Rep. Kim Min-seok's Remark 'Chief Justice Cho Yi-dae' Refuted by Rep. Kim Tae-gyu… Controversy Over Titles and '꼰대' Culture in National Assembly

During a meeting of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee, Democratic Party Rep. Kim Min-seok referred to Chief Justice Cho Yi-dae as 'Mr. Cho Yi-dae.' This remark drew even more controversy given that Rep. Kim Min-seok has also served as Prime Minister.

In response, People Power Party Rep. Kim Tae-gyu raised an issue with Rep. Kim Min-seok's choice of address, leading to Democratic Party members protesting and demanding that Rep. Kim Tae-gyu show respect. This incident has sparked criticism regarding proper etiquette for addressing public officials in the National Assembly and the double standards of a particular political party.

Despite National Assembly members being representatives elected by the people with equal authority, there is criticism that a culture prioritizing age and senior-junior relationships still persists within the Assembly. In particular, it has been pointed out that younger generation members sometimes face restrictions in their legislative activities due to these conventions.

It was argued that all members, as representatives of the people, hold equal status, and a hierarchical culture based on specific age or experience is not consistent with the essence of the National Assembly. The opinion was expressed that the National Assembly should break away from authoritarian culture and become a platform for horizontal discussion, keeping pace with the changing times.

People Power Party Rep. Kim Tae-gyu's strong response in the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee received positive reviews. Analysts suggest he logically countered the Democratic Party's unreasonable claims and managed to curb their momentum. This was seen as a contrast to the People Power Party's previously passive approach.

Rep. Kim Tae-gyu's attitude aligns with the argument that a strong response is necessary when the opposing side displays an obstinate attitude. Some have suggested that other People Power Party members should emulate Rep. Kim Tae-gyu's approach of confronting with both logic and resolve.

Regarding the issue of titles within the National Assembly, the Democratic Party's double standards have been pointed out. Democratic Party members are lenient when they use informal titles for others but react excessively when others address them in the same way.

This behavior has been criticized as a typical 'nae-ro-nam-bul' (when I do it, it's romance; when others do it, it's an affair) attitude, particularly disliked by the younger generation. It was argued that this attitude, which condones their own actions while criticizing identical actions by others, hinders communication within the National Assembly and fosters an authoritarian culture.

A past instance was mentioned where the National Election Commission (NEC) recommended refraining from using the term 'nae-ro-nam-bul.' It is known that at the request of the Democratic Party, the expression 'nae-ro-nam-bul' became subject to sanctions because it was deemed to negatively portray the party.

This incident was paradoxically interpreted as the NEC acknowledging that many citizens associate the Democratic Party with the term 'nae-ro-nam-bul' when they hear it. The analysis suggested that a specific political force attempted to suppress the use of the term, but instead, it resulted in embedding in the public mind who the term referred to.

It was pointed out that the Democratic Party demanding courtesy from People Power Party Rep. Kim Tae-gyu while themselves referring to Chief Justice Cho Yi-dae as 'Mr. Cho Yi-dae' demonstrates a contradictory attitude towards protocol hierarchy and respect for public officials. Chief Justice Cho Yi-dae holds a very high position, ranking third in South Korea's official protocol hierarchy.

Demanding respect from others while using an inappropriate title for a higher-ranking official can be interpreted as a double standard. This has led to criticism that the courtesy and respect demanded among National Assembly members are applied differently depending on the situation.

Ultimately, this controversy served as a reminder of the importance of proper etiquette and protocol for public officials within the National Assembly. Criticism has grown due to the failure to uphold the principle that those who demand courtesy should set an example first.