Lee Young-hoon, co-representative of the New History National Movement, speaks at the National Assembly forum on re-examining the May 18 Democratization Movement. ⒸHanmi Ilbo 

The People Power Party (PPP) leadership described the National Assembly open forum on re-examining the May 18 Democratization Movement, hosted by Representative Lee Jin-sook, as "inappropriate." It is reported that Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sik even requested the cancellation of the forum before it took place.

What exactly was inappropriate about it?

Is it considered inappropriate to look at May 18 critically or to raise questions about established narratives? Or is it wrong for a member of the National Assembly to re-examine a historical event from various perspectives and discuss it openly?

Where, exactly, does the People Power Party’s commitment to liberal democracy lie?

Furthermore, the proposal to include the "May 18 spirit" in the preamble of the Constitution without clearly defining its concept and scope is, in itself, a subject that requires sufficient social and academic examination and debate.

The preamble of the Constitution is not a mere declaration. The Constitutional Court views the preamble as a part of constitutional norms. Therefore, the issue of incorporating the May 18 spirit into the constitutional preamble is not just about adding a commemorative dimension; it is about engraving the state’s constitutional assessment of its historical significance and legitimacy.

Does it align with the spirit of democracy to effectively seal off the possibility of future evaluation regarding a historical event that has not yet undergone sufficient debate and verification?

There are already laws in place that punish anyone for "distorting history" even for a single dissenting comment regarding May 18. In such a climate, are we now going to deem even discussion "inappropriate" and proceed to enshrine it in the constitutional preamble?

What we want to know is simple. Why can we not freely question and verify the various doubts and issues that have been raised regarding what happened during the May 18 Democratization Movement?

What were the circumstances behind the theft of weapons from armories and military bases? How were the organization and command system of the citizen militia formed? How did the seizure of armored vehicles and military trucks take place? What were the actual facts behind controversial incidents such as the attack on the Gwangju Prison, the installation of explosives in the Provincial Office, and the arson cases?

To these questions, one should simply provide a clear historical explanation by distinguishing between established facts and false claims.

We can also examine how North Korean documents and propaganda materials from that time evaluated the May 18 movement. There is no need to accept North Korea's claims as facts, but conversely, there is no reason to exclude them from research just because they are inconvenient.

History cannot be a sanctuary. If a claim is wrong, refute it. If it is false, uncover the evidence. If there is an academic issue, verify it through the process of discussion. Why, then, did the PPP leadership try to block the forum itself?

If you think Representative Lee Jin-sook's arguments are wrong, refute them publicly. You should specify which presentations were incorrect and which data were false. This is not a matter to be settled with a single word like "inappropriate."

Is the People Power Party going to block even the discussions and research of its own lawmakers who hold views different from those of the Democratic Party regarding May 18 from now on? Are they going to prohibit the raising of any questions about May 18? Is that truly the stance of a conservative party claiming to protect liberal democracy?

Moreover, some members of the People Power Party have been advocating for the inclusion of the "May 18 spirit" in the constitutional preamble. If so, they must first explain to the public what exactly the "May 18 spirit" is. Attempting to include it in the Constitution without clearly defining its concept and scope is no different from turning the Constitution into a tool for political slogans.

The People Power Party should not fear criticism from the left, but rather guarantee free discussion of history. As a conservative party, this is even more imperative. Allowing uncomfortable questions, listening to opposing opinions, and discerning the truth through data and evidence—that is liberal democracy.

I ask Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sik: Why did you demand the cancellation of Representative Lee Jin-sook's forum? What specific content of the forum was inappropriate? Clearly explain to the public and the party members your reasons for attempting to restrict a lawmaker's legislative activities and freedom of discussion.

A member of the National Assembly has the right and responsibility to ask questions, express doubts, and debate on behalf of the people. A floor leader who attempts to obstruct such legislative activities is unfit for the position. A party that claims to defend liberal democracy should ensure that citizens can freely ask questions and debate historical issues that remain controversial.

The People Power Party must be a conservative party that protects freedom, not a party that is overly concerned with the gaze of the left.

Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sik must disclose the circumstances and reasons behind his attempt to block Representative Lee Jin-sook's forum and immediately resign to take responsibility.

Oh Sang-jong, Representative of the Free Korea Patriotic Group