The parliament’s passage last week of no-confidence vote against the agriculture minister leaves several things to ponder.

First, the opposition-led vote against Kim Jae-soo was the first event at the 20th National Assembly in June that made everyone -- from the president, ruling and opposition members to the public -- realize the cold political reality: The parliament is controlled by opposition parties.

The no-confidence motion, proposed by the main opposition Minjoo Party of Korea and the minor Justice Party, got enough votes because the second-largest opposition People’s Party supported it at the last minute. After failing to block the vote, the ruling party boycotted the vote.

The no-confidence vote and President Park Geun-hye’s subsequent decision to ignore it has paralyzed parliamentary business and escalated tension between the rival camps – to the degree that the ruling party leader Lee Jung-hyun went on a hunger strike to demand the resignation of Speaker Chung Sye-kyun. Perhaps, the three opposition parties themselves would not have imagined their action could cause such a big fuss.

But what is obvious is that the three opposition parties – by working together on the no-confidence motion, wanted to demonstrate the power that voters gave them through the April 16 general elections, sending a message that they are in firm control of the legislature. 

If not, they would not have voted against the agriculture minister – whose post is not a key political portfolio and against whom the allegations raised during the confirmation hearing were not so serious as to eject him from the cabinet post he took up less than one month ago. 

The second point is that by rejecting the motion outright, Park once again demonstrated her penchant for hardball, confrontational politics. The parliamentary no-confidence vote is not binding, but none of Park’s predecessors spurned a no-confidence motion passed by a parliamentary vote.     

As Park noted, opposition parties had weak grounds for pursuing a no-confidence vote against Kim. The allegations against him included that he exerted influence to rent an apartment and a bank loan under unusually favorable conditions and that his mother received public medical benefits given to the poor. Opposition members failed to present convincing evidence of serious misdeeds related to all of these.  

But whatever political motives opposition parties may have had, the chief executive should respect the no-confidence motion, since it was passed by the full legislature. 

Instead, Park maintained her usual defiant attitude, accusing the opposition of putting the country into further trouble at a time when it faces numerous emergencies, including the growing nuclear threat from North Korea. She went on to urge Cabinet ministers to “not be swayed and work harder.”

It is obvious that Park believes that the opposition and her critics are using the minister’s case to build a political offensive against her and weaken her leadership.

Park maintained the same stance regarding recent scandals involving her top aide Woo Byung-woo and two nonprofit foundations allegedly established under the auspices of people close to her.

One last point -- but not the least important -- that should be made regarding the fuss over the no-confidence vote is its effect as an institution designed to check the power of the president.

Korea has a unique power structure that combines the presidential system and the parliamentary cabinet system. The no-confidence vote, like the parliamentary confirmation hearing for nominees for senior government posts, has been introduced to curb the power of the president.

So the president should be obliged to accept any decision by the parliament -- be it a demand for the sacking of a Cabinet member or rejection of a nominee. We would not be witnessing the current political crisis if Park did not have the right to veto the parliamentary vote.