Ha Heon-gi: "Yoo Si-min is an aging Peter Pan; Cho Kuk is a college admissions fraudster" [Current Affairs Show]

Kim Yun-hyung: "Yoo Si-min has an inflated sense of self"
Ha Heon-gi: "The Rebuilding Korea Party as Noah's Ark? That's blasphemy"
Ha Heon-gi: "Oh Se-hoon is increasingly likely to become the conservative camp's focal point"

■ Broadcast: Asia Economy's "So Jong-seop's Current Affairs Show" (Monday-Friday, 4 p.m.)

■ Host: So Jong-seop, political specialist ■ Producer: PD Lee Mi-ri

■ Guests: Kim Yun-hyung, former full-time deputy spokesperson for the People Power Party, and Ha Heon-gi, former full-time deputy spokesperson for the Democratic Party of Korea (October 29)

※ When quoting this article, you must cite "So Jong-seop's Current Affairs Show."

So Jong-seop: Hello, everyone. Welcome to So Jong-seop's Current Affairs Show. We'll be discussing a range of issues with former People Power Party full-time deputy spokesperson Kim Yun-hyung and former Democratic Party of Korea full-time deputy spokesperson Ha Heon-gi. Writer Yoo Si-min has set off a heated debate with a barrage of verbal attacks.

Kim Yun-hyung: Whenever Writer Yoo Si-min spoke, I wondered whether it was really appropriate to say those things. But this time, he made remarks that essentially hinted at impeachment. He left room for people to interpret his words as saying that President Lee Jae-myung could also be impeached if he did something wrong. Can this really be called constructive criticism when it comes from someone on the same political side? One thing I've consistently criticized Writer Yoo for is that he never said anything this harsh when President Lee's approval rating was doing well. He speaks this way whenever the president's approval rating starts to waver. I don't think that's criticism. It's an attack.

To put it bluntly, Writer Yoo seems to have an inflated sense of self, almost as if he is excessively self-conscious. The Democratic Party also has things to reflect on. I think the only way to quiet Writer Yoo is for President Lee's approval rating to rise; then he probably won't say anything more. The Democratic Party as a whole is doing nothing to support the government, and it is completely preoccupied with Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. That's why its approval rating keeps falling. And when that happens, I think Writer Yoo will keep speaking out.

So Jong-seop: Deputy Spokesperson Ha, although the intensity may differ, this isn't the first time Writer Yoo has said something like this, is it?

Ha Heon-gi: He keeps repeating the same thing.

Writer Yoo Si-min appeared on Park Si-young TV on October 28 and criticized President Lee Jaemyung and leader Kim Minseok.

So Jong-seop: What do you think is the reason?

Ha Heon-gi: I would describe him as "a self-righteous Peter Pan who thought he alone was just when he was young, and who has grown biologically older without undergoing any mental growth." That's how I see it. The conservative camp often calls this the stubbornness and self-righteousness of activists, or criticizes it as the hypocrisy of the 386 Generation. Writer Yoo isn't exactly part of the 386 Generation, but he belongs to the generation just before it. In fact, I think you could group them together and call them activist politicians. Back then, politicians of that generation had a cross to bear. They fought military dictatorship, their enemy was clear, and so was their mission.

I think they carried out their historical role well. Those senior figures, and the senior figures from the earlier industrialization generation, too, did a good job of taking on the tasks Korea had to resolve and guiding the country through the necessary stages. In effect, they have now left the political stage. Then came the 386 Generation, whose historical task was democratizing Korea. But it seems they still carry the mentality of that time with them. Those Peter Pans never learned any other way. The only way they seem to know how to solve social problems is to fight and crush their opponents.

They have grown biologically older but remain in that same state. They imagine that they alone must shoulder the historical mission of every era. As Deputy Spokesperson Kim put it earlier, they have an inflated sense of self. They are self-righteous and believe they must lead the fight in every current issue and every conflict. If you gave all of that a concrete form, shaped it into a human being, I wonder if it wouldn't look like Yoo Si-min.

So Jong-seop: Couldn't Writer Yoo be speaking from the perspective that the Lee Jae-myung administration is heading in the wrong direction, and that he needs to point this out so it can get back on track and President Lee can succeed?

