South Korea’s National Assembly in Crisis: Ruling Party Pushes Ahead with Key Committee Chairs Amid Fierce Opposition Boycott

Unprecedented Showdown: What Happened in the National Assembly?

On June 27, 2025, South Korea’s National Assembly became the stage for a dramatic political clash. The Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), holding a majority, convened a plenary session and unilaterally elected its members to key standing committee chair positions—including the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, the Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee, and the Operations Committee. The opposition People Power Party (PPP) boycotted the session in protest, staging a walkout and holding a rally outside the chamber. This move was accompanied by placards condemning what they called the ruling party’s “legislative monopoly” and “destruction of cooperation.”
Observers note that such a public and coordinated walkout, complete with protest banners and a press conference, is rare even in South Korea’s combative parliamentary history. The DPK justified its actions by citing the urgent need to pass livelihood-related bills, including a crucial supplementary budget, while the PPP accused the ruling party of trampling on democratic norms and checks and balances.

How Did We Get Here? The Political Context Behind the Showdown

The roots of this standoff stretch back to the aftermath of the 2025 presidential election, which saw Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party take office after the impeachment and removal of former President Yoon Suk Yeol. Since then, the DPK has maintained a commanding presence in the National Assembly, but the opposition has demanded a fairer distribution of power through committee chairmanships—especially for the powerful Legislation and Judiciary Committee and the Budget Committee, traditionally seen as critical for legislative oversight.
Repeated negotiations between the two parties failed. The PPP insisted on securing at least one major committee chair to ensure legislative checks and balances, while the DPK argued that the committee composition for the 22nd National Assembly was already set and not open for renegotiation. With no compromise in sight, the DPK pressed ahead, citing legislative urgency.

Inside the Committees: Why These Positions Matter

In South Korea’s legislative system, standing committee chairs wield significant influence. The Legislation and Judiciary Committee, for example, acts as a gatekeeper for most bills, while the Budget Committee controls the flow of government spending. By securing all major chairs, the DPK now has a freer hand to advance its legislative agenda—including controversial bills like the Yellow Envelope Act, amendments to the Commercial Act, the Grain Management Act, and the Broadcasting Reform Acts.
This consolidation of power has sparked fears among opposition lawmakers and civic groups of “legislative tyranny,” with critics warning that the absence of meaningful opposition oversight could erode democratic norms.

Voices from the Floor: What Lawmakers and Leaders Are Saying

PPP floor leader Song Eon-seok was especially vocal, accusing President Lee Jae-myung and the DPK of breaking promises of dialogue and cooperation. He declared that the responsibility for the collapse of parliamentary order rests squarely with the ruling party. Meanwhile, DPK leaders countered that the opposition’s refusal to participate in committee formation was a deliberate attempt to paralyze the legislature and block urgent bills.
Both sides have taken their grievances to the public, with press conferences, social media campaigns, and even street rallies. The rhetoric has grown more heated, with the PPP warning of further escalation if the DPK continues to bypass opposition input.

Online and Community Reactions: How Koreans Are Responding

Korean online communities have exploded with debate. On DC Inside and FM Korea, posts question whether the DPK’s actions were necessary or an abuse of majority power. Some users on Theqoo and Instiz express frustration at the endless partisan bickering, while others support the DPK’s push to break legislative gridlock. A popular Naver blog post argued that the opposition’s walkout was “theater” designed to distract from their lack of constructive proposals, while a Tistory blogger criticized the DPK for “steamrolling” opposition voices.
Representative comments include:
- “If the opposition keeps refusing to cooperate, what choice does the ruling party have?”
- “This is just more political showmanship. What about real issues?”
- “The DPK is abusing its majority. We need checks and balances.”
- “Both sides are to blame for not negotiating in good faith.”

Cultural and Fandom Context: Why This Matters to International Readers

For international observers, Korean legislative showdowns might seem dramatic, but they reflect deeper cultural and historical patterns. South Korea’s democracy is young and forged in the fires of protest and rapid change. Political polarization is intense, and parliamentary tactics—walkouts, sit-ins, and even physical altercations—are part of the country’s political DNA. The current crisis also highlights the importance of committee politics in Korea, where much of the real legislative work happens behind closed doors.
For K-pop and K-drama fans, it’s worth noting that the Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee, now chaired by a DPK lawmaker, oversees key policies affecting the entertainment industry. Legislative gridlock or rapid policy changes here can have ripple effects on fandoms worldwide.

What’s Next? The Road Ahead for Korea’s National Assembly

With the DPK in control of all major committees, the party is poised to push through a wave of legislation, including more than 40 bills covering labor rights, media reform, and agricultural policy. The PPP has vowed continued resistance, including possible filibusters and further public protests. Many analysts warn that unless both sides find a way to restore dialogue and compromise, legislative paralysis or even more severe confrontations could follow.
As of July 2025, the National Assembly remains a battleground, with public trust in politicians at a low ebb and the fate of key reforms hanging in the balance.