In this blog post, we will revisit the controversy surrounding the constitutionality and fairness of the military service bonus system and examine its practical and legal validity as a means of supporting discharged soldiers.
In every society formed by a group of people, there are strong and weak members. Therefore, if society is left to its own devices without social sanctions, inequality between the strong and the weak will inevitably arise. For this reason, all societies establish social norms regarding equality and strive to resolve issues of inequality between the strong and the weak based on these norms. In South Korea, the society to which we belong, social norms guaranteeing equality are stipulated in the Constitution (Article 11, Paragraph 1: All people are equal before the law), and based on this, policies are established and implemented to protect the socially disadvantaged and guarantee the equality of all citizens. Such national policies include the female employment quota system and the mandatory employment of people with disabilities. The military bonus point system, which is the topic of this essay, is also one of the national policies for guaranteeing equality.
The military bonus point system was established to compensate discharged soldiers for their sacrifice in military service, and it grants additional points to discharged soldiers in civil service examinations and other competitive examinations. However, the military bonus point system was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that it violated equal rights because it resulted in sacrifices by other socially vulnerable groups, such as women and people with disabilities, and was abolished. However, both those who support the military bonus point system and those who argued for its abolition, as well as the judges of the Constitutional Court, agree that the sacrifices of discharged soldiers must be compensated. As a result, other support policies to replace the military service bonus system have been proposed, but due to practical issues, they have not been implemented and are still under discussion. Therefore, the reinstatement of the military service bonus system, which is the most realistic support policy, is constantly being proposed, and the debate over its pros and cons continues. Therefore, in this essay, I will describe my opinion on support policies for discharged military personnel, especially my support for the reinstatement of the military bonus point system. Specifically, I will argue in favor of reinstating the military bonus point system by refuting the arguments against it and comparing it with other support policies for discharged military personnel.
First, I will examine the legality of the reinstatement of the military bonus point system by refuting the arguments against it. Those who oppose the reinstatement of the military bonus point system raise three main arguments against its legality. The reasons for opposing the reinstatement of the military service bonus point system are that it has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, that it violates the equal rights of people who have not served in the military, and that it violates the right of people who have not served in the military to hold public office. We will now examine the legality of reinstating the military service bonus system by refuting these three arguments.
First, the argument that the military service bonus system should not be reinstated because it has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court is not valid. When the Constitutional Court ruled that the military bonus point system was unconstitutional, it pointed out that the problem was not the military bonus point system itself, but the loss of fairness due to excessive bonus points. At that time, the Constitutional Court recognized the legitimacy of the legislative purpose and intent of the military bonus point system. Therefore, in the case of the military bonus point system, which is currently being proposed for reinstatement, the issue of fairness has been addressed through partial revisions, and it can no longer be considered problematic. Looking specifically at the proposed revision to the military bonus point system, which was passed by the National Assembly Defense Committee in December 2008 and is currently pending before the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, the range of bonus points has been reduced from 3-5% of the total score to 2-5% of the individual score. The number of people who can pass has also been limited to 20% of the total number of successful applicants, and the number of exams, which was previously unlimited, has been limited by presidential decree, thereby sufficiently addressing the issue of fairness.
Furthermore, the argument that the military bonus point system should not be reimplemented because it violates the equal rights of people who have not served in the military is also incorrect. Although Article 39, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution stipulates that all citizens have the duty to defend the country, currently, only men are subject to military service in accordance with Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Military Service Act, which is a subordinate law of the Constitution. Therefore, the Military Service Act, which currently stipulates that only men are subject to military service, can be considered unconstitutional as it is inconsistent with the Constitution, which is a higher law. Furthermore, the fact that only men are subject to military service can also be considered as unfavorable treatment, which is prohibited by Article 39, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. Therefore, it can be said that the current practice of requiring only men to perform military service is unconstitutional and, in fact, constitutes discrimination against men who perform military service. Therefore, the argument that the military service bonus point system violates the equal rights of those who have not served in the military is not valid, and it can be said that appropriate compensation for men who have fulfilled their military service obligations is justified.
