[Q&A] Lee Jae-myung Facing 'Judicial Risk': "Is It Right for Prosecutors and Police to Intervene in Politics? A Serious Disruption of National Order"

Q&A at National Assembly Press Briefing on the 3rd
"One-sided aggressive reporting is not right"
"Factionalization is impossible, Lee Jae-myung is different"

Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party of Korea's presidential candidate, is holding a press conference at the National Assembly on the 3rd. Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporter Junyi Park] Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party of Korea's presidential candidate, held a press conference at the National Assembly on the 3rd and directly criticized concerns about his 'judicial risk,' pointing out political intervention and collusion by investigative agencies as a "serious disruption of national order." He stated, "The application of the law must be fair, and equality before the law is the most important area," adding, "I have seen reports saying that the investigation will be completed by mid-August to coincide with the party convention, but I hope that is not true."

Regarding criticisms from some quarters that he would turn the party into a personal faction if elected party leader, he rebutted, saying, "The Democratic Party is firmly a public party that operates based on a system," and "especially regarding nominations, there is a clear system where 50% of the decision comes from party members and 50% from the public through primaries." He continued, "It is impossible to turn it into a personal faction," and expressed, "Lee Jae-myung is different. Because he was different, he took a different path to get here."

▼Below is a Q&A session.

- How do you think your candidacy in Gyeyang-eul affected the local elections?

▲ Evaluations of the presidential and local elections can vary greatly. However, I always say that the biggest responsibility for the defeat in the presidential election lies with me, candidate Lee Jae-myung. Even now, many people hold me and shed tears. Some say it is still hard to see me in newspapers and broadcasts, and I feel at a loss every time I see that. Many people in various social sectors are suffering in a regressive reality, so my feelings of having to watch over them are very painful.

There were many concerns and diverse opinions. Some suggested that my participation could be a way to encourage those who supported me in the presidential election and were very despairing and frustrated with the results to come out to vote and participate in the local elections. After much consideration, I judged that this aspect was significant and decided to participate. Although I had no involvement in the party's nominations or anything like that, symbolically, I had no choice but to participate in the local elections, and I ultimately decided that my direct participation would rather help the overall local elections.

- Do you think media reform is necessary?

▲ I believe most media outlets try to report fairly and accurately. However, although it may be a very small portion, there are quite a few one-sided aggressive reports not based on facts. I think it is wrong to report just because someone claims something. When someone makes a claim, it is right to verify whether it is true and only report if it is believed to be factual. This is also a precedent of the Supreme Court. There must be substantial reasons to believe it is true. Nowadays, it is more about "someone said" rather than that, which is undesirable. The media's influence is truly significant, and it can have a fatal impact on certain individuals or groups, causing harm. Therefore, I ask for more caution in this regard.

- What are your thoughts on constitutional amendments and election law reforms?

▲ It is undesirable for a particular party to monopolize a specific region, creating a one-party dictatorship situation. Resolving this issue is necessary, but conflicts arise when interests do not align during the process. A representative example is the regional proportional representation system. In a certain region, if someone gets 49% of the vote and another gets 51%, the 51% obtains 100% of the power. This goes against the principles of popular sovereignty and proportionality. Among these, I believe banning satellite parties is a task that must be done. Making laws through national consensus and then circumventing them is not desirable from the public's perspective. However, realistically, if not done, there will be losses, so banning them aligns with the original purpose of the law according to the public's expectations.

The constitutional amendment issue is that the current constitution system, established in 1987, is outdated and does not fit the new world. Many agree with this and think it should be changed to a new constitution suitable for the new era. However, since the constitution is the highest norm of any country, changing it is a significant issue down to every word, making political consensus difficult. In fact, right after the Candlelight Revolution was a good opportunity to create a new system, but that chance seems to have passed. It is true that it should be done, but given the public's hardships and the economic crisis, I wonder if it is realistically possible to focus efforts there. We must prioritize urgent matters. Right now, the urgent issues are people's livelihoods and overcoming the economic crisis.

- Is there a way to alleviate concerns about factionalization within the party?

▲ I cannot understand why concerns about factionalization arise. The Democratic Party is a public party that operates based on a system. That is firm. These concerns may be anxiety, suspicion, or attacks, but especially regarding nominations, there is a clear system where 50% of the decision comes from party members and 50% from the public through primaries. If a candidate has loyalty and enthusiasm for the country and people, as well as competence and achievements, their right to be approved or rejected by party members and the public is guaranteed by a firm system. I hope there will be no doubt about this. Factionalization is impossible.

I hope people do not think, "It was like this before, so it will be like this with Lee Jae-myung." Lee Jae-myung is different. Because he was different, he took a different path to get here. I will follow Lee Jae-myung's path going forward. They should not worry about their nominations but do their best for the party, and the public and party members will give them opportunities.

- There are concerns that judicial risks surrounding you will materialize from August. What do you think?

▲ Among advanced political and economic countries, is it right for prosecutors and police, who have the authority to investigate and prosecute crimes and maintain the most basic social order, to intervene in politics, influence politics, and collude with specific political forces for their benefit? This is the most serious disruption of national order. The application of the law must be fair, and equality before the law is the most important area. The most important thing to realize the value of equality is equality before the law. I have seen reports saying that the investigation will be completed by mid-August to coincide with the party convention, and I hope that is not true. Isn't that blatant political intervention? I ask for fairness.

It is very regrettable to call the investigation following the People Power Party's complaints a judicial risk. It is also sad. It is truly unfortunate to hear such aggressive language used by the People Power Party and the prosecution and police within our party. Instead of saying it is a risk because you are under investigation, you should point out specifically what is wrong and problematic. It is too harsh to make an issue out of hearsay, such as "you were reported," or "you are under investigation by state agencies."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.