Politics BAR: Politics: News: The Hankyoreh

Politics BAR: Politics: News: The Hankyoreh

by

Senior Reporter Seong Han-yong’s Politics After the End 359
“Are you playing?” “Are you a mischief in the market?”
Large gap between ‘54% of opposition’-‘37% in favor of’… ‘50% vs. 38% of unfair groups’
75% of the Democratic Party supporters disagree…70% of the people’s strength supporters agree
The debate on the pros and cons of amnesty seems to not end until the primary and presidential election phase.

” alt=”Former President Park Geun-hye awaits the start of a trial at the Seoul Central District Court in May 2017 (left). Former President Lee Myung-bak is heading to court to attend the sentence of the Seoul Court in February 2020 (right). Photojournalist, reporter Kim Jeong-hyo ” />

Former President Park Geun-hye awaits the start of a trial at the Seoul Central District Court in May 2017 (left). Former President Lee Myung-bak is heading to court to attend the sentence of the Seoul Court in February 2020 (right). Photo Joint Reporter, Kim Jeong-hyo <한겨레> reporter

Lee Nak-yeon, together with Democratic Party leader Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye, issued an amnesty on January 1, and the opposition was much stronger. According to the polls released by Gallup Korea on January 8, 54% of respondents said’the current government should not pardon’ and 37% said’the current government should pardon’. Interestingly, opinions diverged sharply according to the party they supported. In addition, 75% of the Democratic Party’s supporters opposed the amnesty and only 18% agreed. On the other hand, 70% of the supporters of the people’s strength were in favor of the amnesty and 22% were opposed.

Depending on the party that is supported, it is rare that the pros and cons are sharply mixed up. Nevertheless, the overall result of much more opposition was because the shamans inclined to 50% against and 38% in favor (refer to the website of the Central Election Survey Deliberation Committee).

material photo” alt=”Former President Roh Tae-woo (left) and Chun Doo-hwan appear in court wearing a shroud. material photo” />

Former President Roh Tae-woo (left) and Chun Doo-hwan appear in court wearing a shroud. <한겨레> Material photo

Why is public opinion about the two former presidents’ pardons so bad? There may be various causes, but I think that people close to former Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye have aggravated public opinion. After commenting on the pardon by CEO Nak-yeon Lee, a strong opposition came out within the Democratic Party. It is so natural. In addition, it would have been even more strange if the Democrats, party members, and supporters immediately agreed to the amnesty. In addition, the Democratic Party held an urgently closed meeting with the Supreme Council on Sunday, January 3rd. Representative Lee Nak-yeon said, “We decided to respect the will of the people and the party members. Reflecting on the parties is important,” he stepped back. I had to do that. The amnesty of former Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye was not a problem that could be solved by Lee Nak-yeon alone. Therefore, it was appropriate for the so-called conservative forces to first evaluate the sincerity and courage of CEO Nak-yeon Lee. This is because CEO Nak-yeon Lee raised an agenda that is difficult for anyone to take out of his passport. However, people close to former Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye interpreted the situation completely differently. Ho-Young Joo, the National Power of the House Representative, said at the Emergency Response Committee on the 4th.

The amnesty is the work of President Moon Jae-in to make a political decision. In the world’s sense, the sunny place quickly becomes the shade and the shade becomes the positive. They shouldn’t use the pardons strategically or play with the pardons because they are holding the hilt because they are in power. Even for the longevity and port chief who surrendered in the war, there is a basic treatment. Asking for an apology or reflection in a case like this, in which both sides claim to be unfair in a political trial, is like saying that they will not be pardoned.

Ho-young Joo’s remarks were reported to each media with a stimulating title, “Do not play with”. On the other hand, former Congressman Lee Jae-oh, close to former President Lee Myung-bak, said on the 4th (CBS)’Kim Hyun-jung’s News Show.’

• Jaeoh Lee : It is said that reflection is important, but they are two presidents, former job. But from the president’s point of view, in order to reflect, the captured person must reflect, what does the captured person reflect? No, I’m sorry that the person to give you has suffered for a long time, so I don’t know if I do not know.
• MC : By the way, shouldn’t the president also use the right to amnesty only when reflection and apology are formed and consensus is formed? • Jaeoh Lee : That’s the story of miscellaneous people in the market. I just said it. Isn’t there a consensus among the people in favor and opposition? Whether to agree or disagree is the political decision of the pardoner, and whether or not to reflect is from the perspective of some parties, this can be said so if the person who gives the pardon, but the position of the party receiving the pardon must also be considered. It works. It is unfair for the parties to live in jail over the past two or three years, but they were arrested for unfair political retaliation. What do you mean, if you want to give it right now, what do you mean? So, in the case of amnesty, the will of the person who gives the amnesty and the thoughts of the people who receive the amnesty have to achieve some consensus, and the person who is amnesty should reflect on me that I held the handle, apologize. There wasn’t.

