- Suspension of party membership is excessive... Should refrain from resolving problems through disciplinary action
- "Purging non-Jang figures"? Wrong terminology... Unrelated to the movement opposing Jang Dong-hyeok
- Disciplinary action against Lee Jin-sook? Ethics committee doesn't judge everything just because there is a demand
- Difficult to distinguish exact actions... Should not silence political opinions
- Party spokesperson announcing ethics committee actions?... There are past precedents
- I did not file for an injunction... Going to court is an individual decision
- Re-electing local chapter heads... Means giving party members a choice
- Differing views that introducing a new method causes confusion
- Giving up appointable positions... Could be an innovation measure
- Inviting Park Geun-hye to party workshop? She values convention... Unclear if she will accept the request
■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00 AM)
■ Date: August 21, 2026 (Fri)
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Kim Jaewon, Supreme Council Member of the People Power Party
▷Kim Tae-hyun: The People Power Party's Central Ethics Committee has decided to suspend the party membership rights of four sitting lawmakers. This is expected to cause significant repercussions within the party. We will speak with People Power Party Supreme Council Member Kim Jaewon to hear the leadership's stance. Supreme Council Member Kim, hello.
▶Kim Jaewon: Hello.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Supreme Council Member Kim, it has been a while. The People Power Party has seen a lot of controversy and turmoil, remaining quite turbulent. Yesterday, there were more chaotic events again—both at the morning Supreme Council meeting and during the afternoon ethics committee session. Let's start with the afternoon ethics committee. The party's Central Ethics Committee suspended the party membership rights of four sitting lawmakers: Cho Kyoung-tae, Kwon Young-jin, Suh Bum-soo, and Jin Jong-oh. Cho Kyoung-tae received 2 years and 6 months, and Jin Jong-oh received 2 years. If this stands, they will not be able to run in the general election. Kwon Young-jin received 1 year and 6 months. With 1 year and 8 months left until the general election, 1 year and 6 months leaves it ambiguous and practically difficult. Suh Bum-soo received 10 months, so running is possible. These are heavy penalties. Supreme Council Member, how do you view the severity of these punishments?
▶Kim Jaewon: Anything at or above a suspension of party membership is considered a heavy penalty, and it is quite problematic. Fundamentally, I am very concerned about resolving intra-party issues through disciplinary actions. Furthermore, regarding the severity of the disciplinary action, unless there is a determination that a lawmaker can no longer be a part of our party or our conservative camp because of an irreparable blow, disciplinary action should ultimately be seen as a process to correct wrongful activities. In that sense, I have always believed that excessive punishment is undesirable.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: So you view it as excessive?
▶Kim Jaewon: It is very difficult for me to comment directly on the ethics committee's decisions because I must be extremely cautious.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Since this is your personal opinion.
▶Kim Jaewon: Am I not a veteran in this "disciplinary experience"?
▷Kim Tae-hyun: That is true.
▶Kim Jaewon: I believe we should refrain from resolving issues through disciplinary actions.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Looking at the morning newspapers today, was it the Chosun Ilbo? "Bi-Jang-Hwang-Sa" (Purging non-Jang figures).
▶Kim Jaewon: "Bi-Myeong-Hwang-Sa" (Purging non-Lee figures).
▷Kim Tae-hyun: In the past, there was the term "Bi-Myeong-Hwang-Sa." When President Lee Jae-myung was the opposition party leader, during candidate nominations for the last general election, the media coined the term "Bi-Myeong-Hwang-Sa" (sudden death of non-Lee factions) when pro-Lee factions mostly survived and many non-Lee figures were cut off. Borrowing from that, they wrote "Bi-Jang-Hwang-Sa" (sudden death of non-Jang figures). The perspective is that the punishment was disproportionate to the lawmakers' wrongdoing, and it coincides with the fact that these four lawmakers had been fiercely calling for Representative Jang Dong-hyeok to step down. What do you think about this?
▶Kim Jaewon: But I think that term is inaccurate. "Bi-Myeong-Hwang-Sa" referred to people being excluded from nominations out of nowhere one day, and "hwangsa" means an unexpected, sudden accidental demise.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Jaewon: But this wasn't a sudden, unexpected demise—it was anticipated. However,
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Wait a minute. Then that sounds worse. If it wasn't an unexpected death, was it premeditated murder? Should it be called "Bi-Jang-Mo-Sal" (premeditated murder of non-Jang figures)?
