"The President’s remarks about “not tolerating” participants in the mass come across as quite belligerent. Indeed, it sounds like she was telling her cabinet to find anything in the law they could to punish the participants. At one point, she asked the secretaries for their “firm commitment not to bow to or in any way tolerate any mistakes for the sake of the public.” This seems to suggest that the authorities may be at work this very moment thinking of ways to punish the mass’s participants. It’s disturbingly reminiscent of the president’s father, Park Chung-hee, ordering “detentions and investigations” during his administration in the 1960s and 1970s. The idea of a president making what comes across as threats to the public over behavior she doesn’t like is an unfortunate legacy from the past. No matter how unpleasant Father Park’s remarks may have been to the president, it is not her place to take action on them."
This is an outright attack on freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association, the core freedoms which are a prerequisite for a democracy. Her statements directly violate Article 21 of the Constitution of Korea which reads:
Article 21
(1) All citizens shall enjoy freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly and association.
(2) Licensing or censorship of speech and the press,and licensing of assembly and association shall not be permitted.
Clearly her words have demonstrated an intent to violate the Constitution. As a result Article 65 of the Korean Constitution the National Assembly has a duty to begin an impeachment process against the President.
Article 65
(1) In case the President, the Prime Minister, members of
the State Council, heads of Executive Ministries, Justices of
the Constitutional Court, judges, members of the National Election Commission,the Chairman and members of the
Board of Audit and Inspection, and other public officials designated by Act have violated the Constitution or other Acts in the performance of official duties,the National
Assembly may pass motions for their impeachment.
Clearly the President's attack on the aforementioned priest warrant action under Article 65
President should respond sternly to state interference, not priest’s comments : Editorial : Home
No comments:
Post a Comment