who Pander to Popularity Must Be Sifted Out

Only after a properly made fact report has been shared with the press should a presidential pension reform committee begin. Every meeting should be broadcast live on YouTube, and the unedited version should be posted on a special pension reform site on the websites of the relevant government ministries and the various scheme agencies. These records should also be preserved permanently. Full-version minutes with real names should be prepared and posted on the website. At a minimum, the public and the press must be able to know who said what and to judge it objectively. Any member who does not want their remarks disclosed may resign. This is the method Japan has adopted. It is very late, but it is the shortcut to a proper reform.

Preventing the practice of constituting committees mainly from people who will speak for their own interests is the first mountain the Yoon Suk-yeol administration’s public pension committee must cross. That is why the character of the committee and the scope of its deliberations must be fixed in advance, in a manner similar to United States confirmation hearings. In addition, the scope of deliberation must be confined to devising a sustainable plan for financial stabilization. The public and the press must be enabled to distinguish which experts pander to populism, and which self-styled experts change color like chameleons every time a government changes.

Only then can the committee be prevented from heading toward mountains it cannot cross by invoking adequate old-age income. Adequate old-age income is a matter to be achieved through diverse social security schemes and reform of the labor market. Mixing the issues will produce neither porridge nor rice. Only in this way can we make the transition to the pension systems that the major advanced countries operate.

Yun Suk-myung, Research Fellow at the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; former President of the Korean Pension Association; head of the pension subcommittee of Reset Korea

https://n.news.naver.com/article/025/0003197769?sid=110