▶Kim Jaewon: It was anticipated. But people are pointing out that the sentencing level is high. Furthermore, this was not disciplining them for participating in an opposition movement against Representative Jang Dong-hyeok, but rather disciplining individual actions deemed to have dealt a severe blow to the party's fundamental direction, prestige, and operation. So I see it as slightly different. If they had rounded up and disciplined people just for criticizing Representative Jang Dong-hyeok, one could call it "Bi-Jang-Hwang-Sa" or whatever, but I think this is unrelated to the movement opposing Representative Jang Dong-hyeok.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: There are many others who campaigned against Representative Jang Dong-hyeok, but these four were the ones caught. "You're caught, so here comes a harsh penalty." Isn't that what happened?
▶Kim Jaewon: I believe those specific actions were unrelated to the movement opposing Representative Jang Dong-hyeok.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: The actions themselves, right.
▶Kim Jaewon: Yes.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Supreme Council Member, you served as a prosecutor for a long time, right?
▶Kim Jaewon: I only served for five years.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Still, you did. In crimes involving victims, the victim's wishes are paramount, aren't they? Whether they were forgiven by the victim, whether the victim does not want punishment, or whether the victim strongly desires punishment—these are crucial, right?
▶Kim Jaewon: Those are specifically considered in offenses subject to complaint on indictment.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Even in general offenses, that is considered when determining sentences or dispositions. When prosecutors decide dispositions or courts determine sentencing, they closely consider the victim's wishes. But looking at the cases, with Lawmaker Kwon Young-jin, the victim, Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sig, said he asked for leniency and would forgive him. Lawmaker Jin Jong-oh had two grounds. In the case of Lawmaker Suh Bum-soo, related to the Busan roundhouse kick incident, the victim clearly appeared before the ethics committee and said, "It is okay, I have forgiven him." Yet heavy disciplinary penalties were handed down. How should we interpret this?
▶Kim Jaewon: When I wondered why Lawmaker Suh Bum-soo's penalty was relatively lower, I think they probably took that into consideration.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: 10 months? So he survived because of that?
▶Kim Jaewon: Regarding Lawmaker Kwon Young-jin's case, when we heard the explanation of the situation at the Supreme Council, Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sig explained it in considerable detail. And not only Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sig, but others who were present spoke as well. I think they probably considered that this wasn't an issue that could be resolved simply through the will of Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sig alone.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Related to party discipline. So in any case, you're saying Lawmaker Suh Bum-soo received a penalty that still allows him to run in the general election because of the roundhouse kick victim's plea for leniency.
▶Kim Jaewon: Even so, I think this disciplinary action is too...
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Still harsh, right?
▶Kim Jaewon: Because I am very cautious about repeatedly discussing ethics committee matters...
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Understandable.
▶Kim Jaewon: But personally, I wish they had been a bit more lenient.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Supreme Council Member, in the case of Lawmaker Lee Jin-sook, though some cite reasons like Lee Jin-sook not having made the remarks directly, a disciplinary petition was filed by some party members. Yet there hasn't even been an attempt or initiation of disciplinary review. The reason I brought up victims earlier is that May 18 victim groups, who can be considered victims, are strongly protesting and reportedly holding a rally at the People Power Party headquarters today. That means the victims want punishment. Why aren't they even deliberating disciplinary action?
▶Kim Jaewon: There are an immense number of disciplinary requests submitted to our party's ethics committee. There is even a disciplinary request filed against me. Because requests are filed against numerous people, disciplinary complaints are often used as a means of political opposition. Since the ethics committee filters through and decides on such matters beforehand, questioning why someone isn't disciplined simply because a request was filed does not reflect the reality.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Jaewon: But regarding this matter, the disciplinary issue of Lawmaker Lee Jin-sook, my thoughts are a bit different. I was also disciplined in the past after saying I opposed enshrining the spirit of May 18 in the preamble of the Constitution when asked for my opinion.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Jaewon: However, even though I stated afterward that I would never oppose enshrining the May 18 spirit in the preamble of the Constitution for the rest of my life, I was still disciplined. And I will not oppose it going forward. But punishing people excessively over this issue silences political opinions too much. Furthermore, especially regarding Lawmaker Lee Jin-sook, the Democratic Party is currently excessively demanding disciplinary action, so we need to take that into consideration as well.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Jaewon: Another point is that regarding what, to what extent, and how Lawmaker Lee Jin-sook acted, her own actions have been mixed up with the contents presented by the speakers at the time, making it hard to distinguish clearly.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: So the ethics committee can review and discipline if they want, or not if they don't; that authority belongs to the ethics committee. What I'm curious about is that Chief Spokesperson Park Seong-hoon announced that the party decided not to discipline Lawmaker Lee Jin-sook for such and such reasons. Why is the party spokesperson announcing that? He isn't the spokesperson for the ethics committee. If the ethics committee is supposed to be an independent body, doesn't this suggest it isn't independent?
