The number of consents for a National Assembly petition opposing the government's push for "funding retirement pensions" recently topped 10,000. With about a week left until the petition closes, the number of consents could grow further.
According to the National Assembly public consent petition board, as of 9 a.m. on the 4th, 10,023 people had consented to a petition titled "Petition opposing the push to fund retirement pensions."
The petition was posted on the 12th. A National Assembly public consent petition is made public to the general public if it receives consent from more than 100 people within 30 days of posting, and is referred to the relevant standing committee if more than 50,000 people consent.
The petitioner said, "Funding retirement pensions is a structure in which the state or a specific institution uniformly manages the retirement assets of workers," and noted, "It poses a significant risk of infringing on individuals' property rights and freedom of choice." The petitioner then asked, "Please halt the government's push to fund retirement pensions."
Funding retirement pensions is intended to raise returns by pooling retirement pensions, which are currently managed separately by corporations or individuals, into a single fund and managing and operating it professionally. The plan is to run it in a way similar to the National Pension Service.
However, critics continue to voice opposition, saying individual management authority could be restricted, and accountability could become unclear if the fund's management fails.
The petitioner argued, "Concentrating retirement pension management into a single fund heightens the risk of political and policy interference, and a single error in judgment could directly harm the retirement lives of countless people." The petitioner continued, "For the 2030 generation, who worry they might not even receive the National Pension, I believe the state should not interfere with retirement pensions as well," and emphasized, "Because retirement pensions are the people's future, not a fiscal tool for the state, we call for a careful reexamination by the government and related agencies."