The remarks of former lawmaker Jae-oh Lee were also reported as major news with a stimulating title, “Are you a mischief in the market?” in each media. It wasn’t exactly what the House Representative Joo Ho-young or former Congressman Lee Jae-oh wanted to say, but to the public, former President Park Geun-hye or former President Lee Myung-bak said, “I am unfair” “I was retaliated against” “Don’t play around” “Am I a mischief in the market” “ It was accepted as saying that the person who was caught must reflect.” The word red banhajang (賊anti荷杖) is probably used when this is the case. So-called conservative newspapers have also contributed to aggravating public opinion. After President Nak-yeon Lee mentioned in a new year’s media interview that he would propose an amnesty to President Moon Jae-in, the editorial title on January 2nd was’Ex-President Amnesty, Abandoning Political Calculations and Making Humanitarian Decisions’. Two days later, on the 4th, the title of the editorial was’Ex-president’s pardon from the brakes, the face of the face revealed’. It seems that President Moon Jae-in and supporters of the Democratic Party are responsible for the political burden, and the two former presidents seem to have wanted to insist on an unconditional pardon. The word poor conscience (良心不良) is probably used when this is the case. Anyway, in a state where public opinion has deteriorated as it is now, even if President Moon Jae-in wants to pardon the two former presidents, it seems he cannot. Is the debate over the pardon for former Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye? It doesn’t seem like that. If the sentence of former President Park Geun-hye is confirmed at the Supreme Court’s reconsideration on January 14th, the issue of the two former presidents’ pardons will be a concern again. Reporters will of course ask about the amnesty at the New Year’s press conference for President Moon Jae-in, which is expected to take place after that. President Moon Jae-in will answer. Regardless of what President Moon Jae-in answers, the amnesty is unlikely to subside easily. Immediately, the 3·1 special envoy could be the trigger. There is also an 8·15 Liberation Day special envoy. Not only that. The issue of the amnesty of the two former presidents may become an issue again in the Democratic Party’s presidential elections, expected in early September this year, or the People’s Power, presidential elections expected in early November. Even in the phase of the presidential election ahead of the March 9, 2022 presidential election, the issue of the amnesty of the two former presidents could be an important issue. In short, the issue of the amnesty of two former Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye will bother us to the extent that we are sick of it in the future. Why the hell is that? Why is the debate about punishment and pardon for the former president in Korea repeated? Most people think that the punishment for the former president is’justified judicial treatment’, but some think it is’political retaliation of the successor regime’.

In fact, it was the same with the punishment and pardon of former Presidents Doo-hwan Chun and Tae-woo Roh. It’s already been more than 20 years, so even older people will probably remember it. In October 1995, Democratic Party Rep. Park Gye-dong exposed the allegations of former President Roh Tae-woo’s slush fund at the National Assembly. Public opinion demanded the punishment of former Presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo. The Kim Young-sam administration enacted the May 18 Special Law. The prosecution has prosecuted former Presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo on charges of civil rebellion and rebellion. The first trial court sentenced former President Chun Doo-hwan to death and former President Roh Tae-woo in prison for 22 years. The Appeals Tribunal sentenced Chun Doo-hwan to life imprisonment and Roh Tae-woo imprisonment for 17 years. The two gave up their appeal. The Supreme Court issued a final judgment on April 17, 1997. The pardons for the two former presidents were made by President Kim Young-sam shortly after the presidential election in December 1997. In a book called 2001, I summarized’The Amnesty of Doo-Hwan Chun and Tae-woo Roh’ like this.

The first political decision he (DJ) made as president-elect was a proposal to the incumbent president, WS (Kim Young-sam), to pardon former Presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo. No, it would be more accurate to say that DJ gave the pardon from the dynamics of the time. On December 20, 1997, two days after the presidential election, he met WS in the Whiteak Room on the second floor of the Blue House. At this meeting, the DJ asked for pardon for two former Presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, and the WS accepted it. DJ said, “Now, we must gather the energy of the people through national integration beyond regional and class conflicts. “You shouldn’t tolerate wrong politics, but you shouldn’t hurt people.” In fact, during the presidential campaign, DJ constantly threw political messages saying that two former presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo should be released (omitted). The two people Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo actually know who is advantageous to their release during the presidential campaign. There are traces of careful calculations and sending messages out of prison. Kim Sang-hyun, who was a member of the National Assembly’s Seo Dae-moon at the time of the election on December 18, 1997, later revealed that the election observer “peeped” and told him that Chun Doo-hwan’s family had taken the symbol number 2 (Candidate Dae-jung Kim). .(Omitted) Less than a month after the Supreme Court’s final judgment came out, the runners in the presidential election came out with the issue of amnesty for the two. In May 1997, DJ came out as a’player’ saying, “If you admit wrong and apologize, you can forgive with the people.” This bold proposal was possible because DJ himself was the biggest victim of the 1980 new military coup. Lee Hoi-chang also turned to the amnesty in September from a negative position, suggesting an early amnesty before Chuseok to WS. However, WS did not accept Lee Hoi-chang’s suggestion because it was not the right time.

