National Assembly Speaker Kim Hyong-o declared, in a ceremony marking Constitution Day, proposed setting up a National Assembly committee on amending the Constitution.
Possible changes include:
- Switching from 5-year to 4-year presidential terms
- Allowing for the president to run for reelection for a second term
- Synchronizing presidential and National Assembly terms
- Doing something to strengthen the National Assembly more power in relation to the executive branch
Of course, there is no telling what fun things they will come up with once they get under the hood.
About the synchronizing of presidential and National Assembly terms: Any changes to lengthen the presidential term or allow for reelection cannot apply to the current president (a rule put in place to make sure nobody tries to be the next Park Chung-hee or a Korean Hugo Chavez) but there is no rule against shorteningthe term of the sitting president. So synchronizing terms would require either adding about 7 months to the National Assembly’s current term or shaving about 7 months off of President Lee’s term.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
“a rule put in place to make sure nobody tries to be the next Park Chung-hee or a Korean Hugo Chavez”
Or a Korean FDR.
Synchronizing terms would help to overcome one of the weaknesses of Presidential systems – ineffective divided government. Korea has had more than its share of this problem.
@1
There were no term limits when FDR was running. They were established during Truman’s presidency.
@dokdoforever
I find having an ineffective and divided government to be a highly desirable trait, especially considering how Orwellian the laws already are here, the last thing we need is for them to be “effective”. Better they fight between themselves than be able to channel their policies at “helping” the people.
“@1 There were no term limits when FDR was running.”
Err!! Do you not think perhaps thats why @1 said “a rule put in place to make sure nobody tries to be a Korean FDR.”
It’s ok, Arghaeri, I know you’re not smart.
We were talking about the potential of the current president increasing his own term length/limits while in office. This is something that Park and Chavez did: illegally extended their own terms. FDR did no such thing; he simply took advantage of the fact that there were no legal term limits. Very different situations.
Read this post five times before replying. Also, consider not replying.
No the illegal part was the coup d’etat putting him power in the first place. There already was a two term rule, he then subsequently arranged for the legislature to change the constitution to remove the bar on a subsequent term.
Accordingly the rule, as with the previous two term rule, is in place to disallow subsequent terms in the same manner that the rule was put in place in the US i.e. to prevent another FDR.
Not quite sure how you think the current legal rule will prevent someone who has the power and will to disregard such rule from illegally extended their own terms, and more than the previous two term rule prevented Park Chung Hee.
Whether I am smart or not doesn’t make you clever, just petty.
I can’t even understand what you write. Try learning English. Take a writing class.
You don’t see the difference between doing something legal and doing something illegal? I think we’re done here.
Wow the responses are getting more intellectual by the minute.
I am sorry you don’t understand english, but thats not really my problem is it.
No one at any point has stated what FDR did was illegal, merely that the rules were put in place to prevent such a circumstances of repeated extended terms.
You stated that Park and Chavez illegally extended their own terms and that was the reason for the Korean restriction. Clearly wrong since the two term “FDR” restriction in Korea predates Park (and Chavez). The one term, longer term, restriction reinstated the status quo after Park was removed and in any case cannot logically prevent illegal acts (your main premise) such as a coup de’tat only legislate against them.
In any case, neither have you established that Chavez and Park did anything illegal, in fact I believe that Chavez failed in his attempt, since although the proposed constitution change was ratified in assembly, it was voted down in a public referendum. [Happy to be corrected on this, since it's not my area of expertise]. Similarly, in Parks case the constitution was changed by legal means by the National Assembly, he was then voted in to power in the next election. So accordingly the extension of his power was also legal (his being there in the first place was the illegal part having taken power in a coup de’tat.)
In summary #1 commented “to prevent another FDR”, he never said anything about illegality or manipulation of the system, you made a sarky comment which I called out, again with no slur against FDR.
It’s you who’s moving the goal posts, and all you can do when called is make insulting personal attacks, instead of justifying your comments with facts and logical argument.
The are clear differences here that you are failing to see because you lack comprehension skills. I’m not going to reply until you learn to read and write English. Maybe it isn’t your fault; you could still be in middle school. You certainly write like a middle schooler.
You just did, with another juvenile middle school comment, the pot calling the kettle black
Where for example have I demonstrated any failure to comprehend that there were no term limits and what FDR did was not illegal.
Why have are you unable to comprehend that the term limits were put in place in the Korean Constitution, to restrict additional terms full stop, in exactly the same way as the US restriction was put in place following FDR’s winning a third term to prevent additional terms full stop and not due to any prior illegality.
Why are you…
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }