President Lee Jae-myung on the 3rd raised the issue of foreign residents' eligibility for the National Pension, noting that "we need to improve the related system, such as setting a minimum required period of residence in the country."
Presiding over a senior secretaries' meeting that afternoon, Lee said, "According to global surveys, most countries that fund the basic pension with taxes require a certain period of residence in the country. In fact, a similar bill has been submitted to our National Assembly," adding this point.
Recently, a report said a foreigner worked in Korea for just one month, enrolled in the National Pension, then made a lump-sum retroactive payment of 119 months of premiums to gain eligibility, sparking controversy.
A bill to partially amend the National Pension Act (lawmaker Joo Ho-young and others) containing this content has been introduced in the National Assembly. It was referred on the 31st of last month and has not yet been substantively discussed. Under current law, even those whose National Pension enrollment period is less than 10 years may apply to make retroactive payments.
Lee said, "(In that case) I hear there was actually one person, but it seems there are quite a few cases where people paid for a few months and then made significant retroactive payments," adding, "There are similar concerns about the National Pension (as with the basic pension)."
He emphasized, "Social security programs funded by resources prepared together by the public must be designed meticulously and fairly so that no one gains undue benefit or the public suffers unreasonable losses."
Lee noted, "But if they meet requirements such as income and assets, the basic pension is paid regardless of when they acquired nationality," adding, "There is growing controversy over whether it is truly appropriate to designate them as recipients of the basic pension."
Lee pointed out, "To take an extreme example, someone could live their whole life as a foreigner, then belatedly acquire nationality and, upon residing in the country, immediately receive the same basic pension," adding, "This is not about how many such cases there are, but a matter of principle."
He added, "The very fact that a gap exists can only be perceived as unreasonable discrimination by the majority of the public who have fulfilled their tax obligations as citizens."