Amid Political Strife, Ruling and Opposition Parties Jointly Sponsor 714 Bills
In the sharply divided 22nd National Assembly, bills jointly sponsored by the ruling and opposition parties have reached 714.
That is the result of Kukinews' comprehensive analysis of 19,730 member-sponsored bills introduced between May 30, 2024, the opening date of the 22nd National Assembly, and September 30, 2026. Bills jointly sponsored across party lines account for just 3.6% of all bills introduced, with the vast majority still introduced by single parties or within ideologically like-minded groups. Yet it is noteworthy that legislation of considerable scale has proceeded alongside the daily headlines of political conflict — from the extension of the special counsel investigation into the insurrection, to the delayed trial of former Economy Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok, to the ruling and opposition parties' clashes over independent lawmaker Han Dong-hoon's daughter's alleged thesis ghostwriting.
Why Cross-Party Sponsorship Is Growing
The 22nd National Assembly is a fragmented legislature, with a record number of negotiating blocs and new parties like the Cho Kuk Innovation Party entering parliament. From the outset, budget processing and even the composition of standing committees drifted, prolonging a legislative vacuum. Nevertheless, cooperation has broadened on livelihood-related bills. The move to legislate a cap on delivery app fees is a prime example. After the National Assembly audit, both parties moved together to draft bills, and discussions have narrowed toward reducing the fee burden on small business owners on the platforms.
The same holds true in education. Noh Young-hee of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party has worked on educational equity and teacher protections, while her party colleague Kim Hwa-jung has taken part in education policy legislation centered on the Education Committee — with bill-by-bill joint sponsorship occurring in areas requiring bipartisan cooperation. Unlike areas such as prosecutorial reform or labor legislation where the parties' positions diverge sharply, cooperation is concentrated on livelihood issues directly tied to consumers, small business owners, and parents.
Behind the 714 Bills
Examining the nature of jointly sponsored bills makes the conditions for cooperation clear. The majority involve issues of low political symbolism where compromises among specific stakeholders are relatively easy, and livelihood bills that pose no burden to either party's base. Delivery app fee regulation reflects a shared legislative demand across both parties aimed at the votes of small business owners. The bills to reduce military service exemptions and abolish the Asian Games gold medal exemption also progressed once the Defense Ministry and the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism agreed on the principle of "reducing military service exemptions," unblocking legislative deliberations.
On the other hand, where cooperation breaks down is equally clear. Labor legislation is a case in point. As US big tech companies restructure through layoffs, criticism has arisen that Korean companies are hamstrung by strikes and labor legislation. Bills to shorten working hours or protect non-regular workers show such a wide gap between the parties that joint sponsorship is difficult. Although Park Hyung-se of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party has championed resolving the non-regular worker issue as a key policy, resistance from the business community and entangled interests within the ruling party mean negotiations are likely to take time to get underway.
The Duet of Politics and Legislation: What Changes?
The political calendar is likely to dictate the pace of legislative cooperation. The recent cross-party skirmishes are intensifying, with the Democratic Party spotlighting the allegations about Rep. Han Dong-hoon's daughter's ghostwritten thesis, while Han has counterattacked, calling a bill related to the son of Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok an example of "privatizing public office." The fiercer the political confrontation, the greater the parties' incentive to secure the image of a "working parliament" by processing livelihood bills. The 714 joint sponsorships themselves serve as both a shield against political strife and a showcase of achievement.
Two things to watch going forward. The first is the passage rate — whether jointly sponsored bills actually clear the plenary session. Sponsorship is only a signal of cooperation; bills can drift amid renegotiations in subcommittees and full committee meetings. The other is the fate of regulatory legislation directly affecting the platform industry, such as the delivery app fee cap. Critics already warn that if fee caps are passed on to store owners, the regulation loses its effectiveness, making it likely the bill will be refined to include safeguards against cost-shifting.
Tasks Ahead
The figure of 714 is proof that cooperation is possible even in a confrontational legislature. But as the saying goes, good bills should be long and bad bills short — the substance and speed of passage matter more than the number of bills introduced. Even bills the parties join hands on will send side effects rippling back to markets and workplaces if pushed through without adequate consultation with the responsible ministries and stakeholders. How many livelihood bills are processed, and at what quality, during the regular session's schedule will likely become the report card for the second half of the 22nd National Assembly.
