Ruling party's bid to rewrite Assembly rules is dangerous

The Democratic Party (DP) is pushing revisions to the National Assembly Act that would weaken opposition resistance while advancing bills on livelihood issues, drawing protests from the People Power Party (PPP).

The three revisions the DP could pass as early as Thursday would shorten the fast-track process, ease requirements for ending filibusters and allow standing committee chairs to be replaced. The DP says the changes are intended to create a “working National Assembly.” That rationale is difficult to accept.

National turmoil continues over the Criminal Procedure Act revision railroaded through the Assembly by the ruling party without opposition participation. Crime victims and ordinary citizens remain anxious, while disagreements have emerged within the DP and among government ministries. Is this what the party means by a working legislature? Persuasion and compromise to protect the public were nowhere to be found.

Since the National Assembly Act was enacted in 1948, it has reportedly been revised without the main opposition party’s participation only twice in 78 years, both since the DP won 180 seats in 2020. This reflects a longstanding parliamentary principle: Rules governing the Assembly should respect consensus, requiring concessions even from the majority.

The fast-track system allows up to 180 days for standing committee review, 90 days for the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and 60 days for the plenary session, totaling 330 days. It was still called a “fast track” because greater disagreement between parties requires more time for deliberation and compromise.

The proposed revision would slash that period to 90 days. A ruling party already willing to shake up the criminal justice system through closed-door agreements among its hard-line lawmakers now appears too arrogant even to honor past commitments. The public could again face legislation whose repercussions are impossible to predict.

The other revisions are equally troubling. They would significantly ease requirements for ending a filibuster, the opposition’s last means of resistance, and allow standing committee chairs, who should mediate between parties, to be replaced by a majority vote of committee members.

The DP previously neutralized opposition resistance through tactics such as splitting parliamentary sessions and orchestrating temporary defections from the party. These revisions would go further by effectively legalizing unilateral rule by the majority.

Parliamentary deliberation and compromise may be frustrating and time-consuming, particularly for a party with enough seats to pass legislation on its own. But those procedures exist precisely to restrain majority power and force lawmakers to consider objections before changing laws that affect the entire country.

If the ruling party continues to regard deliberation and consensus as nuisances, it may eventually lose public trust. It should also remember that after the next general election, the revised National Assembly Act it creates today could become a weapon wielded against it from the opposition benches.