The "move" by President Park Geun-hye has driven the pension reforms to an end.The agreement reached after more than four months of discussions by the ruling and opposition parties, the government, related organizations and experts is about to vanish into thin air at the words of the president.The ruling party changed its position and decided to break the agreement four days after the president expressed her opposition to linking the government employees’ pension to the national pension scheme.The opposition party opposed, claiming that the president was just throwing a tantrum, and even from within the ruling party some voiced their frustration at being unable to understand the president.The president, who should be responsible for the final negotiations and solution turned out to fuel confusion.Nevertheless, Cheong Wa Dae Senior Secretary for Public Relations Kim Sung-woo released an official comment saying, "We regret that we failed to keep the promise with the citizens," on the failure to pass the reform measures for the government employees’ pension.In other words, he blamed the politicians for the failure to pass the pension reforms.

Above all, the president is being criticized because she ignored the nature of the social compromise which brought about the latest reforms.The agreement was the fruit of discussions which had taken place over the course of four months by a task force in which the ruling and opposition parties, academia, civic groups, government employees groups and the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and the Ministry of Personnel Management had taken part.President Park criticized the discussions of the national pension which were included in the agreement and said, "We should first seek the consent of the people," but the latest agreement was the fruit of labor by representatives of various stakeholders and should have been evaluated as the result of a kind of process for "consent."Although the latest agreement presented a target of 50% concerning the increase of the national pension replacement rate, the agreement basically stated that they would establish a social organization to collect public opinion and seek the consent of stakeholders on specific measures.

Cheong Wa Dae had asked the politicians to reform the pension scheme "for the people."This means that from Cheong Wa Dae's perspective, the agreement concerning pension reforms which was reached after more than four months of discussions wasn't "for the people."The president practically designated agenda she did not approve of as "anti-national," thus triggering criticism of being self-righteous and stubborn. One senior lawmaker of the Saenuri Party said this day, "There has been no change as to the president's way of handling a problem. The people are not giving her an opportunity to change." The people failed to hold her politically responsible with their votes despite the disorder in state administration such as the Sung Wan-jong list scandal before the April 29 by-elections, so the president's lack of communication and unilateral way of administering state affairs have intensified.

This day, Cheong Wa Dae suggested, "Let's discuss the national pension after handling the reforms of the government employees’ pension," but even this is being criticized.As the agreement vanishes into thin air, the process of facilitating discussions once again will be more difficult. Given this fact, Cheong Wa Dae's words imply that they will not discuss the national pension.Improving the national pension scheme is a social agenda directly related to the people's lives.It is not right for the government to block any discussions on the topic.In particular, if the agreement was passed as planned, we could have concluded the reforms to the government employees’ pension and begun discussions on the national pension according to Cheong Wa Dae's argument that "The government employees’ pension and the national pension are separate issues."

As a result, some raise suspicions that perhaps there is a reason to why the government is avoiding discussions on the national pension, a reason sufficient enough to sacrifice the government employees’ pension.President Park's "trauma with the national pension" was at work.The debate on strengthening public pension schemes was triggered by the government's decision to break its campaign pledge of the "basic pension" in 2013.Thus the longer the controversy surrounding the national pension lasts, the more the president's failure to keep her campaign pledge as a "politician of promises" is likely to be highlighted.