"Pathetic Appearance"... Lee Jae-myung's 'Party Position Retention' Procedure Violation Discord

Sangmin Lee "Rushed Decision to Maintain Party Leader Position"
Usangho Woo "Legal Effect at Party Level Has Occurred"

The Democratic Party of Korea continues to experience discord over its decision to apply the exception clause of 'Party Charter Article 80' to maintain the party position of leader Lee Jae-myung, who has been indicted over the Daejang-dong scandal. Contrary to the initial announcement that the Party Affairs Committee unanimously decided to keep Lee's party position, it has been reported that some committee members abstained, citing procedural issues, sparking ongoing controversy.

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, is attending the Supreme Council meeting held at the National Assembly on the 22nd. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

Lee Sang-min, a non-mainstream member, appeared on KBS Radio on the morning of the 24th and criticized, "As the leader of the ruling party with 169 seats, Lee should have maintained dignity and proper conduct, but he repeatedly overstepped, and maintaining his position as party leader through exceptions rather than principles is not very refreshing."

Earlier, on the 22nd, the Democratic Party held a Party Affairs Committee meeting just six hours after Lee was indicted on allegations of preferential corruption related to the Wirye New Town and Daejang-dong development projects and the Seongnam FC sponsorship fund. They applied the exception clause of Party Charter Article 80, which stipulates suspension from party positions upon indictment, to allow Lee to retain his leadership position.

When the Party Charter was amended last August, a clause was included that allows exceptions if the indictment is recognized as political oppression. The Democratic Party concluded at this Party Affairs Committee meeting that the prosecution's indictment of Lee constituted 'political oppression.'

However, some lawmakers pointed out that even if the exception clause is applied, based on the provision 'among those who have been subject to suspension from duties,' Lee should have first undergone the 'suspension from duties' step.

After the Party Affairs Committee meeting, spokesperson Kim Eui-gyeom announced the decision was made with "unanimous consent," but the next day, it was confirmed that lawmaker Jeon Hae-cheol raised procedural concerns, abstained, and left, causing internal strife to spread. Jeon said, "It felt rushed and hasty, and although formal procedures were followed, that does not guarantee legitimacy," adding, "This entire process concerns the status of the party leader, and failing to uphold the principle and hastily applying exceptions in such a shabby manner is not refreshing."

He continued, "The Party Affairs Committee reached that conclusion (to maintain Lee Jae-myung's party position), but I question whether such conduct is appropriate for the Democratic Party, which values democracy and human rights as its highest principles and should hold moral legitimacy," and said, "From the public's perspective, it feels unsatisfactory." He also expressed feeling ashamed as a member of the Democratic Party. When asked by the host, "In summary, are you saying the Party Affairs Committee made a hasty and shabby decision to maintain the party leader?" he replied, "I agree. You put it exactly right."

Jeon emphasized, "Article 80 of the Party Charter was established during former leader Moon Jae-in's innovation plan as a public promise to the people, aiming to uphold the basic principle that those involved in various controversies should not hold party positions," and added, "I find it hard to agree that applying the exception clause, which should be applied very cautiously and narrowly, to allow Lee to maintain his position as party leader is appropriate."

He also pointed out the need for Lee to clarify his personal matters as soon as possible.

Jeon said, "Although we should be fully focused on people's livelihood, there is a contradictory focus on the party leader issue. I don't think this is something that should be dragged out during the parliamentary session preparation," adding, "The sooner, the better." Regarding remarks that there is no alternative to Lee, he countered, "Is it reasonable for a public party to have no alternatives? This is also insulting to party members."

On the other hand, there is a rebuttal that since the decision was not to apply the suspension clause at all, judging that the indictment was political oppression, the Party Affairs Committee's judgment is not problematic.

On the same day, lawmaker Woo Sang-ho appeared on SBS Radio in the morning and emphasized, "Applying the exception means not applying (the suspension of party position upon indictment under Article 80)," adding, "It is not about applying it first and then restoring the position, but deciding not to apply it at all."

Woo said, "The procedural issue of suspending duties first and then restoring them does not align with the spirit of the exception clause in paragraph 3," and explained, "The Party Affairs Committee was designed to be convened as quickly as possible when indicted to promptly recognize exceptions. I explained this at the party meeting, and most lawmakers understood and applauded."

Regarding criticism from non-mainstream lawmakers calling it a 'hasty process,' he explained, "Since the decision was made by the official Party Affairs Committee, it has legal effect at the party level."

He added, "I thoroughly explained the concerns of some dissenting lawmakers at yesterday's party meeting. They requested that procedural issues be properly observed, so I explained what procedures the Emergency Committee should follow, and most agreed," concluding, "At least the Party Affairs Committee decision process triggered by the indictment was fully resolved through yesterday's party meeting."