▶Kim Jaewon: I think the spokesperson was simply relaying the fact that the ethics committee made such a decision.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so?
▶Kim Jaewon: I know that in the past, the ethics committee had its own spokesperson to announce official opinions. So I also mentioned the need for that. However, excessive involvement in ethics committee matters could invite accusations of bias regarding the legitimacy of the committee's decisions, so I think it is better to be cautious about that.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Lastly, as a "disciplinary senior," albeit an unfortunate one, would you advise those four lawmakers to file an injunction and make a comeback through the courts?
▶Kim Jaewon: I did not file any injunctions.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Even though you didn't, three out of the four might now have their paths to running in the general election blocked.
▶Kim Jaewon: It was the same for me back then. But my personal view was that if I couldn't run in the general election, I just wouldn't run, and there was no need to drag the matter to court. Since others may have different views on this issue, I hope they make their own judgments. In any case, the disciplinary action is just too heavy.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Yesterday morning, there was a Supreme Council meeting. Representative Jang Dong-hyeok's ambitious plan for a full re-election of local chapter heads was put on hold for now.
▶Kim Jaewon: Yes.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: What happened during yesterday's closed-door Supreme Council meeting?
▶Kim Jaewon: There were various opinions. Basically, under the current party charter and regulations, it is clearly stipulated that local chapter heads are elected at the end of August in even-numbered years. With term limit regulations, it is clearly stated that terms end with a new election held in even-numbered years after two years. Although our party has regulated elections every one or two years, the method of election has traditionally been done through the steering committee—meaning the steering committee members appointed by the steering committee head of each local chapter gather to re-elect the current head of the local chapter steering committee, that is, the local chapter head.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Jaewon: But Representative Jang Dong-hyeok is arguing that this practice is actually an irregularity, and since the rules stipulate election by voting members or all party members as the principle, he is demanding this to give party members a choice. In response, others, including the floor leader, argued that suddenly introducing an unprecedented method across all 246 local chapters would cause confusion and disrupt the party's united front against the ruling party, so we should not do it. These two opposing views clashed sharply.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: What was your position, Supreme Council Member?
▶Kim Jaewon: I believe it is wrong to view this as Representative Jang Dong-hyeok planting his own loyalists or in terms of factional dynamics within the party, as some suggest. Rather, this is about the party leader leaving even appointable positions to the free choice of party members, which in a way can be seen as an innovation plan for the party. On the other hand, there is almost no chance of a massive overhaul as lawmakers might fear. Because elections would be conducted based on the member registry held exclusively by local chapter heads who manage voting members regularly, it wouldn't really be a normal contest anyway.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: The incumbent chapter heads will win anyway? You mean most of them will simply be re-elected.
▶Kim Jaewon: That will almost certainly be the case. However, if such an innovation that returns power to party members takes place, I believe it could contribute to intra-party democratization over time, even if not immediately this time.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. I think this will be the final question. Supreme Council Member, you served as Senior Secretary to the President for Political Affairs during former President Park Geun-hye's administration, right?
▶Kim Jaewon: Yes.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Former President Park Geun-hye seems to be active following the local elections, and Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sig said he would invite former President Park Geun-hye to the People Power Party lawmakers' workshop. How do you view this? Does this help the People Power Party? And is it good for former President Park Geun-hye as well?
▶Kim Jaewon: Because the conservative camp is currently fragmented, if former President Park Geun-hye comes and offers words of encouragement, many people might respond positively. However, regarding whether former President Park Geun-hye will accept this invitation, I think a decision has not yet been made. This is because a former president has never attended our party's lawmakers' workshop before. Since she values precedent and convention, one never knows for sure, but I don't see a high probability at this point.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so?
▶Kim Jaewon: However, if Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sig went so far as to make such a proposal, I do think there might have been some level of prior coordination.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. We will wrap up here. That was Kim Jaewon, Supreme Council Member of the People Power Party. Thank you.
▶Kim Jaewon: Thank you.
The copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing the full transcript or quoting this interview in reporting,
please state the channel name and the exact program title as shown below.
[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.