Ruling and Opposition Parties' 2nd Representative Meeting: Will They Meet Before Lee Jae-myung's Judicial Risk?

Lee to Address Trial Unfairness Ahead of Sentencing
South Korea Highlights Yongsan-Origin Risk Solution Image
Prospects for Discussing Livelihood Bills and Kim Geon-hee Allegation Clarifications

Political attention is focused on the schedule for the second meeting between Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, and Han Dong-hoon, leader of the People Power Party. It is widely expected that the meeting will likely take place before the first trial verdict related to Lee's judicial risk is announced on the 15th of next month.

In political circles, it is considered highly probable that the meeting will be arranged in early next month. On the 23rd, Lee instructed his party to conduct practical consultations regarding the meeting. It is known that Park Jeong-ha, chief secretary to the People Power Party leader, and Lee Hae-sik, chief secretary to the Democratic Party leader, are leading the discussions on the meeting schedule and agenda. Previously, the first meeting between the party leaders was also coordinated by these two chief secretaries to resolve differences.

The agenda for the meeting is likely to include the 'Kim Geon-hee Special Prosecutor Act,' a key issue in the current political situation. The Democratic Party is pressuring the government and ruling party on three tracks before Lee’s first trial verdict: the Kim Geon-hee Special Prosecutor Act, a demand for a permanent special prosecutor investigation, and the introduction of a national audit on the Chae Sang-byeong case. It is expected that the three bills will be pushed for passage in the plenary session (on the 14th) before the first trial verdict dates of Lee’s public election law violation and perjury coaching cases on the 15th and 25th of next month.

In response, Han advocates for a 'Special Inspector' instead of a special prosecutor. It is highly likely that the two party leaders will mention ways to clarify the allegations related to Mrs. Kim in some form. The problem is that there is growing disagreement within the ruling party regarding the Special Inspector. Floor leader Choo Kyung-ho opposes expanding discussions externally, stating that the appointment of the Special Inspector is an 'internal parliamentary matter.'

Handonghun, leader of the People Power Party, and Jaemyung Lee, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, are having a conversation at the Central Forum held on the 23rd at the Four Seasons Hotel in Seoul. Photo by National Assembly Press Photographers Group

Discussions on key livelihood bills are also expected. The two party leaders may directly discuss issues agreed upon or additional matters from the bipartisan Livelihood Pledge Council. Currently, the main agenda items on which both sides have reached consensus include revitalizing the semiconductor and AI (artificial intelligence) industries, support measures for small business owners and self-employed individuals, and countermeasures for low birth rates and aging population. Meanwhile, the People Power Party is pushing for pension reform, and the Democratic Party is advocating for the revival of local party branches, showing differences in opinion.

A variable is if the meeting schedule is postponed until after Lee’s first trial verdict related to his judicial risk. If Lee receives a sentence that disqualifies him from running for office before the meeting, it is expected that discussions on major policy issues may end superficially. A delayed meeting would also not help improve political image. Political commentator Park Sang-byeong said, "In Lee’s case, meeting Han before the first trial verdict would increase the opportunity to publicly highlight the unfairness of the trial, and Han could also emphasize the image that, unlike the presidential office, he is seriously considering solutions."

Some argue that the meeting schedule is unrelated to Lee’s first trial verdict. On the same day, Democratic Party lawmaker Jeon Yong-gi said on BBS Radio, "In fact, the timing does not matter. I do not think the judiciary will be greatly influenced by what the National Assembly does," adding, "Therefore, even if judicial timing proceeds on its own, the National Assembly can still set a schedule to discuss the relevant content (livelihood bills)."