🚨 Filibuster

Today Korean Social News for Beginners | 2025.09.30

0️⃣ Delaying Votes in Parliament and the Dilemma of Protecting Minority Opinions

📌 Filibuster Politics: 4-Night, 5-Day Standoff Ends…Vote on Testimony Law Coming Soon

💬 A 4-night, 5-day filibuster standoff in the National Assembly is coming to an end. The Democratic Party plans to forcefully end the debate around 9:30 PM and proceed with voting on the revised testimony and expert opinion law. If this bill passes, other controversial bills like the Government Organization Act, Broadcasting and Communications Commission abolition law, and National Assembly Act amendments will follow. However, the People Power Party has announced plans for additional filibusters, and former Justice Ministers and Prosecutors General are preparing constitutional appeals, so legal and political controversy will likely continue.

💡 Summary

• A filibuster is when parliament members speak for a long time to delay voting.
• After a 4-night, 5-day filibuster standoff, voting on the testimony law is coming soon.
• It protects minority opinions, but it can also paralyze parliament and delay bills that affect people's lives.

1️⃣ Definition

A filibuster is when a member of parliament speaks for a very long time during a session to delay voting on a bill. It is mainly used by minority parties to block bills from majority parties or to appeal to public opinion.

In the Korean National Assembly, this was officially written into law through a 2012 amendment to the National Assembly Act. The debate can be ended if three-fifths of all members agree, which creates a balance between protecting minority opinions and allowing work to continue.

💡 Why is this important?

• It protects minority opinions in majority-rule politics through an official system.
• It prevents rushed lawmaking and allows time for proper discussion.
• It brings public attention to controversial bills and encourages social debate.
• However, excessive use can paralyze parliament and delay bills that help people's lives.

2️⃣ History and System of Filibuster

📕 Historical Background

• Filibusters have a long history. Key points include:

  • Filibusters became common in the U.S. Senate in the 19th century.
  • They also come from the British Parliament's tradition of unlimited debate.
  • The U.S. Senate introduced the "cloture" rule in 1917 to limit filibusters.
  • In Korea, long speeches were possible in the past, but the official system was created in 2012.

• Here are the filibuster rules in Korea's National Assembly Act. Key details include:

  • Article 106-2 of the National Assembly Act allows filibusters.
  • If one-third or more of all members request it, unlimited debate can begin.
  • If three-fifths or more of all members agree, a vote to end the debate can happen.
  • Each member can speak once without any time limit.

📕 Examples of Use in Korean Politics

• The 2016 Anti-Terrorism Act filibuster is the most famous. Key details include:

  • Opposition party members spoke for over 192 hours in relay.
  • 38 members participated, setting the longest record ever.
  • It attracted widespread public attention and the issues became well-known.
  • Eventually, the ruling party ended the debate through a closing vote and passed the bill.

• It has been used repeatedly for major controversial bills since then. Key examples include:

  • In 2020, the opposition used filibusters for the Corruption Investigation Office law and election law amendments.
  • In 2022, there were intense standoffs over broadcasting law and media arbitration law amendments.
  • In 2025, a 4-night, 5-day filibuster occurred over the testimony and expert opinion law amendment.
  • Filibusters have become a fully established political negotiation tool.

💡 Key Features of Filibuster Procedures

1. Starting requirement: Request from one-third or more of all members
2. Unlimited speaking: Each member can speak once without time limit
3. Closing vote: Three-fifths or more of all members must agree to end debate
4. Relay method: Multiple members take turns speaking in sequence
5. 24-hour process: Continues day and night, which is very tiring

3️⃣ Issues in This Filibuster

✅ Key Content of the Testimony and Expert Opinion Law Amendment

• The testimony law amendment strictly punishes witnesses who lie to parliament. Key issues include:

  • It strengthens the authority to prosecute witnesses who lie or don't show up.
  • There was an attempt to change who has prosecution authority from the Assembly Speaker to the Judiciary Committee Chair.
  • Whether it applies to past cases is at the center of the constitutional controversy.
  • Some analysts say the opposition party had First Lady Kim Keon-hee's testimony in mind.

• The ruling and opposition parties have clear differences. The main conflict includes:

  • The Democratic Party argues that parliament's investigation and witness examination powers should be strengthened.
  • The People Power Party objects that applying it to past cases violates the constitutional principle of "no punishment without law."
  • The Democratic Party softened some provisions in a revised version, but the opposition says fundamental problems remain.
  • Former Justice Ministers and Prosecutors General are preparing constitutional appeals.

✅ Other Controversial Bills Waiting

• More bills are waiting to be processed after the testimony law passes. Major bills include:

  • Government Organization Act amendment: Related to government department reorganization.
  • Broadcasting and Communications Commission abolition law: A bill to abolish the commission and create a new organization.
  • National Assembly Act amendment: Changes procedures related to parliament operations.
  • These bills also have sharp disagreements between the ruling and opposition parties.

• More filibusters and legal battles are expected. Key predictions include:

  • The People Power Party has announced filibusters for the remaining bills too.
  • The Democratic Party shows determination to process controversial bills all at once.
  • If constitutional appeals are filed, it will take time for the Constitutional Court to decide.
  • Political conflict is expanding into legal disputes.

