It's not like we're children; it's not acceptable to cancel things just because you're upset. This is not something an individual does; it's the work of the president, a constitutional institution. Even if you dislike it, you have to do it. You can't just choose to do the good things. The presidential system inherently involves conflict and competition between the National Assembly, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. In that competition, respect is essential; otherwise, the government cannot function. However, it's not right to behave like a child, canceling plans out of anger, or saying you'll go and then not going. This is not acceptable. This also seems to be a strategic message being sent to the National Assembly. Shaking your head in disagreement—what strategy is that? Isn't everything a strategy? 

Also, I was curious about something: Representative Lee Jae-myung has...

In his remarks, he mentioned that he talked about the constitutional amendment, as I mentioned earlier. The President immediately responded by saying that the Democratic Party's claims regarding the amendment are unreasonable and a political offensive, expressing his displeasure. At the time when Supreme Council member Kim Min-seok mentioned the amendment, I thought it was just a political offensive. However, the party leader brought it up again in his remarks. Is there really a consensus within the Democratic Party regarding this amendment, or how should we interpret this message? Is the amendment even possible? Many say that given the current situation where the opposition holds a significant number of seats, it is unlikely that an amendment could happen. Nevertheless, Kim Min-seok, as the senior Supreme Council member, also...

I think the party leader is taking these measures as a precaution. It could be a way of saying not to have futile ambitions. During President Park Geun-hye's time, there was a document prepared for martial law. I was the first person to expose that when I was a member of the National Assembly. At first, I didn't understand that document. In today's world, does martial law even make sense? I thought, No way, but the document actually exists. When I looked into the context, it turned out that the situation was like this: the impeachment was triggered through the candlelight protests, right? Now, only the Constitutional Court's decision remains. But those people thought it would be dismissed by the Constitutional Court. Yes, that's right. The problem arises if it is dismissed. During the candlelight protests, 17 million people gathered nationwide, and if those people were to gather at the Blue House...

If it comes rushing in, isn't it right around there? How are we going to handle this? That's the situation. It seems like they are preparing for a countermeasure. I think in such a situation, the police won't be able to stop it, so we need to mobilize more forces. Even now, I believe that possibility exists. Oh really? President Yoon, I suspect, is considering that if he is to face impeachment, he should try it. I think he is aware that there could be backlash, just like when President Roh Moo-hyun faced impeachment. He might consider himself in a similar case, judging from his own perspective. But if it happens, and if the impeachment is dismissed, looking at the current atmosphere, many people expect it to be dismissed, right? Since they are all currently dismissing the impeachment, if we look at this side, the supporters of the opposition party, broadly speaking, the citizens of Seongnam...

Will the public sentiment remain silent? In preparation for that time, what will be done? It's possible to ponder such things. However, I think it would be impossible to completely suppress the opposition or devastate the political sphere through conventional means. Will the military heed that advice? Nowadays, regular soldiers all have cell phones, so it's not easy. The official meeting has reportedly been ongoing for about an hour and forty minutes. Nevertheless, there are still eight agreements left to discuss. It seems a bit difficult to consider these eight agreements as all being well thought out. However, during this official meeting, each party brought their discussed agendas. Do you think those agendas are appropriate and that nothing will be overlooked? I could say that to some extent. There are indeed more urgent or acceptable agendas to consider.

There were issues, but in any case, the agendas that stand out now are such that, of course, discussions should have been held. I heard that the official agenda was missing. However, it is somewhat included in the announcement. Right, the mention of needing to establish emergency measures implies that the government is not currently handling the situation properly. This expresses a degree of distrust. The fact that Representative Hong Dong-won agreed indicates that he shows a difference of opinion with the government regarding the current crisis. If they had gone out and reached an agreement, that could have been serious, possibly even a declaration of war. But that didn't happen, so I see it as both sides raising issues at an appropriate level. However, from the perspective of the general public, it seems like both the ruling and opposition parties are...

When we talk about cooperation, shouldn't we have seen more visible achievements by now? Looking at the state of our politics so far, I apologize, but it seems difficult to reach any immediate agreements. However, I hope this meeting continues to progress, and there is a possibility that it could. It won't be easy to organize, but if necessary, each representative can use their cards at any time. Lee Jae-myung can also use this as a useful card, so if an opportunity arises between the two, it can happen. Lee Jae-myung, after all, seems to be more focused on continuing the discussions with the Prime Minister, as we understand. Nonetheless, he hasn't dismissed the idea of collaborating with Han Dong-hoon. However, he is still moving forward with the discussions between the ruling and opposition parties.

Do you still see it as something that could be helpful to the representative? If the representative continues to hesitate during the meeting, then it might be necessary to say, Hey, you need to talk to the president. That could allow for a counterattack and possibly create division between the two sides. There are many cards that can be played here, so it's not necessarily a bad situation. 

Also, the dynamic between Han Dong-hoon, who comes from a prosecutorial background, and the victim, Representative Lee Jae-myung, is not bad either. However, the most concerning aspect is that the political center should be the National Assembly in the Yongsan area. We need to respect the National Assembly to ensure that our democracy functions properly. When we respect the National Assembly, it means that the country operates normally. However, the president is not even attending the opening session and has canceled meetings. This is not something that should happen; it’s not just an individual matter but something that involves the constitutional institution of the presidency.