Ha Heon-gi: "Breaking down political camps? What exactly is a camp?"

Ha Heon-gi: He could speak from that perspective. In that case, it would be better to explain specifically where the Lee Jae-myung administration is headed and where it should go. There wasn't much specificity. He doesn't explain what the problem is or what direction the government should take; he speaks only in abstract terms about camp-based politics. He says things like, "We need to break down the political camps." But what exactly is a camp? I don't even know how he would define one. With approval ratings of around 30% to 40%, you can't say that the camps have dissolved. If they had dissolved, those approval ratings wouldn't be there.

So there's one way in which his argument doesn't make logical sense. And in terms of what has actually happened, he said this is like the way the Yoon Suk Yeol administration fell apart - the way Yoon Suk Yeol dismantled his support base. But Yoon's approach was to focus only on his core supporters and alienate those on the periphery. Expelling Lee Jun-seok is a perfect example. President Lee Jae-myung, on the other hand, isn't just catering to his core supporters. He was looking to expand his reach, but now the entrenched interests within his political camp are running wild. The two situations are entirely different.

Not long ago, former leader Cho Kuk said, "For the democratic camp to survive, the Democratic Party, as the big tent of the democratic reform camp, needs to pursue camp-unification politics. It needs to govern with the camp in mind." If that's the argument, then the People Power Party is the big tent of the conservative camp, so it should govern for the conservative camp and pursue unity. Yoon Suk Yeol, too, governed with his camp in mind as the People Power Party's first party member. Was that the right thing to do? When a governing party focuses only on its own supporters and ignores the broader public, it falls.

So Jong-seop: What do you think of Writer Yoo's comment that "there may come a time when party members once again have to exercise their sovereignty"?

Kim Min-seok, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, delivers opening remarks at a meeting of the party's Supreme Council at the National Assembly on the 30th. Photo by Yoon Dong-ju

Kim Yun-hyung: "Kim Min-seok is caught in a bind"

Kim Yun-hyung: I think he's acting this way because he believes in the strength Jeong Cheong-rae showed at the last party leadership election. On top of that, the platform of the Rebuilding Korea Party could become a real headache later, especially during the general election. I think a split is always a possibility. Whenever Yoo Si-min criticizes the Democratic Party from within, he seems to have the Rebuilding Korea Party in mind. From Kim Min-seok's perspective, there really isn't any way to respond to Yoo Si-min. Yoo probably believes Kim is even easier to shake than President Lee. And Kim Min-seok made that attack, too, didn't he? He promised to seek a vote of confidence in himself at next year's by-elections, so I wonder if Yoo's remarks were made with that promise in mind. In particular, Kim Min-seok clearly said he would seek a vote of confidence in himself in the April Gangneung by-election, so I think Yoo was referring to that. It certainly seems that Kim Min-seok is caught in a bind.

So Jong-seop: Why do you think Writer Yoo brought up Kim Min-seok?

Ha Heon-gi: I think it's a long-standing complex.

So Jong-seop: A complex?

Ha Heon-gi: "Yoo Si-min's criticism of Kim Min-seok seems to stem from a complex"

Ha Heon-gi: Kim Min-seok was something of a star of the student activist generation and was personally chosen by former President Kim Dae-jung to serve as his chief of staff. Writer Yoo Si-min wasn't. After that, Yoo launched a fierce stream of criticism against the Donggyodong faction. He even called for them to step down. Then the pro-Roh faction took the reins. Writer Yoo was one of former President Roh Moo-hyun's most prominent loyalists. Around the time President Roh took office, Kim Min-seok made a political mistake, and he became a political outsider.

Writer Yoo probably thought Kim was finished. But Kim came back, became leader of the Democratic Party, and had even served as prime minister before that. Psychologically, Yoo may have found it impossible to accept someone like him. I wonder if a complex, a sense of inferiority, and other feelings all played a part. Kim Min-seok can certainly be criticized, but is it reasonable to demand results from a party leader who has been in office for just two months? I don't think that's a particularly reasonable demand. I suspect it may be an expression of personal feelings.

So Jong-seop: Another thing Writer Yoo said was that the Rebuilding Korea Party is "a lifeboat, a kind of Noah's Ark." Hasn't the Rebuilding Korea Party become a source of concern for the Democratic Party, too?

