People Power Party Disciplines Four to Establish Party Discipline… Evaluated as “First Step Towards Normalization”

Recently, there has been a significant difference of opinion between the media and participants regarding the estimated attendance at a rally held in Olympic Park. Some media outlets reported the number of participants as 1,800, while others claimed thousands, or even over 5,000, attended. This disparity, supported by AI analysis and crowd density measurements, suggests the need for objective evaluation standards for rally sizes.

The People Power Party's Ethics Committee recently confirmed disciplinary action against four national assembly members. Regarding this matter, an official stated, "I only saw it this morning after the news came out," but drew a line, saying it was not his place to intervene, nor would his interest change the outcome. He believed the Ethics Committee, as an independent body, made its disciplinary decision according to standards.

As a critical 'disciplinary politics' framework was raised regarding this disciplinary action, an official refuted it as a "very bad framework." He emphasized that laws and systems must focus on the actions committed by a person, not the person themselves, to ensure fairness. The issue of equity when compared to individual cases is also a subject of discussion.

The actions of the four disciplined national assembly members were evaluated differently based on their nature. An official stated, "The most severe actions were those of Rep. Jo Kyung-tae and Rep. Jin Jong-oh," classifying them as acts clearly undermining the party's communal objectives.

In contrast, the actions of Rep. Kwon Young-jin and Rep. Seo Beom-su were evaluated as "slightly different in nature" and analyzed as closer to personal misconduct. This distinction shows that it was an important criterion in determining the level of disciplinary action.

The official also suggested that the members' apologies and the victims' pleas for leniency might have served as mitigating factors. This implies that not only the severity of the act but also the members' attitudes and post-action measures were considered during the disciplinary process.

This assessment method demonstrates that the party's Ethics Committee went beyond simply categorizing the actions of those subject to discipline, comprehensively considering the impact and influence of each action on the party, as well as the individuals' remorse.

The power of each individual national assembly member is very strong, emphasizing the perception that they are "people entrusted with the authority of hundreds of thousands of citizens." An official explained that the national assembly member's badge is "a symbol of power delegated by at least 100,000, and up to 200,000, citizens."

This strong individual power of national assembly members can lead to collective resistance when the party leader attempts reforms. It is analyzed that pursuing reforms by the party leader and supreme council members is tantamount to risking their political careers.

An official clarified that while national assembly members are entrusted with the people's authority, this is "limited to their own constituency and legislative activities." In other words, a national assembly member's authority is confined to regional development and law-making activities.

Conversely, it was emphasized that "the authority over party management is delegated to the party leader and supreme council members." These individuals are given legitimacy through democratic procedures by party members and are responsible for the overall operation of the party.

Therefore, any attempts by national assembly members to directly intervene in or dictate party operations are considered abnormal and can be seen as undermining the fundamental principles of democracy, a critical perspective was raised.

Regarding the role of senior national assembly members, an official emphasized, "Aren't they like adults in this society?" and "should be people with wisdom." Senior members should advise on problem-solving and the direction of the organization.

However, it was criticized that if senior members in real politics only focus on undermining the party leader or are preoccupied with "cronyism" to maintain power, they are merely "stagnant water" that has completely lost their function as senior members.

Criticism was raised that the level of disciplinary action against Rep. Jin Jong-oh was too lenient. An official stated, "I think that for Rep. Jin Jong-oh, it is small, weak," strongly criticizing his actions.

He particularly pointed out that it was "a very abnormal and unprofessional act to even send his own aides there," emphasizing that while he might be a good national assembly member, this particular act could not be condoned.

In recent polls, the support rate for the 2030 generation has dropped to the 15% range, approaching single digits. The host mentioned the seriousness of the current situation, saying, "A situation starting with a single digit has arrived."

This decline in support is analyzed to stem from a backlash against the undermining of democracy and market reversal. Additionally, opinions were presented that aversion to a China-biased foreign policy and the formation of an anti-communist sentiment are also influencing the exodus of younger generations.

The causes of real estate policy failure were identified as supply shortage and punitive taxation. As indicated by the statement, "I've been a governor and it takes 3 to 5 years to create land and get permits; is supply possible in 3 to 5 years?" there is a structural problem where real estate supply takes 3 to 5 years.

Furthermore, criticism was raised that real estate policy is trapped in a partisan logic that distinguishes between 'buying' and 'living'. There was also a point that heavy taxation policies targeting the top 1% wealthy individuals actually cause adverse effects on the entire real estate market.

With the disclosure of the US President's conversations with specific individuals and even mention of reducing ROK-US exercises, concerns were raised that "the ROK-US alliance has dissolved." This is a point where a change in the US administration's attitude is detected.

The relocation of bunkers to Pyeongtaek and the lack of diplomatic communication are pointed out as potentially leading to Korea's diplomatic isolation or 'passing over'. This is emerging as a critical issue directly related to national security.

Moreover, uncertainties in economic sectors, such as corporate tariffs, are increasing, raising concerns that deteriorating diplomatic relations could also negatively impact the economy.

It was argued that the fundamental responsibility for the ROK-US conflict stems from the president's words and the failure to fulfill investment demands in the US. An official stated that it "came from President Lee Jae-myung's mouth," viewing a specific individual's remarks as having a negative impact on ROK-US relations.

The failure to properly fulfill the semiconductor investment promise requested by the US from Korea was also cited as a major cause of the conflict. Alongside this, criticism arose that the negotiation methods with the US, such as the return of Yongsan base, were inappropriate.

Amidst this situation, growing concerns are voiced that Korea is building distrust with the US and exhibiting diplomatic behavior that seems to prioritize China.

It was argued that the top priority for future foreign policy is to restore relations with the United States. The statement, "Kim Min-seok shouldn't say he's going to the US, China, and Japan first. He should say he's going to the US now," emphasizes the need to re-establish a US-centric diplomatic stance.

Restoring trust through words and diplomatic policies that can alleviate US suspicions is considered an urgent task. This is a core element not only for short-term diplomatic activities but also for setting the direction of long-term national strategy.

The restoration of relations with the US is expected to be the key to resolving not only diplomatic issues but also complex economic and trade problems. This reflects the understanding that without stable relations with the US, it is difficult to effectively respond to global supply chain reorganization and trade conflicts.