일이거든요. 싫어도 하는 겁니다. 어떻게 좋은 것만 합니까? 대통령이 그동안 해왔던, 그렇잖아요? 그 의외를 존중하는 거죠. 그런데 용상에서 나오는 워딩을 보면 정말 기가 막히기도 만요. 국가 기관은 우리가 헌법 기관에 대한 존중이 있어야 되잖아요. 입법부와 행정부, 그리고 사법부, 이게 권력 분립이잖아요. 서로 견제함으로써 균형을 이루는 건데, 균형을 깨면 안 되잖아요. 견제를 과도하게 해서도 안 되지만, 견제가 없어서도 안 되는 거라면, 아무리 미워도 국회를 존중하는 스탠스를 취해야 하죠. 그래서 국민들이 볼 때, 아, 대통령이 하려고 애를 쓰는구나, 그런데 국회가 해도 너무하네, 이렇게 가야 여론도 돌아서는 거죠. 무슨 저 적반하장인 것처럼, 야, 누가 맨날 나보고 살인자라고 하는데 내가 그걸 어떻게 감당하냐. 그게...

What is this? You're calling me a murderer without even apologizing for it. Anyway, the opposition party will likely try to embarrass me, so how can I attend the regular National Assembly opening ceremony? This is what the presidential office has stated as the reason for not attending. So, do you think the president's absence from the opening ceremony affected the meeting between the ruling and opposition party leaders? Yes or no, it's hard to say. It's frustrating, isn't it? The wording is like that. But then again, they said that normalizing the National Assembly is a priority. But isn't that just talk? This is truly about normalization, right? They are trying to break the ice for dialogue, but the opposition is saying not to take advantage of their seats. Is that what they call normalization? The president's idea of normalization, yes. However, it can also be viewed that the opposition is somewhat taking advantage of their seats.

There may be aspects to consider, but who gave the majority seats? The people did. Conversely, who made President Yoon Seok-youl the president? The people did. There is just a time difference. Therefore, both are individuals who have been chosen by the people; they are representatives with legitimacy. Thus, both must respect each other. The conflict and competition between the presidency and the legislative branch is an unavoidable dynamic. In that case, they should compete while respecting each other; otherwise, the government cannot function properly. However, it is not right to be overly stubborn, saying, I'm not going because I'm angry, or canceling what was already planned. It is also not appropriate to go on vacation and then say, I'm not going. As you mentioned, you did not attend the opening session, and you have also been absent from the people's events.

You must want to throw an uppercut, but why aren't you going for it? So, some people are saying that the president is acting too self-importantly. On the other hand, there are those who see this as a strategic message to show the National Assembly. The way he shakes his head, is that not a strategy? Isn't everything a strategy? If this continues, people might see the president as isolating himself by making a spectacle. The president, as well as the members of the National Assembly, need to manage their own achievements carefully. Mind control is important because, in the National Assembly, the opponents might feel a similar way towards me. However, from my experience, I sometimes find myself thinking, How could someone like that be raised?

Yes, I have set a premise, but the other person might think that way about me as well. If we take that as a premise, there are indeed people like that. However, the reason we went to the National Assembly is not just to socialize with that person. We went there to represent someone and to resolve issues through discussion and consultation. So, no matter how much I dislike that person, I have to respect them because they are elected representatives of the people. I remind myself of this every day. Therefore, while respecting that person, I need to engage in discussions, even if I dislike them personally or harbor negative feelings towards them. I believe this is the attitude one must have as a public figure. The same goes for the President and for the opposition in the National Assembly. I once mentioned this in the past.

I rejected that, and when it was said in the National Assembly, it was also wrong. Yes, I have mentioned that mixing emotions into the work done between institutions is wrong. The same goes for authority. The president should be respected as an institution, regardless of personal beliefs. Even when criticizing what is right or wrong, we must respect what should be respected, and the same applies to the president. The National Assembly, as an institution, should be respected, and since its members are constitutional entities, they should also be respected. 

Absolutely, if a member of the National Assembly expresses their voice, even if they are from the opposition, they should be respected and listened to, as they have been chosen by the people. If there is disagreement, at the very least, there should be an effort to persuade. Saying that we won't meet at all—what direction will that lead the country? This is not right.

The situation is currently paralyzed, isn't it? There's nothing coming out, and nothing is being resolved. Although it may not be visibly obvious, politically, this can be described as a state of paralysis. As Professor Fukuyama mentioned, if we continue down this path, the country could collapse quickly. We need to evaluate our country as a developing nation, and we have to make another leap forward from being a developing country to a developed one. We have successfully moved from a developing country to a middle-income country, and we've managed to escape the middle-income trap and rise further. However, we need to succeed in this last stage to truly become a developed country and a stable nation. Right now, politics is holding us back at this critical juncture. It's a chaotic struggle, and the only ones suffering are the citizens.

'계엄령 준비설' 거듭 주장하는 민주당, 왜? [주간 이철희]

「공정 신뢰 품격」이 있는 MBN 뉴스 ! 
유튜브 MBN NEWS로 여러분께 한발 더 다가갑니다.

'계엄령 준비설' 거듭 주장하는 민주당, 왜? [주간 이철희]

'계엄령 준비설' 거듭 주장하는 민주당, 왜? [주간 이철희]

스크립트