Kim Yun-hyung: I used to think that the Rebuilding Korea Party and the Democratic Party would have no choice but to merge before the general election, but now I don't think they can. With Yoo Si-min backing the Rebuilding Korea Party, these remarks have crossed a line that can't be accepted. In effect, he's declared that they'll go their separate ways. The Rebuilding Korea Party seems far too small to be called a lifeboat. I think this is going to be a real headache for the Democratic Party. It doesn't seem possible to avoid setting terms for its future relationship with the Rebuilding Korea Party or merging with it. But if they do merge, the party would be like an albatross around their neck. That's how I see it.

Rebuilding Korea Party leader Shin Jang-sik unveils an impeachment motion against Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae at a Supreme Council meeting held in front of the stone commemorating the lifting of martial law on Dec. 3 at the National Assembly on Oct. 19. Yonhap News Agency

So Jong-seop: Deputy Spokesperson Ha, do you think the Rebuilding Korea Party and the Democratic Party should merge before the general election?

Ha Heon-gi: "If a party of admissions fraudsters is a lifeboat, that party should sink"

Ha Heon-gi: If a party of admissions fraudsters is a lifeboat, then that party would be better off sinking. Anyone who argues that if Yoon Again and the conservative reconstruction faction join forces, they will bring together two groups and become a bigger party, a bigger conservative movement, and a stronger conservative movement would be laughed at. They are a target for purging, not for unification. It's the same here. Cho Kuk served as senior presidential secretary for civil affairs and as justice minister under a Democratic Party government. There's a reason he formed a separate party instead of remaining in the Democratic Party, isn't there? He is an admissions fraudster who divided the country and created a political culture in which people refuse to apologize or step aside when they do something wrong, as they should, and instead destroy the public good, dig in their heels, rally their own camp, deceive the public, and believe that they can get away with anything as long as they just push ahead.

They said he had to be purged and that the party had to cross that river, because as long as someone like him remained in the Democratic Party, it couldn't escape accusations of hypocrisy and double standards. That's why he couldn't get nominated by the Democratic Party and was left on the outside. He was even jailed. President Lee Jae-myung pardoned and reinstated him, and then saw his approval rating fall. That's what happened. But a lifeboat? If voters think that way, there's nothing we can do about it, but I think the country will be ruined. And Noah's Ark? To me, that's blasphemy. He's an admissions fraudster - that's blasphemous. It's not Noah's Ark; it's Noah's fart.

So Jong-seop: Deputy Spokesperson Kim, the Democratic Party decided at its caucus to launch a parliamentary investigation into Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. Is it set to be put to a vote at the plenary session on November 5? What do you make of this?

Kim Yun-hyung: "The investigation into Chief Justice Cho is a tactic to contain internal divisions"

Kim Yun-hyung: I think the sequence of events is wrong. The Democratic Party initially talked about impeaching Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, didn't it? But it suddenly shifted from impeachment to a parliamentary investigation. If there are clear grounds for impeachment, they should impeach him first. The fact that they've gone with a parliamentary investigation looks to me like a tactic they pulled out to contain divisions within their own camp. I don't think it makes sense. I believe all the grounds for impeaching Chief Justice Cho or launching a parliamentary investigation into him have already been thoroughly laid out. I think the Democratic Party really needs to reflect on the fact that it's bringing this up again now. It's the ruling party, isn't it? It should stop just talking about policy and people's livelihoods and show that it is directly addressing those issues.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Heedae arrives for work at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on October 28. The Democratic Party of Korea decided on October 27 to hold a parliamentary inquiry into Chief Justice Cho. Photo by Kang Jinhyung.

So Jong-seop: Deputy Spokesperson Ha, do you support a parliamentary investigation into Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae?

Ha Heon-gi: I think Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has a lot of problems, but I strongly criticized the impeachment effort. I said that if they were going to propose an impeachment motion, they shouldn't do it behind closed doors. They should hold an open caucus meeting and vote publicly. And if the motion were rejected by the Constitutional Court after a show-of-hands vote, shouldn't they take political responsibility?

