Lee Jae-myung's 'Power-Sharing Constitutional Amendment' Proposal Raises Suspicion of a Power-Retention Scheme

A golf gathering between Lee Jae-myung and several veteran lawmakers has drawn public criticism. In normal times it could be seen as cross-party exchange, but critics argue that at a moment when a free Republic of Korea is under threat, even personal ties should lead to avoiding such meetings.

Unlike the customary meals that the Speaker and Deputy Speakers hold under any administration, critics say a golf gathering of specific lawmakers is badly timed in the current situation.

Though the word 'power-sharing' gives the impression of giving up authority, critics argue that his past conduct casts doubt on its sincerity.

Some interpret his remark at the golf gathering that he would pursue the power-sharing amendment 'even if his popularity drops' as an attempt to make himself look like someone sacrificing himself. Given the prevailing view that he is not someone who will willingly give up power, critics say such remarks are hard to trust.

Each phrase is seen as highly calculated and intended to steer the direction of the constitutional debate.

Even the lawmakers who attended the golf gathering likely did not expect such follow-up coverage, and this heightens suspicion that Lee's camp aims to push its agenda through constitutional debate. Some warn that naively joining such discussions could leave one exploited by the other side.

Explaining the difference between a consecutive re-election system and a non-consecutive re-election system, critics note that the former allows only two consecutive terms, while the latter permits two terms even with a break in between.

The analysis is that this would leave open a path for Lee, after completing a four-year term, to step back briefly and then run for the presidency again ten years later. In other words, it is seen as a move to keep power now while preserving the option of returning to power later.

The worry is that they would lay the groundwork to interpret, in their favor, matters that are otherwise impossible under constitutional interpretation.

This suggests that Lee's constitutional push may appear as an attempt to manipulate the judicial system to suit their interests, beyond a simple institutional improvement. Ultimately, critics argue this is a dangerous idea that could shake the foundations of the rule of law.

The speaker added that once he gives up power he will face trial, and that for matters such as the allegation of sending '8 million dollars to North Korea,' the sentence would be very heavy. The likelihood, therefore, is that he considers retaining power the only way to protect his own safety.

Criticism has emerged that Lee mentioned a 'non-consecutive re-election system' instead of a 'consecutive re-election system' in order to hold on to power. Discussion of a four-year consecutive re-election system has existed for some time to address the lack of policy continuity under the single five-year term, but the non-consecutive system was never even considered, it is explained. Critics point out that under a non-consecutive system, a president who has finished a four-year term could serve as a National Assembly member, party leader, or prime minister while retaining power, then run for the presidency again, a scheme resembling the Putin-Medvedev model in Russia.

Like Putin keeping power through a proxy, critics warn that the non-consecutive system could be abused for proxy rule, with a sitting president installing a particular figure and later returning. For this reason, they caution that the four-year non-consecutive system could degrade from a mere institutional reform into a tool for privatizing power.

This remark is interpreted as signaling his determination to keep his political life alive, whether by relying on parliamentary power or by mobilizing other schemes. Ultimately, critics contend the four-year non-consecutive system is merely a means of satisfying an individual's desire for power.

Analysts note that the Constitution already grants the National Assembly considerable powers, so invoking 'strengthened National Assembly authority' suggests another motive.

The claim is that by giving up one year of the presidential term in exchange for a system resembling a parliamentary cabinet, Lee could act like a cabinet prime minister. Critics added that saying 'we will strengthen the National Assembly even more' could sound like 'I want to keep running things.'

Critics point out that the Democratic Party, when it held a majority in the early Yoon Suk Yeol administration, did not push constitutional debate, yet now calls for an amendment, which they consider mistimed.

Because constitutional revision fundamentally changes the country's system, critics warn that if it is pursued without an even balance of power between the ruling and opposition parties, poisonous provisions could be inserted. This suggests the amendment could be abused according to political calculation.

The worry is that unless Lee steps aside before the election, the sense that the election is a chance to pass judgment on him could fade.

Critics warn that voters who vote for constitutional revision may mechanically align with those leading the amendment, and as a result the essential message of judging Lee could lose its force.

Specifying a number such as 13 or 14 would prevent it from being arbitrarily increased.

This argument connects to the criticism that Lee's mention of constitutional amendment is aimed at evading public judgment in the next general election and at prolonging his political life by strengthening parliamentary power. In other words, the concern is that constitutional debate could be turned into a tool for private political gain.

The position was stated that a parliamentary cabinet system is absolutely unsuited to Korea and that it strongly opposes it. Stressing that people should not be fooled by the phrase 'constitutional amendment to shorten the term,' it urged vigilance toward the direction of the constitutional revision currently under discussion.

The interpretation is that because they judge the Democratic Party cannot extend its rule one more time through normal means, they are using the pretext of a shorter term to strengthen National Assembly authority as a scheme.

The criticism is that, without electoral system reform, if the party becomes the majority in the general election, there is a hidden intent to feed off that power and achieve its political goals.

This is read as meaning that Lee saved substantial taxes by disposing of the home before a tax change unfavorable to him took effect, and criticism is growing.

Having to pay tax whether you hold a home or sell it is said to be a hardship for the public.

Critics argue that under the current tax system, it is effectively impossible to sell a 30-pyeong home and move to a comparable 30-pyeong home in the next complex. Such policy, they say, fails to reflect the reality of the housing market and seriously infringes on single-home owners' freedom to relocate.

Critics point out the contradiction of selling a home while paying lower taxes oneself, yet demanding that the public pay more.

They argued that if he truly believed in the need for the tax policy, he should have hurried to reform the tax so that it would apply to himself as well. The point is that he could have avoided this criticism had he moved only a few months faster, and so the sincerity of the policy is questioned.

The interior spaces of goshiwons are very narrow, barely enough for two people to sit and eat instant ramen, and putting a bathtub in would leave no room even to lie down.

This is said to be a desk-bound policy that completely ignores the physical limits of goshiwons, and an unrealistic measure.

Goshiwons are literally places for studying for civil service exams, not spaces designed with residential function in mind.

In fact, many fall short of the standards housing must meet, such as corridors and fire-safety facilities, so safety problems are serious. While struggling young people use goshiwons as a housing alternative, critics stress that this is being used in a way that differs from its original purpose.

Such a policy, critics say, could bring despair rather than benefit to young people.

They argued it tramples the legitimate aspiration of young people who tighten their belts, save money, and want to live better than the privileged class. They stressed the need for policy that recognizes and respects the efforts of young people moving toward their dreams in a free Korea and a capitalist society.