회고回顧/懷古

In principle, a member of the National Assembly is not someone who expresses their subjective thoughts. They are a public figure entrusted with authority by the people to determine the direction of the nation, uphold the values of the Constitution and democracy, and be responsible for the lives and safety of the people. We live a tiring life, bogged down by Korean politicians who are strong in their self-assertions stemming from instinct, but originally, the words and actions of a member of the National Assembly should be accompanied by a much heavier political responsibility than those of ordinary citizens. And because the National Assembly, where they work, is a representative body of the people and a legislative body, a constitutional body that embodies the representative democracy of the Republic of Korea, naive individuals who mistake personal emotions for political opinions in their statements and actions within the space of the National Assembly should not be there.

In that regard, the recent controversy surrounding People Power Party lawmaker Lee Jin-sook's disparagement of the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement cannot be taken lightly. If, as a newly elected member in a by-election, she held a forum disparaging 5.18 in the public space of the National Assembly, her responsibility becomes even heavier. The fact that a majority within the National Assembly authorized and assisted this event is also very interesting. The perception that this is a country where anti-national acts and events are free anytime, anywhere, especially in the National Assembly where such acts are openly committed, is highly significant. This country has proven that politicians can take the lead in expanding extreme political claims, as evidenced by the National Assembly allowing Choi Min-hee to hold a wedding reception for her married daughter and freely hosting events that deny brutal murder crimes. Now, all that remains is for individuals to be allowed to do the same.

August 13, 2026, the date the controversy erupted, was four days before the successor to Democratic Party leader Jeong Cheong-rae, whose tenure was marred by corruption disguised as incompetence, was to be decided, making it appear like a political obstruction show. Bringing up past massacres to express her convictions while hindering the ruling party was a huge and critical mistake in Lee Jin-suk's life. The People Power Party immediately sensed the repercussions, but it was too much. On August 10, news officially began to spread about actress Ha Young's unfiltered display of historical ignorance, revealing that she had no idea who her great-grandfather was.

Those who know Lee Jin-suk often say she is from the left. It's laughable. She moved to the right, where it's easier to pursue power and gain honor, as it wasn't feasible on the left. The Korean left has long been entrenched in the establishment, and apart from security and foreign policy issues (North Korea, China, and pro-Japanese issues), they are no different from the right, having squandered taxes. From the public's perspective, it's like the difference between a dog covered in feces and a dog covered in chaff. Lee Jin-suk, who is hypocritical in her qualifications and engages in low-grade political theatrics, has stumbled upon the right's Achilles' heel, the pro-Japanese issue, and the left's barrier, the laundering of cult identities. Her followers are equally low-grade. The political circles in Daegu, which nominated such a person as a by-election candidate to succeed the seditionist Choo Kyung-ho, also have serious problems. Forgetting the time when Daegu was a stronghold of the left, the path they are now treading is truly a dilemma. Why do Koreans move from the left to the right? The irresistible temptation of a certain position, the desire to be involved in politics myself, but why are there invisible barriers to entry that allow such third-rate individuals to occupy these positions?

On August 25, the National Assembly's Steering Committee passed a resolution calling for Lee Jin-suk's expulsion. This is not an issue to be viewed as a result of political infighting between the ruling and opposition parties, but rather an event that poses serious questions about how the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea will remember the trajectory of history achieved by its citizens, how it will treat citizens sacrificed by state violence, and what responsibility it will assign to political actions that deny or distort historical facts.

Of course, even if the resolution to demand her expulsion is passed by the steering committee, Lee Jin-sook's parliamentary seat will not be immediately revoked. There are still related procedures to follow, and the final decision on her expulsion must go through the National Assembly's procedures and judgment. However, we must ask a more fundamental question: Is a person who denies or disparages the history of massacres qualified to be a member of the National Assembly representing the people? Can a politician who does not properly recognize the history of the people's sacrifices and state violence truly engage in politics for the people?

The May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement is a crucial turning point in modern Korean history. It is a specific event where past history was not overcome but re-enacted. It is not merely the modern history of a specific region or political force. It is a history where citizens who demanded freedom and rights were sacrificed by state power, and it is an event that, in the process of South Korea repeatedly advancing and regressing its constitutional order, should never be forgotten but has been buried and exploited. Despite the historical truth being confirmed through countless citizen testimonies, data, truth-finding processes, and judicial judgments, Lee Jin-sook, who has come forward to overturn this, is a traitor to history.

The most serious aspect of the controversy surrounding Lee Jin-sook is her historical understanding. For a politician, historical understanding is not a matter of education, but the starting point for political judgment. She is someone who does not understand what violence state power inflicted on the people in the past, does not try to know what sacrifices citizens made, and therefore does not value the people's freedom and rights. How a politician evaluates citizens who fought against power is an important criterion that shows how that politician understands democratic politics. Can a politician who does not properly understand history and attempts a bold betrayal engage in politics for the people? Lee Jin-sook, who has done the impossible, is a remnant of an insurrectionist, a political descendant, and an example of someone who has lost their humanity.