They were trying to impeach someone who is among the country's three most senior officials, suspend him from duty on political grounds without proving any serious legal violation, and effectively bring the Supreme Court to a standstill in the meantime, infringing on people's right to a trial. The Democratic Party would face the criticism and consequences, while the political burden would fall on the president. That would be unfair, and it wouldn't be responsible politics. So I said they should announce that they would hold an open caucus and vote publicly.

If the motion were rejected, proportional-representation lawmakers should immediately resign, and constituency lawmakers should declare that they would not run in the next general election. They should at least do that much. Then, based on their resolve, the public could decide that there must be something to this and that they are sincere. And if the motion were upheld, they would have been right. I said that I had opposed it, but if I couldn't even judge whether Chief Justice Cho should be impeached, I would give up political and current affairs commentary that very day.

Ha Heon-gi: "I oppose impeaching Chief Justice Cho, but an investigation is worth considering"

So Jong-seop: Do you think a parliamentary investigation is worth trying?

Ha Heon-gi: It would be best if we didn't have to do it. But then we have to ask one question: Should we just turn a blind eye to this kind of illegality by the judiciary, or to issues that undermine the constitutional order? Are we unable to exercise any oversight at all? What happens when these things build up? We end up like the National Election Commission. We say we respect the Commission's independence, and then the Board of Audit and Inspection can't touch it. The National Assembly can't do anything about it, either. Nor can the executive branch. What happens then? I believe that, under ordinary laws, even the chief justice must be equal before the law. So I think it is appropriate to correct this, as long as doing so does not undermine judicial independence.

So Jong-seop: The People Power Party seems to think that this parliamentary investigation is really a kind of buildup to impeachment. Is that what it believes?

Kim Yun-hyung: That's part of it. As I said earlier, it's a tactic to rally the Democratic Party's own ranks and smooth over internal divisions. Impeachment would be too risky, but they can't just sit still when they consider their hard-line supporters, so they're doing this to see which way the wind is blowing. I find it very difficult to accept that they are using an investigation to publicly shame the head of the Supreme Court and resolve divisions within their own camp. And if they investigate the use of official activity expenses, shouldn't they also call former Chief Justice Kim Myeong-su as a witness? If the Democratic Party is going to conduct an investigation according to its own logic, it should call Kim Myeong-su and say, "You spent even more during your term." I think the Democrats are treating Chief Justice Cho emotionally. They just think he needs to be humiliated, and they need to smooth over divisions within their own camp. That's why I say this parliamentary investigation is wrong.

Ha Heon-gi: You keep saying it's only a buildup to impeachment, but there's another issue, too: whether the National Court Administration can continue to operate this way. If the investigation reveals problems that need to be addressed, then the process could lead to reforms. The opposition would like to define the issue as "all you want is impeachment," but I'm saying that the ruling party has several possible paths. People like me come on and criticize and rein in moves toward extremes. I've seen recent broadcasts where panelists brought in as hired talking heads, some of them apparently taking advantage of juvenile-law loopholes, came on radio and TV and all repeated the same thing after I challenged them to put their seats on the line. When they go around saying that on every broadcast, lawmakers become reluctant to take action.

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon speaks to reporters on the 23rd after being acquitted in an appeals court ruling in the case involving allegations that he had someone else pay for opinion polls conducted by Myung Tae-gyun. The ruling was handed down at the Seoul High Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Yonhap News Agency

So Jong-seop: With Mayor Oh Se-hoon acquitted on appeal, there seems to be a lot of analysis and speculation about a realignment of conservative forces, particularly regarding the relationship between Oh Se-hoon, Lee Jun-seok, Jang Dong-hyuk, and Han Dong-hoon. Lee Jun-seok strongly criticized Han Dong-hoon, didn't he?

Ha Heon-gi: "There are reasons to understand Lee Jun-seok's criticism of Han Dong-hoon"

Ha Heon-gi: If I explain it from Lee Jun-seok's perspective, looking only at recent issues, people might ask, "Why is Lee Jun-seok acting like that?" But to understand it, you have to stretch out the timeline and look back at what happened before. From Lee Jun-seok's perspective, the people in the pro-Han faction - now they're pro-Han, but they used to be pro-Yoon. Before the Yoon-Han conflict, there was no such thing as a pro-Han faction; they were all pro-Yoon. Lee was the People Power Party leader who had won the presidential and local elections. The people who led the effort to oust him were pro-Yoon figures. Those same pro-Yoon figures are now pro-Han. So from his perspective, it's absurd.