What did former President Kim Dae-jung think of the pardon of former Presidents Doo-hwan Chun and Tae-woo Roh? The record published in 2010 reads:

Former President Roh’s pardons and lotteries were expected to be rebellious. However, since the victim must forgive the perpetrator to achieve true reconciliation, I decided to practice the’forgiveness theory’ that I usually preached. The amnesty and rehabilitation of the two former presidents was a symbolic measure, expressing my wish that there should be no further political retaliation or regional confrontation. At one time, hatred for the new military forces encircled the whole body, and their atrocities fluttered into their dreams, but they decided to forgive them. I thought of the’politics of forgiveness’ flowing under the democratization of Britain. Britain executed King Charles I during the Puritan Revolution in 1649. However, retaliation against such silence brought confusion and infighting. As a result, a more violent dictator named Cromwell emerged. After that, the British people opened the way for him to flee to France when he expelled his second son, James II, who followed Charles I’s scepterism during the 1688 Honorary Revolution. James II tormented the British government to set up an exile government in France and to restore the throne for three generations, including his son and grandson. The British government anticipated such a situation, but kept them alive. Rather, he decided that the side was better than the political and social aftereffects that he would suffer from political retaliation. Britain’s parliamentary politics blossomed in tolerance and order because the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation flowed under it. Compared to the Russian Revolution, which executed all of Louis XVI’s and his queen’s escape from the country and executed France and Nikolai II’s family, Britain’s decision was wise and great. Britain has enjoyed this blessing of tolerance for 300 years, thus maintaining democratic and peaceful prosperity. I remembered these British forgiveness and reconciliation, and although it was really hard, I forgave them first. Former President Roh and Jeon were released on the 22nd. I looked closely at the feelings of former President Chun Doo-hwan’s release. “I am pleased that Dae-Jung Kim, who has the experience and trust, has been elected.”

The pardon for former Presidents Doo-hwan Chun and Tae-woo Roh was recorded as a result of his forgiveness, a victim of a new military coup. However, it is very strange. Former President Kim Young-sam and former President Chun Doo-hwan recorded the same incident completely differently. There is a Japanese film made by director Akira Kurosawa called Rashomon (羅生門). One incident took place, and the four parties explained completely differently from each other. Reading the records of former President Kim Young-sam and former President Chun Doo-hwan, I remembered this movie.

Memoirs of President Kim Young-sam in 2001 At a meeting with President-elect Kim Dae-jung on that day, I announced that I would pardon Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo and those involved in 12·12 and May 18. Both Chun Doo-hwan and Noh Tae-woo were now arrested for two years. For a long time, I had already thought of releasing Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo before the end of my term of office, and I had spoken openly several times. All of the detailed plans were already reviewed. As for the timing, no matter who elected the president after the presidential election was over, I was planning to pursue it as planned. (Omitted) At 10 am on December 19, the day after the election, I received the final report from Justice Minister Kim Jong-gu as scheduled. On December 20, the next day, this was informed to Kim Dae-jung and decided to refer it to the State Council on the 22nd. Mr. Kim Dae-jung did not give any opinion to my words that he would pardon Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, and simply said “good”. Amnesty lottery was the only authority of the president and the elect was not in a position to be involved.
Chun Doo-Hwan’s Memoirs in 2017 The Supreme Court canceled some court trials on April 17 and dismissed the appeal, and all the trials under the May 18 Special Act, which began in March 1996, were terminated in one year and one month. Then, as if waiting for the Supreme Court’s final judgment, he said that the campaign for amnesty petitioned for me was in full swing in all religious circles and in some regions. (Omitted) The fact that talk of pardon comes out before the court’s final judgment and as soon as the final judgment is issued. The decision of the court that judged me to be guilty itself, and going further back, would be one of the contradictions that the “correcting history” of the Kim Young-sam regime to bury me was an unjust or unreasonable measure from the beginning. It was said that it depends on the will of the president-elect rather than the incumbent President Kim Young-sam. Although the right to pardon is the president’s own authority, President Kim Young-sam’s Blue House, who caused the IMF financial crisis and put the country in bankruptcy, said that even if he did not intend to pardon me, he would not have the power to insist on no more. On December 18, 1997, when Candidate Kim Dae-jung was elected in the 15th presidential election, the pardon for me was regarded as a fixed fact, and the afternoon after a meeting of President Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung on December 20, the day after the final election was announced. At 2:30 am, the amnesty measures for me and Roh Tae-woo were announced. It has been five months since my 3 million petitions for amnesty and rehabilitation were delivered to the Blue House.

