[EDITORIALS]Stop arguing, stick to points

The mudslinging between the leaders of the governing party and the opposition over an alleged secret “big deal” concerning the special administrative city bill is intensifying. The immature behavior of the two parties makes us wonder why they underestimate the intelligence of the public.
The “big deal” commotion began with a comment made by the Uri Party floor leader. In a press meeting explaining why his party decided to delay the introduction of a bill that would investigate collaborators during the country’s colonial past, Uri floor leader Chung Sye-kyun said that his party had accepted a deal to delay the bill in return for the smooth passage of the special administrative city bill. His comments coincided with allegations by a Democratic Labor Party legislator that the Grand National Party and the Uri Party had made a secret deal over the legislation of certain bills.
When certain Grand National Party members dissatisfied with the passage of the special administrative city bill accused their party leaders of making an improper deal, the Grand National leaders filed a 500 million won ($496,000) lawsuit against Mr. Chung for defamation. The Uri Party, in turn, has announced that it would take counter legal action against the Grand National Party leaders. Mr. Chung said he would take firm action against “a shallow political ploy to bring discord in public opinion.”
If we accept the explanation of the two parties’ leadership on the negotiation process over the passage of bill, there seems little ground for the allegations of an improper “big deal.” The two parties’ leadership insists that the negotiations over the history investigation bill and the special administrative city bill took place at different points in time. In the end, it is just a squabble over words and a bickering match that is missing the main point. It is all the more ridiculous that the two parties have even gone to court about it.
The governing party and the opposition must return to the essential debate. Has the new special administrative city bill made good the unconstitutional points of its prototype bill that was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court? Or does it still unconstitutionally divide the functions of the capital city? The debate over the history investigation bill should also stick to the main points. Neither bill should be subject to political deals. The two parties should stop this useless “big deal” mudslinging at once.