They're attacking Jang Dong-hyuk, pretending to be reformists, and saying things like, "There's no one in the Democratic Party willing to speak frankly to the president." But when Yoon Suk Yeol's approval rating fell to 20%, not one of them said, "No, you mustn't do that." There were exactly two people in the conservative camp who spoke up then and said, "No, this is wrong; you can't go on like this": Jang Seong-cheol and Lee Jun-seok. How did they drive Lee out? They pushed him out over allegations of sexual favors, among other things. Those allegations have now been dismissed, haven't they? From his perspective at the time, it was absurd. On the radio, he described it this way: Politics is fought with boxing gloves, but there are people walking around with knives. That's what he meant. "I spoke frankly to the president, and you came at me with a knife?" That's how he sees it.

Reform Party lawmaker Lee Jun-seok asks questions during a parliamentary audit by the National Assembly’s Finance and Economy Planning Committee at the Bank of Korea’s Daegu-Gyeongbuk headquarters on October 16. Yonhap News

But there's been no reckoning over that, or anything like it. So from Lee Jun-seok's perspective, he's making a demand of the pro-Han faction: shouldn't you deal with that first, before reaching out and telling me to just put up with it? You have to understand this context to understand why Lee Jun-seok is so worked up. Voters can still tell someone who wants to be their leader to be magnanimous. That's fair enough. But I'm saying Lee Jun-seok isn't acting this way for no reason. From his perspective, the perpetrators can't just move on without any accountability for what they did.

So Jong-seop: Deputy Spokesperson Kim, what do you think about that?

Kim Yun-hyung: "Lee Jun-seok is not justified in criticizing Han Dong-hoon"

Kim Yun-hyung: There seem to be two reasons why Lee Jun-seok is attacking Han Dong-hoon. One is the conflict between their supporters, who reportedly call each other derogatory names. But I have a lot to say about that. Lee Jun-seok's supporters also use derogatory names for Han Dong-hoon and members of the pro-Han faction. In this polarized and increasingly extreme political climate, I don't think politicians should let what their supporters say get to them. If we were organizing attacks against someone, that would be a legitimate issue to raise, but that's not happening at all.

It's said that pro-Han panelists did that in the past, but the fact is that Han Dong-hoon didn't know those panelists from before. The panelists Lee Jun-seok is taking issue with had no connection to Han Dong-hoon in the past. I don't think it's justified to bring old grievances into the present and set Han Dong-hoon up as an adversary. I think those are separate issues.

Independent lawmaker Han Dong-hoon holds a press conference at the Rotunda Hall of the National Assembly on the 30th regarding allegations that he covered up an investigation into his daughter’s alleged “fraudulent credentials” while serving as justice minister, among other allegations. Yonhap News Agency

Ha Heon-gi: During the last general election, Han Dong-hoon told Lee Jun-seok that the Reform Party was closer to the Democratic Party than to the People Power Party or the conservative camp. And according to Supreme Council member Jang Hye-chan, Han had him attack Lee Jun-seok. If that's not true, he can just say so. The allegation is that Han Dong-hoon did it. But now he's saying, "I don't know anything"? "Sort it out among yourselves"? Then he's not a leader. A leader is the one who sorts things out. So it's not reasonable to say this is a problem Lee Jun-seok has to resolve. It's something they need to resolve together. But Lee Jun-seok has no intention of resolving it right now. He's saying that if the perpetrator doesn't deal with it, he won't either. And Han Dong-hoon is saying that they did nothing wrong. In that case, they can just go their separate ways. Why keep arguing over who's right and who's wrong?

So Jong-seop: Han Dong-hoon hasn't directly responded to Lee Jun-seok's criticism, has he?

Kim Yun-hyung: "Han Dong-hoon has little interest in or personal feelings toward Lee Jun-seok"

Kim Yun-hyung: Han Dong-hoon isn't particularly concerned about Lee Jun-seok or paying much attention to him. During an election campaign, language at that level is quite common between competitors, to be honest. I want to reiterate that I don't think that's a valid reason to take issue with him. Anyway, when I went around campaigning with Han Dong-hoon in Busan, he and Lee Jun-seok crossed paths twice, by chance. Han didn't say much about him afterward. Lee Jun-seok seems to be very interested in Han Dong-hoon, but Han has no particular feelings toward Lee and has simply never mentioned him.

