![Democratic Party Chief Brands Rival Lawmaker a "Female Chun Doo-hwan" [CAPTIONS]
Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok drinks water during a Supreme Council meeting held at the party's North Gyeongsang provincial office in Andong, North Gyeongsang Province, on the 26th. Yonhap News - Seoul Economic Daily Politics News from South Korea](https://wimg.sedaily.com/news/cms/2026/08/26/rcv.YNA.20260826.PYH2026082603320001300_P1.jpg)
Kim Min-seok, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, took aim at Rep. Lee Jin-sook of the People Power Party, who has drawn controversy over remarks belittling the May 18 pro-democracy movement, saying he would refer to her uniformly as a "female Chun Doo-hwan."
Kim made the comment on the 26th at a supreme council meeting held on-site in Andong at the party's North Gyeongsang provincial office. "Many are asking why she takes issue with being called a female Hitler but does not object to being called a female Chun Doo-hwan," he said.
He continued, "She apparently does not consider the term 'female Chun Doo-hwan' to be a defamation of her reputation. But a national verdict has already been handed down on Chun Doo-hwan's insurrection. The May 18 movement has been ruled a pro-democracy movement and Chun Doo-hwan an insurrectionist, so the matter is historically settled."
Kim also reaffirmed his party's position that the lawmaker should face disciplinary action or a suspension of her legislative status. "We must ensure that the National Assembly Ethics Committee process moves quickly," he said. "If the current National Assembly Act poses difficulties, we must swiftly pass the bill the Democratic Party earlier proposed, which would allow a one-year suspension of legislative status upon a majority vote in a plenary session. We cannot keep a female Chun Doo-hwan in the National Assembly, can we?"
Meanwhile, Lee has faced criticism for recently holding a "National Assembly Open Forum on Re-examining the May 18 Pro-Democracy Movement" and for belittling the movement. The presenters who attended the forum reportedly argued that the meaning of May 18 should be reconstructed.






