A sharper tone than in the first debate
Kim Min-seok·Song Young-gil form a joint front against Jung Cheong-rae
Kim: “Is warning against religious interference an act of party disloyalty?”
Jung: “It attacks the party and its members”…clash over Shincheonji
Jung: “Leverage ETFs on single stocks were introduced when Kim was prime minister”
Song: “Jung seems to love the Innovation Party too much”
Also a dispute over whether there was a ‘consensus’ to call the local elections a win

“Politics that milks one or two reforms to death” (Rep. Kim Min-seok) “Ran away for 18 years and came back to demand the house deed” (Rep. Jung Cheong-rae) “Representative Jung Cheong-rae is practically at the level of the leader of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party” (Rep. Song Young-gil)

Reps. Song Young-gil, Jung Cheong-rae, and Kim Min-seok, candidates for party chair at the Aug. 17 Democratic Party convention (listed by ballot number), traded sharp barbs at the second TV debate held on the 5th at the KBS studio in Yeouido, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. This first debate since results from the first and second regional primaries were announced unfolded in a notably tense atmosphere, with candidates raising their voices at times.

Tension ran throughout. In the opening question, which asked respondents to complete ‘The leader of the ruling party is not 00 but 00’, Rep. Kim, aiming at Rep. Jung, said, “The leader of the ruling party is measured not by how loud the voice is, but by the scale of ability.” Rep. Jung countered, “For a ruling party leader, it is not betrayal but loyalty.” It was a jab at Kim for leaving the Democratic Party during the process of unifying the presidential primary between Roh Moo-hyun and Chung Mong-joon and joining Chung’s side.

From the outset, Kim and Jung clashed over Kim’s allegation that the Shincheonji religious group was trying to meddle in the party convention. Kim asked whether warning against a religious organization’s interference in the primary constituted party-disloyal conduct that would brand the Democratic Party unconstitutional. Jung replied that it was party-disloyal conduct “because it attacked the party and its members.” When Song, referring to the Shincheonji controversy, said that someone who hopes for unity, once elected president, embraces former rivals and that the same principle should apply to internal party elections, Jung responded, “Candidate Song is harsh on me and very lenient toward Candidate Kim.”

Jung repeatedly highlighted that the recently controversial single-stock leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs) were introduced when Kim was prime minister, making it a focal point of attack.

Jung said, “Because single-stock leveraged ETFs were handled incautiously when he was prime minister, many people have shed bitter tears,” adding, “Leverage ETFs have also played a major role in the decline of approval ratings for the party and the president.”

The debate often took the form of two against one, with Kim and Song pressing Jung. Kim argued, “We should no longer have politics that keeps boiling the same one or two reforms like bone broth.” Aiming at Jung’s push for a merger with the Cho Kuk Innovation Party, Song said, “He seems to love the Innovation Party too much, almost at the level of the party’s leader.”

Jung asserted, “More than candidates Song Young-gil and Kim Min-seok, I will keep my loyalty to President Lee Jae Myung to the very end,” emphasizing, “Loyalty is kept by those who have kept it, and betrayal is repeated by those who have betrayed.” Aiming particularly at Kim, he said, “Would a person who ran away for 18 years and then returned home to demand the house deed make the household prosper or ruin it?”

A truth battle also erupted over Jung’s claim that the assessment of the June 3 local election results as a victory had been agreed among the party, the government, and the presidential office. Kim said, “Even if the president is not here, you should at least watch what you say; how can you speak like that?”

Jung countered, “It is proper not to divulge various opinions from the party-government-presidential office coordination process,” adding, “Through coordination, we concluded it could not be defined as a defeat and should be defined as a victory, so I announced that on June 4.”