Is the party first or the threat of parliamentary democracy?

In addition, unlike the Democratic Party's theory, the result of the reconsideration of former lawmaker Geum Tae-seop, who was disciplined for so-called'abstaining from airborne offices', comes out later this afternoon. The Democratic Party said today (29th) that the National Assembly is conducting a review of former members of the country. 

In December of last year, former lawmakers at the National Assembly held a "vote of vote" unlike the party at the time of voting on the "High Commissioner for Crimes" and the so-called "Airborne Officers" bill. It was criticized by supporters of the Democratic Party. Eventually, on the 25th of May, just before the 20th National Assembly term ended, the Democratic Ethics Tribunal unanimously issued a “warning” action against the former lawmaker. 

In a call with SBS on the 2nd, Sergeant Jin said, "Different opinions are not political responsibilities, but disciplinary action eliminates the process of public opinion." On the same day, I applied for a retrial.


Those who justify disciplinary action against the lawmakers argue that "opposing the law of the Airborne Authority for absurdity and abstaining from the vote is against the party." 

However, our constitution stipulates that congressmen perform their duties according to their conscience. The National Assembly law also says that members of the National Assembly, as representatives of the people, vote according to their conscience, without being bound by the will of their political parties.

At around 5 pm this morning, former lawmakers will attend the party's Ethics Tribunal and call them. Due to the nature of the non-working organization, the Ethics Judge, the results are expected to come in today. What do you think of the disciplinary decision against a former lawmaker who broke up over the constitutional rule that "the National Assembly members perform their duties according to their conscience"?

'News Pick'.