4️⃣ Evaluation of Filibuster

🔎 Positive Aspects

• Filibusters officially protect minority opinions.
  • In majority-rule democracy, minority parties are always at a disadvantage in votes. Filibusters give minority parties enough time to speak and appeal to public opinion. This is an important safeguard against tyranny of the majority.
  • Through filibusters, public interest in controversial bills increases. As long debates continue, the problems with bills and arguments for and against become widely known, and public opinion can form. This strengthens the deliberative process of democracy.
  • It also prevents rushed lawmaking. When the majority party tries to push bills through without enough discussion, filibusters act as a brake. Through this, bills can be refined more carefully, or opportunities for negotiation between parties can be created.

🔎 Negative Aspects

• Filibusters can paralyze parliament.
  • When filibusters continue for a long time, processing other bills is delayed. Bills that affect people's lives or budget bills can be postponed, directly affecting citizens' lives. A legislative vacuum occurs due to political conflict.
  • It becomes a problem when the purpose of a filibuster is to waste time rather than have real debate. Some members fill time with content unrelated to the bill, which damages parliament's authority. There is a risk it becomes a political show rather than genuine deliberation.
  • The requirement for a closing vote is high at three-fifths of all members, so even majority parties cannot easily end debates. While this is intended to protect minorities, it can also allow minority parties to excessively obstruct proceedings. Finding a balance between filibusters and efficient government operations is an important challenge.

🔎 Direction for Improvement

• Reasonable operation of the filibuster system is needed.
  • First, filibusters should be used only for truly important controversial bills. If applied indiscriminately to all bills, parliament functions will be paralyzed. Parties should prioritize political dialogue and negotiation, and use filibusters as a last resort.
  • Second, the relevance of filibuster speeches should be strengthened. Filling time with speeches unrelated to bills should be restricted, and real debate should take place. This can preserve the original purpose of filibusters: deliberative democracy.
  • Third, the closing vote requirement can be reviewed. Some say the current requirement of three-fifths of all members is too high. An appropriate level that balances minority protection and procedural efficiency should be found. At the same time, exceptions that prioritize bills affecting people's lives can be considered.

🔎 International Comparison

• Filibuster systems in different countries vary.
  • U.S. Senate filibusters are used much more frequently than in Korea. In the past, members actually had to speak for long periods, but now there is just a rule requiring 60 votes to end debate, so filibuster effects occur without actual speaking. This has effectively raised the requirement for passing legislation from a majority to 60%.
  • The British House of Commons has strict time limits, making filibusters difficult. Instead, because of the parliamentary system where the government controls the parliamentary schedule, opposition parties have limited means to obstruct proceedings. Korea is somewhere between the U.S. and Britain - filibusters are possible but closing requirements are clear.
  • The Japanese Diet also allows long speeches, but it doesn't have institutionalized filibusters like Korea. Each country's filibuster system reflects that country's political culture and parliamentary structure. Korea is in the process of finding an appropriate balance between protecting minority parties and procedural efficiency.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Can members rest during a filibuster?

A: Members speaking in a filibuster cannot leave their seat, including for bathroom breaks or meals.

• Filibusters require continuous speaking, so members who start speaking must continue without stopping. If they leave their seat or stop speaking, their speaking time ends immediately. First, they can drink water or simple beverages at the podium, but eating is not allowed. Second, leaving briefly to use the bathroom is also not permitted. Third, if a member collapses or has an emergency, the debate stops.
• Because of these restrictions, filibusters are physically very demanding. Members prepare their physical condition in advance and plan for long speeches. During the 2016 Anti-Terrorism Act filibuster, one member spoke for over 12 hours. Because it's so difficult, filibusters typically proceed with multiple members taking turns in relay fashion.

Q: Can you talk about anything during a filibuster?

A: You can speak about content unrelated to the bill, but recently there are moves to strengthen relevance.

• Korea's National Assembly Act has no clear restrictions on filibuster speech content. First, in the past, some members read novels or told personal stories. Second, they sometimes talk about general political theory or history not directly related to the bill. Third, they sometimes stretch out repetitive content to fill time.
• However, recently there are efforts to increase relevance to bills. The Speaker can warn about excessively irrelevant speeches, and public opinion is critical of time-wasting without content. For genuine deliberative democracy, speeches should actually point out problems with bills and suggest alternatives. Continued improvement is needed to preserve the original purpose of filibusters.

Q: Who starts a filibuster?

A: Unlimited debate begins when one-third or more of all members request it.

• Filibusters are a right of minority parties, but a certain number of members must agree to start one. First, according to Article 106-2 of the National Assembly Act, one-third or more of all members must request unlimited debate. If there are 300 members, signatures from 100 or more are needed. Second, when the requirement is met, the Speaker declares unlimited debate, and members who applied speak in order. Third, it is usually decided and pursued at the negotiating group (party) level.
• Ending a filibuster also requires a high threshold. Three-fifths or more of all members must agree to end the debate. Out of 300 members, 180 or more votes are needed. This is a mechanism to sufficiently guarantee minority party opinions while preventing extreme obstruction of proceedings. Ultimately, filibusters are difficult to start and not easy to end.

Table of Contents

• Go to Guide