So Jong-seop: What do you think of the assessment that Mayor Oh Se-hoon has become a focal point for the conservatives?

Ha Heon-gi: He is the person most likely to become one. This is a very complex equation. For people like Han Dong-hoon and Mayor Oh Se-hoon, Yoon Again is something to be purged, not a group to unite with. So if Mayor Oh joins hands with Jang Dong-hyuk, Deputy Spokesperson Kim Yun-hyung will come on a broadcast right away and say, "This is Oh Se-hoon's limitation. Does this mean nothing can be done without the support of the extremist base? Han Dong-hoon is the only conservative." That's why Oh can't join hands with him. If Mayor Oh joins hands with Han Dong-hoon, Lee Jun-seok will come out and say something like that, too. Then the alliance will fall apart. It's a complex equation. If I were in Mayor Oh's position, I'd just keep my distance and focus on running the city.

To put it in stock market terms, all the conservative candidates are stuck in losing positions. When a stock falls so far that you can't sell or buy, that's what you call being stuck. Jang Dong-hyuk is now stuck at Olympic Park. If he keeps appealing to the people at Olympic Park, he won't expand his reach at all. But if he takes any reasonable position to broaden his appeal, his support base will collapse. He can't move either way; he can't buy or sell, so he just keeps averaging down. Mayor Oh has now returned from Olympic Park alive, yet they're still talking about election fraud and a new election. That means they want another Seoul mayoral election. It makes no sense when he's the mayor of their own party.

Seoul Mayor Oh Sehoon and Reform Party lawmaker Lee Junseok greet each other at a seminar hosted by the Metropolitan Housing Innovation Forum at the National Assembly Members' Office Building on October 7. Yonhap News Agency

Ha Heon-gi: "Oh Se-hoon could become the conservatives' focal point; in stock terms, all four conservative figures are stuck in losing positions"

Han Dong-hoon is stuck because, if he had boldly called for rebuilding conservatism and starting a new party, he could have expanded his support base and set the agenda, regardless of whether he had support from extremists. But his goal is to rejoin the party. To rejoin, he has to compete with Jang Dong-hyuk. That's how the primary rules are set up, so ultimately he has to win over that support base. At the same time, he has to bring his own supporters into the People Power Party, and that's what has him stuck. He's stuck because of that strange goal of rejoining the party while being an independent. And Lee Jun-seok is stuck in the Reform Party. It's falling apart. He can't join the People Power Party, and he can't move either way. From Lee Jun-seok's perspective, the most reasonable approach would be to leave the Reform Party as it is and simply form an alliance with Mayor Oh Se-hoon.

But Mayor Oh has cash on hand, so to speak. A Seoul mayor has so many permitting powers, budgetary powers, and appointment powers. Why would he need to jump into a conservative reconstruction effort when the People Power Party could keep declining indefinitely? He can say, "You do what you want; I'll run Seoul." He can take on the Lee Jae-myung administration over real estate policy. If things start looking better, he can jump in and say, "All right, let's rebuild conservatism." Not selling when you don't need to sell in a bad market is a skill, too. I think Jang Dong-hyuk has nowhere to go but down, and if Han Dong-hoon keeps this up, he'll have nowhere to go but down, too. They could break through their previous lows, and then you could just buy when prices hit bottom. The person holding cash wins in the end. So, given the current landscape, Mayor Oh is the most likely to become a focal point.

So Jong-seop: Some people think Oh Se-hoon and Han Dong-hoon will form the two leading poles of the conservative camp. What do you think?

Kim Yun-hyung: "This is the time for Oh Se-hoon and Han Dong-hoon to compete"

Kim Yun-hyung: I'm someone who thinks that would be desirable. We have no choice but to recognize Jang Dong-hyuk as the leader. His faction clearly exists. Han Dong-hoon's ultimate goal is not just to rejoin the People Power Party, but to rebuild conservatism. To rebuild conservatism, they need to grow the conservative base. The role is to bring moderates into the conservative party. Mayor Oh Se-hoon is a reasonable figure and, among elected People Power Party officials, the person chosen by the largest number of voters. As these kinds of figures come in and compete over setting the agenda and other issues, a lot of moderates will join the conservative camp.

