- President Lee's mention of 'consecutive or two-term' amendment? A trick to eliminate legal risks
- Constitutional amendment requires public support first... Currently no desire at all
- Presidential system is the bigger problem... Better to switch to a parliamentary system
- Must clearly declare 'no consecutive term'... Refrained out of fear of losing power
- Opposition under Jang Dong-hyuk lacks power to block amendment... The public must do it
- Jang Dong-hyuk at Olympic Park on Liberation Day too? A fraud against the public ignoring the Constitution
- Accompanying opposition lawmakers will also be punished... Candidates for exclusion from next nominations
- If Jang serves another term, the party will break... Cannot handle replacing party committee chairs
- Yoon Sang-hyun also realized there was no election fraud and requested a showdown debate
- Catering to party members who believe in 'conspiracy theories' will push them further from winning elections

■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5MHz 7:00–9:00 AM)
■ Date: Monday, August 17, 2026
■ Host: Lawyer Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Cho Gap-je, CEO of ChoGapJe.com

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: We diagnose the political landscape through the eyes of conservatives. We have Cho Gap-je, CEO of ChoGapJe.com, with us. Hello.

▶ Cho Gap-je: Hello.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Representative Cho, constitutional amendment has emerged as a major issue.

▶ Cho Gap-je: Yes.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: That's because last week it was reported that the president played golf with senior opposition lawmakers. Lawmaker Kim Tae-ho shared what he discussed with the president, reporting that the president brought up constitutional revision, saying that a four-year consecutive or two-term system is right, and added, "Would the public accept an extension of my term? That makes no sense." Furthermore, last Friday, the president posted on social media, stating that his position during the 2022 presidential election was that the presidential term should be changed to a four-year consecutive or two-term system to enable responsible politics through a mid-term evaluation, and that he would accept shortening his term if necessary for constitutional reform, adding that his position remains unchanged today. How do you view these remarks by the president?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Assessing it from a political engineering standpoint, he has played an exquisite move.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: What kind of move?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Isn't it a drive for constitutional amendment? Since candidate Kim Min-seok is likely to become party leader today, an Lee Jae-myung–Kim Min-seok team would form, using constitutional amendment as a lever to target the moderate-conservative spectrum. By implementing such a policy, they aim to quell falling approval ratings and backlash over the abolition of prosecution investigative powers, playing a very big game. But whether this actually serves the national interest is a separate issue.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: They say that once constitutional amendment begins, it becomes a political black hole, pulling in every issue.

▶ Cho Gap-je: That's correct.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: A constitutional amendment is a grand scheme for the nation's next century, isn't it?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Indeed.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then, what is the president's objective in bringing up constitutional amendment now?

▶ Cho Gap-je: As everyone can guess, I think it's accurate to see it as a trick to eliminate his own legal risks. After all, amending the Constitution means changing the structure of the nation. Moreover, among various directions for constitutional revision, discussions about consecutive or two-term systems essentially alter the power structure. It must be approached with the utmost caution, and the moment it gets sucked into this, even the grand vision he set forth—such as becoming a leading AI nation—might not be properly carried out as things start shaking.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Cho Gap-je: But I would like to clarify how this constitutional amendment should be done. First, it must win public support. Every constitutional amendment in Korea's history that was pushed without passionate support from the public has failed.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: That's true.

▶ Cho Gap-je: Is there a passionate desire among the Korean public today, saying, "I can't live unless the Constitution is amended"? Is there a longing like when direct presidential elections were demanded? No, there isn't. Second, why does the president dictate the direction toward a consecutive or two-term system? If we are to reform the power structure, the most important topic to discuss is whether to have a presidential system or a parliamentary system. How many countries with a presidential system are not causing trouble right now? Almost none. Even the United States shaking like that is a problem of the presidential system, and after experiencing Yoon Suk-yeol, we realized we cannot stop a president who causes trouble. President Lee Jae-myung also seems to be heading down that path if things go wrong. Why keep the presidential system as is and switch to a consecutive or two-term system? Is there any evidence that a single five-year term is worse than an eight-year consecutive or two-term system? Isn't a single five-year term actually better? In effect, it could deceive the public into allowing someone who should end after five years to stay in office for eight years.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Well, an incumbent president naturally holds an advantage.