Former President Kim Young-sam recorded that the ‘pardon Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo’ was strictly his own decision, and that former President Chun Doo-hwan was forced to pardon because of the petition for the pardon of 3 million people, including religious circles. Which one is closer to the truth? If the pardons of former Presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye come true someday, isn’t it likely that similar things will happen again? Lastly, I will go over one thing. What do you think is the reason why President Nak-yeon Lee came up with the issue of pardoning two former presidents? As some media analyzed, do you think it’s a political hit to boost your support as the next presidential candidate? I don’t think so. CEO Nak-Yeon Lee is an integrator by nature. It has been since I was a reporter. It has been the whole time while politics. They hated division and sought integration. There is evidence. I published a book called 2003, when I was the first member of the National Assembly. The first article in Chapter 2, which collected his columns, was written on May 2nd, 2003 under the title’About Sindang’.

What kind of shrine to create. I am thinking of the five-point principle. It’s not just me. I know some of the party leaders had similar ideas. The first is the principle of generational integration. Political parties that are led or centered only by certain age groups are difficult to succeed. It should be a political party in which the old, old, and young are in harmony. It goes without saying about the harmony between men and women. The second is the principle of ideological integration. A party that is biased towards either liberal or conservative cannot be very successful. It must be a political party where progress and conservative co-exist. But I hope it’s an enterprising, slightly progressive party. I hope that it is a political party that is reform-oriented but aims for stable reform. Third is the principle of regional integration. It must be a national party that covers all regions. You shouldn’t be preoccupied with a specific area, but you shouldn’t rule out a specific area. The Honam issue is a fateful reality of Korean politics. It is not right for Honam to be the target of a wallaby. Fourth is the principle of succession to the Democratic Party. The democratic party’s historicity and legitimacy must be inherited. We must continue to develop the Democratic Party’s ideology and philosophy. The Democratic Party’s human resources must be embraced as much as possible. The Democratic Party is a great fruit and asset of Korean politics. Fifth is the principle of addition. I hope you don’t subtract. It is arrogance and supremacy for a politician to judge a politician. The judgment is left to the people. The Shindang should open the door and accept a wide range of people who want to share their will.

All five principles are’integration’. Representative Nak-Yeon Lee is not an ideological politician. If I dare to take his policy line, it would be close to mid-central or mid-central remuneration. It’s not just ideology and policy lines. He is a politician who is wary of excessive even in’attitude’. President Moon Jae-in also appreciated this aspect of CEO Nak-yeon Lee. President Moon Jae-in published a book called one year after losing the presidential election in 2012. Such a passage comes out.

On the one hand, I think we need a lot of reflection on our behavior. Despite our dedication to democratization and the good values ​​we have, we have to look back at why so many people distance us from us. Even those we want to care for through that value need a deep reflection on why they turn their backs on us. We have to look back to see if fundamentalist thinking has stiffened and narrowed us down. Perhaps we need to look back to see if we have a sense of superiority or ties with other people, with our dedication to democratization and pride in our progressive values. It is a time when humble reflection is needed to see if we have been inviting ourselves to so-called’uncompromising progress’. Rep. Nak-yeon Lee analyzed the frustration of the last presidential election in this way. “Although we value progressive values ​​such as democracy, human rights, and welfare, we call it’attitude conservative’ when it comes to a tendency to hate vulgar or harsh attitudes and radical and extreme approaches. Even in the last presidential election, wasn’t the Democratic Party criticized for’attitude conservative’?” The term’attitude reward’ is not a familiar concept to us, but I think it has a key point. It is very unfortunate if we are not supported by our ideology, policies, and arguments, but by the’attitude’ that expresses them.

So it is. I am not sure if the pardon for former presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye will be profitable or detrimental to President Lee Nak-yeon as the next presidential candidate in the New Year 2021. However, it should be appreciated that CEO Nak-yeon Lee put the value of’integration’, which is his original identity, to the front and started the politics of’Nak-Yeon Lee’. Because politicians must be honest. Senior Reporter Seong Han-yong [email protected]

.Source