Jo Eung-cheon "Outstanding debt, pus? Words are too harsh... Lee Jae-myung's party factionalization deepens"

"Who Created Unpaid Debts?"
"An Attempt to Turn the Democratic Party into Lee Jae-myung's Party"

Amidst the strong calls for the expulsion of the faction that approved the arrest motion within the pro-Lee Jae-myung (친명, Chinmyeong) camp around the return of Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, Cho Eung-cheon, a Democratic Party lawmaker who is mentioned as one of the main targets for expulsion by the anti-Lee (비명, Bimyeong) faction, criticized the expulsion theory as "harsh language."

On the 5th, on BBS's 'Jeon Young-shin's Morning Journal,' Rep. Cho said, "I think the pro-Lee faction is reacting because their strong supporters are making a fuss and they are blindly following them, but their words are too harsh."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Within the Democratic Party, moves to expel lawmakers who voted in favor of the motion are becoming visible. Jeong Cheong-rae, a senior supreme council member from the pro-Lee faction, has recently pressured those who voted in favor by using expressions such as "pus does not become flesh" and "I will collect the debt."

Regarding this, Rep. Cho said, "I want to ask who caused the wounds to create pus, and who created a debt that does not exist. In a democratic party, it is natural to have internal differences in policy and power struggles, but excluding and trying to expel those with different opinions from the party in this way undermines healthy party democracy."

He added, "It is possible to criticize the vote on the arrest motion, but to reproach and blame with such harsh language is inappropriate. Using this situation to try to make the party a one-voice party is an attempt to make the Democratic Party solely Lee Jae-myung's party."

The Democratic Party leadership plans to refer the pro-approval faction to the party's Ethics Tribunal for disciplinary action. Rep. Cho said, "Legally, none of the five of us, including myself, have admitted to voting in favor. How can we acknowledge that? Let's say we admitted it under torture. But how can you discipline someone who voted according to their conscience in a free vote that was not decided as the party's official stance?"

Since the vote is supposed to be anonymous, it is impossible to know the voting details, and even if they were known, 'rejection' was not the party's official stance.

Rep. Cho pointed out, "Even if it was decided as the party's official stance, according to the Constitution and the National Assembly Act, lawmakers, as representatives of the people, are not bound by their party's decisions and must vote according to their conscience. Then, does the party constitution and regulations have precedence over the Constitution or laws? If disciplinary action is taken, and we file for an injunction to nullify the disciplinary effect, what would happen?"

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