▶ Cho Gap-je: Furthermore, for this discussion to proceed, President Lee Jae-myung must first clearly draw the line by promising, "I will not attempt to drop the charges against myself."

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: And not attempt a consecutive term?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Next, he must clearly state that he will not seek a second term—making those two things explicit. After that, there should be a completely open discussion without setting a deadline.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Looking at what the president wrote on X (formerly Twitter), he proposed changing to a four-year consecutive or two-term system and stated he could accept shortening his term if necessary for amendment. However, there is no precise mention regarding his own re-election bid. The opposition maintains that instead of relying on Chief of Staff Kang Hoon-sik or the presidential office to speak up, the president himself must come forward and explicitly state, "I will never seek a second term," for the special committee on constitutional amendment to begin operations.

▶ Cho Gap-je: That's right.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: But the president says, "It's obvious I can't serve a second term. Would the public accept it if I ran for another term?" without explicitly saying, "I will never run." Do you think there might be even a small desire in his mind to attempt a second term?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Shouldn't there be such ambiguity to prevent a lame duck period? If President Lee Jae-myung declares he won't seek a second term, wouldn't he lose some authority? He cannot serve a second term anyway, that much is clear. But he is in a situation where he has to consider the loss of power that would occur the moment he announces he won't seek another term.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Out of fear of losing momentum in state affairs?

▶ Cho Gap-je: So keeping it vague might be advantageous for him. However, whether it's the public or himself, if we simply take it for granted that he won't do it, that's that.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so? Looking at the list of lawmakers who played golf with the president, most of them belong to the special committee on constitutional amendment. That's why the president mentioned a 'structural majority' not long ago.

▶ Cho Gap-je: That's correct.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: So there are observations that the president might be trying to form a new political alliance using constitutional amendment as a bridge. What are your thoughts?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Exactly, I think discussions on constitutional amendment could lead to a political reorganization or realignment. It shows an intent to target not only moderates but conservatives as well. The recent golf gathering reflects that trend. Most importantly, the People Power Party led by Representative Jang Dong-hyuk has no power to counter such a constitutional amendment drive. Nor do they have any intention to do so. These people go to some park and shout amongst themselves, while President Lee Jae-myung's constitutional drive will continue, throwing the conservative response into confusion. In short, the party under Jang Dong-hyuk's leadership cannot stop the constitutional amendment drive. They lack the capability and strength. Furthermore, how convincing is it for remnants of the Yoon Suk-yeol faction, who violated the Constitution, to claim they will protect it?

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then, in your view, should the People Power Party respond positively to the president's constitutional amendment drive, or should they thoroughly oppose and reject it?

▶ Cho Gap-je: I don't think the People Power Party should be the subject here. It is about the entire public, not just the People Power Party. Since constitutional amendment defines how everyone lives, this kind of constitutional discussion is wrong. Amendment itself is necessary.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: But you mean not in this manner?

▶ Cho Gap-je: An amendment like this must not happen. A constitutional amendment driven by political calculations, machinations, or personal gain is unacceptable, and if rushed, it will become a national tragedy.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: So you believe the constitutional amendment the president is contemplating has politically calculated and self-serving motives?

▶ Cho Gap-je: That element is strong. If we are to discuss constitutional reform, we must focus on restructuring the power system, and we need to persuade the public. To be honest, among the politicians I've met, 80 percent say we should move to a parliamentary system.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Is it because they think, "That way I'll have a chance too"?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Exactly. Discussions on presidential consecutive or two-term systems are stories for the president and those who want to become president. What is really needed is a broad national debate.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Let's talk about Olympic Park. Jang Dong-hyuk, leader of the People Power Party, went to Olympic Park on the afternoon of Liberation Day, where about 20 sitting lawmakers and non-parliamentary party committee heads attended. Chief Spokesperson Park Chung-kwon was also reportedly seen checking who attended on site. How did you view this?

