NEC probe: Unlike reports that the 'fraud claims' split the camp, only Chairman Yoon Sang-hyun is going off-script

The Seoul Metropolitan NEC rejected an appeal over the Seoul mayoral election, and this decision has drawn criticism. Issuing such a ruling while under a parliamentary probe is seen as evidence that the NEC still does not grasp the seriousness of the problem.

This attitude has deepened distrust in the NEC and raised doubts about the effectiveness of the probe itself. Such conduct could further fuel public dissatisfaction.

The report reportedly defended the NEC itself, saying there was 'no problem.' As a result, three Seoul NEC commissioners resigned simultaneously, an unprecedented situation.

This has raised suspicions that the central NEC improperly tried to intervene in the independent judgment of a local NEC. The mass resignation of commissioners suggests the pressure was substantial, raising serious concerns about the fairness and independence of election administration.

Some media reported that the probe committee showed the opposition split over the fraud claims, but critics countered that this is untrue. They explained that in reality, only Chairman Yoon Sang-hyun is pursuing a different position on his own.

In other words, the opposition as a whole is not divided over differing views; the situation stems from the independent actions of one figure, Chairman Yoon Sang-hyun. This interpretation shows how press reporting can distort the core issue.

His remark is described as twisting what was said, with the claim that no one ever argued that 'if turnout was rigged, the vote totals must be rigged too.'

Rigged turnout and rigged vote totals are not automatically linked logically, and Yoon's remark itself is described as close to propaganda. Critics say this clouds the core issue of the probe and sparks unnecessary controversy.

Ju Jin-woo's analysis argues that Yoon's remarks distort the essence of the allegations actually raised, and warns that this could blur the focus of the probe.

Criticism has been raised that the probe committee is run inefficiently. The meeting reportedly started at 10 a.m., but the first questioning did not begin until nearly 6 p.m., a sign of the stalling. This is attributed to an excessive focus on the recount issue and the chairman's inexperienced management.

In particular, the People Power Party's Chairman Yoon Sang-hyun has been faulted for lacking experience on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and for weak control over speaking time. Because the chairmanship of the probe committee alternates between ruling and opposition parties, this turn for the PPP was an important opportunity, yet the chairman was criticized for not respecting the party's position and for acting impulsively.

Key witnesses, including Wi Cheol-hwan and No Tae-hak, were reportedly seated, yet some argued they should do nothing and be sent home. Critics said this amounts to the National Assembly acting high-handedly and that a public hearing should be conducted properly.

Suspicions were raised that the Democratic Party wants to hold this hearing later by linking it to the Olympic Park recount, in effect seeking a deal along the lines of 'we'll grant the recount if you'll hold the hearing.'

Such claims suggest the probe could be used for political bargaining rather than its genuine purpose. Summoning witnesses and then not holding the hearing could draw criticism over the National Assembly's role and responsibility.

Losing a ballot box at a polling station is itself absurd, yet the count proceeded with the remaining boxes and a winner was announced without finding it. This was described as a serious incident in which the voting rights of about 500 voters were ignored.

What is more outrageous, critics said, is that the NEC concealed the loss, neither reporting it to the police nor announcing it publicly. The NEC's secretary-general should have apologized and promised system improvements, but the matter was allowed to pass as if nothing had happened. When the box was found three days later while cleaning, it emerged that its results were not reflected in the final count even though it was within the deadline for correcting results.

The case strongly raises allegations of dereliction of duty and cover-up by the NEC, and fundamental doubts about the transparency and fairness of election administration. The loss of the ballot box and its exclusion from the results could be viewed as a grave matter undermining basic democratic principles.

A strong argument was raised that the NEC, which bears the duty of election administration, failed to act in time, which amounts to dereliction of duty and constitutes election fraud that should be punished. Citing a case of errors in entering vote-share figures in the local election, allegations were raised about a system for rigging turnout. It reportedly found 11 instances where the handwritten count status sheets at counting stations differed from the computer-entered data.

When the NEC's secretary-general was pressed on whether he could be confident that no further errors would occur, he reportedly gave no clear answer. This is interpreted as suggesting the NEC lacks confidence in its own system or that there may be hidden problems.

This raises a new allegation about the nationality and transparency of the ballot boxes.

The country of manufacture and materials of ballot boxes can directly affect the fairness of an election, and the fact that this came to light through a tip-off has once again highlighted the NEC's lack of transparency.

This argument is offered as a basis for calling for a special counsel, expressing a strong suspicion that corruption within the NEC has reached a serious level. The position is that a intensive investigation should uncover all of the NEC's suspected wrongdoing.