What is concerning is the extreme historical perception appearing in some parts of our society. It is an attitude that denies history unfavorable to their political faction, antagonizes citizens who demanded democracy, dilutes responsibility for state violence, and prioritizes conspiracy theories or factional logic over confirmed historical facts. This phenomenon should not be described as a difference between conservatives and progressives. Conservatism is inherently a political value that emphasizes history and tradition. Learning lessons from past experiences and striving to protect the stability and order of the community is a crucial spirit of conservatism. Therefore, confronting the wrongs committed by the state against its people and remembering their sacrifices are also values that conservatives should respect. It is conservatism to strive to protect traditions and values as they were before being damaged by Japanese imperialism.

However, if criticizing victims of state violence and denying the history of citizens who fought for democracy is called conservatism, it not only contradicts the essence of conservatism but also involves an intelligence problem with the interpretation of the word. A more serious problem arises when such historical perceptions gain influence in the political sphere. Politicians directly influence the public. As members of the National Assembly can widely disseminate their claims through public spaces like the media and the National Assembly, expressing personal opinions on the internet by ordinary people cannot be viewed the same as a National Assembly member disparaging historical events in the National Assembly in terms of social impact.

The public must realize that even calling this discussion of expulsion political retaliation is the rhetoric of a traitor. The days when everything was resolved by division and disruption are over. To say that the expulsion of a National Assembly member is a severe measure, the critical point has long passed. Their crimes are all treason against history, and it should not be argued that disciplinary power is used as a means to suppress the opinions of a minority that the political majority dislikes. National Assembly members should be able to express diverse opinions, and they should not lose their seats simply because they hold different views from the majority, but it must be declared that freedom comes with responsibility.

If a member of the National Assembly committed acts that undermined the history won by citizens and the dignity of victims in the public space of the National Assembly, then holding them politically and parliamentarily accountable for those actions is also part of the constitutional order. The core of the discussion about expulsion is not Lee Jin-sook's political leanings themselves, but rather what actions she took in her public capacity as a member of the National Assembly, and how those actions affected the constitutional order and national unity of the Republic of Korea. If the National Assembly does not hold her accountable at all, that too sends a message to the public.

Furthermore, Lee Jin-sook's recently revealed behavior further starkly exposes her problematic historical understanding and intellectual level. When Kim Min-seok, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, compared her to a 'female Hitler' in connection with the controversy over her disparagement of the May 18th Uprising, Assemblywoman Lee Jin-sook announced she would sue him for defamation. This reaction, more than anything, reveals the height of absurd perception. The attitude of interpreting political criticism, especially sharp analogies regarding actions that ignore historical truth and insult victims of state violence, solely as personal attacks, casts doubt not only on her suitability as a member of the National Assembly but also on her basic human understanding and intellectual level.

What is an insult? It is not hurt feelings or wounded pride. For a public figure's actions in the public sphere, criticizing the harm those actions caused to the community based on historical and ethical standards is the essence of politics. The analogy to Hitler borrows the symbol of a dictator who trampled democracy and human rights to strongly condemn actions close to historical distortion and glorification of state violence. To interpret this solely as an 'insult' and threaten legal action is proof that one does not recognize the weight of their own actions. Frankly, I'd like to request a psychiatric evaluation because the subject is too deficient to be described in polite terms. Even though some European countries stripped Nazi collaborators of their voting and eligibility rights, banned them from becoming members of parliament and various elected officials, prohibited or dismissed them from public and semi-public offices, revoked military ranks and medals, banned them from certain professions such as education, media, and law, revoked their qualifications to teach and lecture at universities and educational institutions, and even confiscated their property and restricted their residency, their national systems are still sinking like the melting Alpine glaciers. But what about Korea? These officially and unofficially purged individuals are swaggering in the very positions that fall under those provisions.

It is the height of self-contradiction that those who have hurt the victims of history react with extreme sensitivity to political criticism directed at them and respond with lawsuits. This is an emotional overreaction. It reveals an intellectual poverty that fails to properly understand freedom of expression and its limits, brought about by an inferiority complex and a disharmony of conscience. A member of parliament hosts a debate that distorts historical facts and then consistently evades responsibility by saying, “The content of the debate has nothing to do with me,” yet applies the double standard of invoking insult charges against criticism directed at them. This clearly shows how narrow and self-centered this person's mental world is. The level of Korean parliamentarians, who claim to represent the people but try to block criticism with legal action without even properly understanding the meaning of insult, is such that they should be required to submit mental health status and psychological evaluation results.

If we don't want such a mentally ill animal parliament, the National Assembly must set clear standards. We demand the expulsion of Lee Jin-sook. That is a demand for the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea to fulfill its minimum responsibility in the face of the history that citizens fought for with their blood. Just because you don't know doesn't mean it's not true. Don't turn this sacred place, where noble people who sacrificed their lives to prolong the life of a disappearing nation for even one more day breathed, into a dirty field of excrement. The National Assembly must answer. Does the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea intend to respect the history of citizens who sacrificed for freedom? Do they intend to yield their rights to ensure minimum dignity for the victims of state violence? Do they intend to take action to hold accountable political acts that distort historical facts and undermine their value?

The impeachment process against Lee Jin-sook must be carried out strictly. If, after a long time of political pros and cons, the sight and sound of young people dying without hope do not register, then the 299 colleagues will join the ranks of traitors to history.