Furthermore, the argument that the military service bonus point system should not be reintroduced because it infringes on the right of people who have not served in the military to hold public office (the right of citizens to become members of national or local government institutions and perform public duties) is also incorrect. The argument that the military service bonus point system infringes on the right of people who have not served in the military to hold public office is based on the claim that the system does not establish selection criteria based on merit for the selection of public officials, but rather uses criteria unrelated to the job performance required for the position in question. However, the skills acquired through military service cannot be said to be unrelated to the job performance required for public office. A specific example is a survey conducted by the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs in 2009 on the benefits of military service. According to the results of the survey, respondents answered that military service helps develop problem-solving skills, leadership, patriotism, and a spirit of challenge, which can be considered skills required for public office. Therefore, treating military service members and non-military service members equally in the selection of public officials can be seen as infringing on the right of military service members to hold public office. Therefore, the argument that the military bonus point system infringes on the right of non-military service members to hold public office is not valid, and it is desirable to recognize the abilities of discharged military personnel in public office.
There was a similar case in the United States regarding the legality of the military bonus point system, namely the case of Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney before the US Supreme Court. In this case, the US Supreme Court ruled that in order for the military bonus point system to constitute gender discrimination, it must be proven that the legislature intended to discriminate against women, rather than simply having the effect of reducing the number of female public officials. The court ruled that the system was not unlawful because it recognized the special abilities, such as loyalty, of those who had served in the military. Of course, unlike the United States, which has a volunteer military service system, Korea has a conscription system, so there are differences in the systems, and the social environment is also very different, so it is somewhat unreasonable to make a direct comparison. However, it is clear that the military bonus point system in Korea was established with the purpose of compensating former military personnel for their sacrifices, not to discriminate against those who did not serve in the military, so it cannot be considered to violate the equal rights of those who did not serve in the military. Furthermore, since the military service bonus point system is used to select people who will work for the government and other state organizations, such as civil servants and teachers, loyalty and patriotism can be considered necessary qualifications, and therefore the military service bonus point system cannot be seen as infringing on the right of people who have not served in the military to hold public office. Therefore, considering the above counterarguments against the reinstatement of the military service bonus system and the case of the United States, the reinstatement of the military service bonus system can be considered lawful.
Next, we will examine the appropriateness of reinstating the military service bonus system by comparing it with other support policies for discharged soldiers. Currently, financial support policies such as realistic military salaries, tax breaks for discharged soldiers, and unemployment benefits after discharge are mainly being proposed as new support policies for discharged soldiers to replace the military bonus system. However, these support policies are not appropriate due to budgetary issues.
As we have seen, the proposed revision to the military service bonus point system sufficiently addresses the issue of fairness, which was the basis for the previous unconstitutional ruling, and is no longer a problem. Furthermore, the military bonus point system is not a violation of the equal rights of those who have not served in the military, but rather compensation for the disadvantages they have suffered due to their national defense obligations. In addition, the military bonus point system does not violate the right of those who have not served in the military to hold public office, but rather recognizes that the skills acquired by discharged soldiers during their military service are necessary for public officials. Therefore, the military bonus point system can be said to be a legitimate system that is not controversial in terms of its validity. In addition, since the financial support policies for discharged soldiers currently being proposed as alternative support policies are not realistic due to budgetary issues, the military bonus point system, which is realistically feasible, can be considered the most appropriate support policy for discharged soldiers. Therefore, given that most people recognize the need for support policies for discharged military personnel, I am in favor of reviving the military bonus point system, which is the most realistic and legally valid way to support discharged military personnel. However, since the military bonus point system has the limitation of only benefiting some discharged soldiers who are preparing to become civil servants or teachers, I believe that a systematic support policy should be established so that all discharged soldiers can benefit by reviving and implementing the military bonus point system while partially revising other support policies to reflect reality.