He expressed deep-rooted distrust of the NEC and signaled the view that the current probe alone will struggle to resolve the problem. Accordingly, he is urging a forceful investigation through a special counsel.

Suspicions have been raised that NEC staff are passive about domestic election management but eager for overseas postings. They are dispatched overseas under the pretext of managing overseas voting, and in the general election, 22 people reportedly received 3.14 billion won, roughly 150 million won per person. They reportedly spent a year overseas essentially 'doing nothing.'

This points to taxpayer money being used inefficiently and raises questions about the purpose and effectiveness of the overseas postings. In particular, calls are growing for transparent disclosure of what specific duties these staff perform locally.

Criticism has also grown that the costs and duration of overseas postings are excessive, and suspicions have extended to whether these staff stayed abroad for purposes other than actual election administration. Such allegations could expand into issues of the NEC's loose management and budget waste.

Calls for a thorough audit and investigation of the NEC's overseas staffing are gaining momentum. The position is that verifying whether citizens' taxes are being properly spent is urgent.

A viewer asked whether a period without trip reports could be seen as embezzlement, and the speaker said he thought that was possible. Indeed, the reports were reportedly absent, or even reports that had briefly been received were all missing.

This is a serious matter that could raise even embezzlement allegations, and clearly shows the NEC's poor record-keeping and lack of transparency. The disappearance of the key materials needed to confirm whether overseas trips were actually carried out and public funds properly used strongly points to the need for audits and investigations.

Even though responsibility for failing to repay lies with the debtor, the claim that creditors who over-lent share responsibility drew a reaction of disbelief, with him saying it is unlikely to appear even in leftist ideology books.

The creditor-responsibility argument rests on the notion that the lender is to blame, which he countered by saying that if one had not lent, there would be no failure to repay. He voiced clear criticism of the claim, questioning whether it truly helps ordinary people or harms them, and suggesting it shifts responsibility onto borrowers.

He held that while debt problems have multiple causes, shifting the root responsibility for default onto creditors runs against common sense. This could spark debate over sound economic sense and a sense of responsibility.

He claimed he 'bought it with the extension already built,' but he pointed out that the building register shows this is not true. The matter was first presented as a resignation over personal affairs, but after an SBS report broke, the position changed to disciplinary action and dismissal.

He criticized this as a 'dismissal show' by the Democratic Party, which is hastily taking dismissal measures out of concern over falling approval ratings. The pattern of initially concealing or minimizing illegal and improper conduct, then reversing course only after media reports, was said to further erode public trust.

The speaker cautioned that NewsTamsa is a prominent pro-Lee Jae-myung YouTube outlet, so its objectivity needs verification. According to the report, about 30 aides have left Lee's office in two years, and abuse reportedly occurred.

Specific cases cited include throwing a mobile phone at an aide's face on the grounds that he had granted nomination rights, and demanding that unmarried aides use pet names. Notably, each unmarried aide was reportedly made to use a different pet name, and because revealing the names could expose the whistleblower, they have not been made public. He criticized that if these allegations are true, they border on psychosis.

The city party chairman said he had received a notice about moving public institutions to Busan, and explained that since it was a party event, only party lawmakers should attend. However, in the Busan lawmakers' group chat, members protested after seeing some media reports, asking why an independent, Han Dong-hoon, had been invited to a party event.

This was interpreted as a kind of 'trick,' with the lawmakers having been left in the dark and forced to attend. He pointed out that holding the event unilaterally despite repeated explicit opposition 'only breeds resentment.'

He added his view that many lawmakers were likely dissatisfied with this approach. Pushing ahead with an event against lawmakers' wishes was identified as a case showing a lack of internal communication and democratic process, a factor that could deepen internal party conflict over time.

He stressed that with the citizens who pinned the Assembly badge on him behind him, he has nothing to fear.

He told people worried about Chief Cho Kyung-ho's trial not to worry, and expressed confidence that now, as a sitting lawmaker, testifying would completely change the course of the trial, unlike when he was a mere junior prosecutor. This signals a will to use his influence as a lawmaker to uncover the essence of the case, going beyond testimony alone.

Such remarks are read as a sign of proactive action leveraging political status, grounded in a strong conviction about the pursuit of justice. He particularly noted that once he starts speaking he can go on at length, signaling readiness to provide important testimony at trial.

In conclusion, he vowed to actively pursue the truth in several matters, including Chief Cho Kyung-ho's trial, drawing on his powers as a lawmaker and public support. The remark is assessed as one that could significantly affect future political moves and judicial proceedings.