The People Power Party's hard-line conservatives are going out to Olympic Park and shouting about election fraud and a new election. They'll never win a public election that way. How could they? To change the party into one that can win elections, they need as many people as possible. And ideally, some of those people should be figures who can serve as a focal point, have symbolic weight, and show political strength. That's why I think this is the time to compete.

So Jong-seop: Wouldn't Han Dong-hoon want to build a fairly close and positive relationship with Mayor Oh Se-hoon?

Kim Yun-hyung: On November 3, Han Dong-hoon is holding a forum on party reform, and former Seoul Vice Mayor for Political Affairs Kim Byung-min will be one of the panelists. Rather than continuing to make behind-the-scenes contact, the questions directed at Mayor Oh will have to change. Until now, the main questions have been about how he'll handle his legal risks. From now on, people will inevitably ask how he intends to deal with his relationship with Jang Dong-hyuk. I don't think Mayor Oh will have many options. At the very least, he won't be drawn toward Jang Dong-hyuk. That's what I'm watching for.

Ha Heon-gi: "Han Dong-hoon can't keep going with his current style; he needs results"

Ha Heon-gi: That's the luxury of someone with cash on hand. When he gets asked questions like that, he can simply say, "What does that have to do with running Seoul? I'm busy running the city. You can sort that out in Yeouido." He doesn't have to choose. If you don't have cash, you have to make a choice. But the market is bad now, so you can just wait until it rebounds. You can say, "I'll buy when it breaks through the low." The main point I'm making is that if Han Dong-hoon wants to rebuild conservatism, he needs to put political calculations and the current balance of power out of his mind and change his political style. He has drawn lines and acted like a fighter, picking fights, as he always has. That can show a lot of people how combative he is. But when it comes to competing on results, he can't match the mayor of Seoul. He needs to bring results to the table, and then he can compete through a series of achievements built up over time. What results can you achieve in Yeouido? Even an opposition party can deliver results if it has policies that win public support. To do that, it needs to broaden its base and bring in more people through compromise, negotiation, and dialogue. That's impossible with his current style.

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon watches firefighting efforts at Guryong Village in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, where a fire broke out on Oct. 27. Yonhap News Agency

So Jong-seop: What would you say to Lee Jun-seok along similar lines?

Ha Heon-gi: I told Lee Jun-seok this: "You only have three seats. Even if 3 million men in their 20s and 30s support you, can you get by on slogans alone? Voters even gave you seats in the National Assembly. So whether you like it or not, you need to persuade the People Power Party or the Democratic Party to introduce signature policies that neither of the two major parties can pass on its own. If you can persuade them and get those policies passed, then people will see that the Reform Party has a reason to exist as a constitutional institution. Its support base will grow from there." But he keeps fighting and making statements that appeal to online communities, so people are leaving. I'm not saying Lee Jun-seok is incompetent; this is simply the essence of politics. From what I can see, Lee Jun-seok has set his strategy as forming an alliance with Mayor Oh Se-hoon for now and moving on to the next step. I think that's reasonable.

Kim Yun-hyung: "Lee Jun-seok isn't a newcomer; he needs to show he can do politics on a grand scale"

Kim Yun-hyung: First, I think Han Dong-hoon has done a sufficient job as an opposition lawmaker since his term began in June. Opposition lawmakers need not only to legislate but also to keep the ruling party in check. In a situation where we're powerless, I think the way Han Dong-hoon conducted himself during the recent confirmation hearing for candidate Kim Seung-won, among other things, gave the conservative camp hope. I think he has fulfilled his role as an opposition lawmaker. Going forward, he will clearly need to offer alternatives in policy and legislation. Please keep watching.

I think Lee Jun-seok is the most successful politician among those born in 1980. He has political strength, but I think it's time for him to show that he can take a broad-minded approach to politics. There is a kind of politician the conservative camp has always wanted. Perhaps it's time for him to show that kind of leadership. He's been in politics for a long time - 16 years. He's no longer a political newcomer, and it's hard to call him a beginner. He must have built up a lot of experience. I would respectfully suggest that he show a side of himself that reflects that.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.