The National Assembly has opened a new office building for its members. The plush building, which cost 220 billion won to build, is a reminder that lawmakers have learned nothing at all from the provincial governments that are mired in debt due to construction of luxurious office buildings.

Of course, the new building won’t push the National Assembly into a debt crisis. It can finance it with taxpayers’ money. Yet if legislators use their budget authority to increase their own benefits and convenience, they would find it difficult to demand frugality from the executive branch.

The new office building for lawmakers is extravagant by any standard. For instance, its floor space is 1.5 times larger than the new Seoul City Hall, which is to be completed in August. While the new City Hall will accommodate more than 10,000 officials, the new Assembly building will only house 190 of the 300 members of parliament and their aides. For the remaining 110 lawmakers, the existing office building will be remodeled by next year.

The offices in the new building are almost twice as large as those in the old one. Yet the offices in the old building will get even larger than those in the new one after remodeling, as two offices will be merged into one. All offices, both in the old and new building, will be equipped with new furniture and appliances. This alone will cost about 5 billion won.

This lavish spending of taxpayers’ money has triggered outcry from civic groups. They rightly argue that Korean parliamentarians already enjoy too many privileges and perks, which they hardly deserve in light of their small contribution to the nation.

Legislators enjoy more than 200 different privileges and benefits. They include immunity from arrest and prosecution for most offenses during a session.

On top of their annual salary of about 140 million won, a legislator receives 60 million won a year in subsidies for office maintenance and legislative activities. A lawmaker can employ up to nine aides, with their salaries covered by taxpayers.

Lawmakers ride airplanes and trains for free and receive 1.1 million won a month in fuel and car maintenance subsidies. They are also entitled to an old-age pension. If one serves as a legislator even for a single day, he gets a lifetime pension of 1.2 million won a month after turning 65.

Despite all these privileges, Korean legislators are notorious for their low productivity. The 18th Assembly, whose term is to terminate in a couple of days, has been particularly infamous for its inefficiency.

Locked in divisive partisan politics, legislators could not enter into productive debates on national issues, let alone pass important bills. As a result, more than 6,000 bills have been left unaddressed during the term of the outgoing Assembly.

Frustrated by lawmakers’ inaction, civic groups have been demanding that their privileges be curtailed. In the run-up to the April general election, the ruling Saenuri Party moved to respond to the demands. For instance, the party’s lawmakers renounced their immunity from arrest during a parliamentary session. But the party did not move further.

Rep. Lee Han-koo, who was recently elected the party’s new floor leader, said last week he would promote Assembly reform in cooperation with the main opposition United Democratic Party.

One measure he has repeatedly called for is to ban legislators from retaining their side jobs. If lawmakers are allowed to keep their jobs as lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, etc., they can be tempted to put the interests of their professions before the public interest.

A ban on moonlighting is undoubtedly necessary, but the parties need to go further. They need to be reminded that legislators in many countries are tightening their belts these days. For instance, Japanese lawmakers recently decided to slash their salaries by 14 percent.

The December presidential election offers a good opportunity for the political parties to seek a divestiture of privileges. They can make the case that abandoning privileges will gain favor with voters. Lawmakers would find it difficult to refute the argument.

It should be brought home to members of the 19th National Assembly that the public will hold them up to a higher standard. To meet higher expectations, they should voluntarily give up privileges that do not fit with a democratic society.