Kim Jong-hyuk, expelled from the People Power Party, criticizes the party's decision as a laughable effort
Former People Power Party Supreme Council member Kim Jong-hyuk expressed disbelief at his expulsion from the party, criticizing the process and indicating he plans to pursue legal action.
On September 9, Kim Jong-hyuk, a former Supreme Council member of the People Power Party in South Korea, criticized the party's decision to expel him, labeling it as laughable. Following the confirmation of his expulsion, he remarked on Facebook that he had anticipated this outcome and is now consulting with lawyers on whether to file for a provisional injunction or a formal lawsuit to challenge the decision. He expressed discontent over the party's internal processes, pointing out that the decision seemed indicative of a broader issue within the leadership, particularly under the management of party leader Jang Dong-hyuk.
Kim highlighted various procedural irregularities during the ethics committee's disciplinary actions against him, likening the situation to an incompetent management of an apartment complex's security staff. He recounted specific instances of miscommunication and poor handling of notifications, which he feels depict a lack of integrity and accountability within the ethics committee and the leadership. Despite speculation from some party members regarding the party's potential failure in upcoming local elections, which could lead to its downfall, Kim remains determined to hold the leadership accountable for what he views as irrational and unjust actions.
Previously, the party's Central Ethics Committee had recommended his expulsion due to violations of the obligations to maintain dignity and faithfully perform duties. This expulsion was considered a harsher penalty than the previously suggested two-year suspension of party membership. According to the party's regulations, Kim is required to submit a resignation within ten days of receiving the expulsion recommendation, or he will be expelled automatically. His case was presented at a Supreme Council meeting without further deliberation, raising further questions about the fairness of the proceedings.