▶ Cho Gap-je: The people photographed there will be punished in the future.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Punished?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Yes. What are they shouting right now? They are calling for nationwide re-elections, claiming election fraud.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: The slogans like "election fraud re-election" and "hand-counting for same-day voting," right?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Aren't those all lies? It wasn't election fraud, it was poor management. Calling for nationwide re-elections means invalidating the votes of the 27 million people who voted on June 3. It's a struggle to nullify the election—a coup-like mindset. Claiming to nullify an election after it's held and holding a re-election is something only someone who successfully seized power through a coup would do. So right now, they are selling defective goods. They should talk about what is possible. Bismarck defined politics as the art of the possible. Things must be done within the realm of possibility, but this person is selling an impossible product, a kind of fraud against the public, and its nature completely disregards the Constitution and elections.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Cho Gap-je: Representative Jang Dong-hyuk is a former judge. If a former judge disregards the Constitution, shouldn't that warrant aggravated punishment?

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Looking at the attendees, most were party leadership. Of course, among supreme council members, Woo Jae-jun, Yang Hyang-ja, and Kim Jae-won were absent, and there were a few more sitting lawmakers. By punishment, do you mean exclusion from nomination in the next general election?

▶ Cho Gap-je: They are subjects for exclusion from nomination. Definite candidates for exclusion. Meanwhile, the list of 44 people who gathered to guard then-President Yoon Suk-yeol's residence will surely be put on the exclusion list in the future. Those who went this time are in the exact same context.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: But if Representative Jang serves another term and holds nomination power, these people would receive preferential treatment in nominations.

▶ Cho Gap-je: If he gets re-elected as leader, I believe the party will break up.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Really?

▶ Cho Gap-je: A party that passively allows Jang Dong-hyuk's re-election will either split or be expelled by the public.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: The reason I asked is that Representative Jang recently made similar remarks, saying that those who don't fight are not needed in the People Power Party, and that nomination criteria would focus on fighting power against the ruling party.

▶ Cho Gap-je: We must interpret it accurately. It should be interpreted as: "Anyone who doesn't fight against the Han Dong-hoon faction will be targeted for removal."

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Everything about his thinking shows he is acting like an evangelist regarding Yoon Suk-yeol as a cult leader.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: That's because there are observations that non-parliamentary party committee chairs showed up at Olympic Park because of rumors that party committee chairs will be replaced at the end of August. How extensive do you expect this overhaul to be?

▶ Cho Gap-je: He probably wants to sweep them all away as he pleases, but can he deal with the aftermath?

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: What do you mean by aftermath?

▶ Cho Gap-je: In recent days, the so-called 'human footstool' incident occurred, completely wiping out any effect of going to Olympic Park, didn't it?

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Let's cover this briefly at the end. Lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun, who serves as chairman of the National Assembly special committee investigating the National Election Commission, recently argued that election fraud and poor election management are different, engaging in nerve wars during hearings with Lawmaker Ju Jin-u and Lawmaker Kim Eun-hye. He even proposed a showdown debate to Lawmaker Na Kyung-won, though she declined. How do you view this situation?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Lawmaker Yoon Sang-hyun spoke accurately and very bravely. Only after taking on the special committee chairmanship did he realize firsthand how absurd election fraud conspiracy theories are. His point is crystal clear: election outcomes are decided at vote-counting stations. Manipulating voter turnout or vote percentages a hundred times, or altering the NEC situation board a hundred times, cannot change who wins or loses. So he offered to debate Lawmaker Na Kyung-won on this—why won't she accept?

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: But it seems more people in the People Power Party are jumping on the election fraud bandwagon compared to before. Why do you think that is?

▶ Cho Gap-je: Aren't party members the ones those people meet most often? About half of the party members believe in election fraud conspiracy theories, so they cater to party members' sensibilities. But the more they pay attention to party members, the further they drift from the general public. That means drifting further away from winning elections.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. We will wrap up here for today. That was Cho Gap-je, CEO of ChoGapJe.com. Thank you, sir.

▶ Cho Gap-je: Goodbye.

The copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing the full text or citing this interview, please state the channel name and exact program name as shown below.

[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]