Talk:Roh Moo-Hyun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Map of Korea WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Pavilion at Gyeongbok palace, Seoul
Korea-related tasks:

Contents

[edit] HIS NAME

"Roh" is the pronounciation for Japanese. "No" is the correct pronounciation of Korean way. He is a Korean!!! not a Japanese.

Even if you are right about the last two things (I don't know Japanese, so I can't tell the first one), Roh is the official way of writing by all Korean English language media including the Korean goverment. -- IGEL 21:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Lee (E 이) Shin (Sin 신) Roh/Noh (No 노).. some of Korean last names that are usually not spelled the way it sounds. They do this so it actually looks like last name.. Besides.. if someone's last name was NO, it sounds negative.Danmuzi 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've learned, it is popular that North Korean pronounce (盧) as 'Roh' . and I also know South Korean call No Moo-Hyun for him. so shouldn't we write the true calling way of his name in South Korea?, as a fact, at least how to call him in South Korea--Yuan.C.Lee 07:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As IGEL pointed out, Roh is the official spelling of the president's name, which is displayed on the president's homepage [1] also. His name as represented by Korean pronunciation is provided under his picture already, thus I don't think there has to be a change. - noirum 12:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Geoffrey, you said (Major edit; lots of info taken from news sites, his home page, etc.). Is copyright ok? -- Taku 02:53 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

I reworded and recompiled everything; it's definitely to the level a schoolteacher wouldn't call plagiarism. Information, by its nature, can't be copyrighted: the method of presenting it (wording) can be. You can check my references that I listed; there's more information there. I'm sure the copyright's okay. And anyway (off-topic:) the copyright at Transjordan is directly violated, so there's better things to go for first. -Geoffrey 00:00 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I don't like the picture. We don't have the other picture. Mr. Roh's own picture we need. Ryuch 11:58, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. A personal portrait is more appropriate in a personal biography-article. If we do not remove the Roh-Bush photo, at least add an individual portrait placed before the group photo. --Menchi (Talk)â 19:09, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Edit

I replaced the previous penultimate paragraph which seemed to me to lack a degree of objectivity.

The removed text was:

'As president, Roh continues the engagement policy or Sunshine policy towards North Korea started by the president before him, Kim Dae-Jung. Yet, his cabinet's recent attitude towards this policy seemed compromised due to geo-political situation of which has been highly escalated due to North Korea's nuclear programme. However, it is widely perceived that this government is not capable of tackling issues around. His support for US military forces in Korea, even after possible reunification, needs enduring scrutiny due to lack of confidence in his policy.'

TJOB 23:57, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Now that this article is featured in the "In the News" box on the Main Page, I've cleaned up the article vis-a-vis Roh's impeachment. One side note: he was impeached on March 12, not March 11. Although it was March 11 in the western hemisphere, it was Friday, March 12 in Korea. --Sewing 18:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pro-Roh Uri Party members had blocked the speaker's podium for 3 days to prevent a vote before being hauled out by opposition lawmakers and security guards.

This sounds very much like a filibuster to me. Anyone who got more info on the specifics in this case? --Gabbe 10:26, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

A filibuster is a procedural maneuver. Physically blocking the podium using bodies and throwing chairs is not really a filibuster. The incident is aptly described. --Tlaktan 00:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday

According to his offical homepage (http://www.knowhow.or.kr/warp/jp/president/) (both Chinese and Japanese version, I don't know Korean), his birthday, Month 8, 6th, 1946, is in lunar calendar. It is not August 6, 1946 in western calendar. - Yaohua2000 09:48, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

http://english.president.go.kr/warp/en/president/story/history/ states that his birthday is on August 6, 1946. Some other Wikipedia's give August 6 as birthday, others September 1. What is the correct one? And from the information above: how can a date of the lunar calendar be translated into a date of the western calendar? (August 6 to September 1) -- Arafi78 13:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this page moved?

This page was moved from Roh Moo-hyun to Roh Muhyeon on 1 October, but I don't know why. It's neither the choosen transscription (which was Roh Moo-hyun and is used by most western media including the offical webpage) nor is it the correct revised romanization, which would be No Mu-hyeon. It's also violating the naming conventions. Muhyeon is also bad because many would read it Muh-yeon instead of Mu-hyeon. I'm in favor to move it back. -- IGEL 21:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In this page http://english.president.go.kr/warp/app/home/en_home , you can see how he does write his name in English. Romanization rule for a personal name is not a compulsory but a recommendation. In otherwise, it would be a chaos. - Cheol 06:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly the situation is with given names, i.e. whether official publications spell all existing given names according to RR, and whether children who are issued documents for the first time must have their names revisedly romanized in them. On another note, I think I've seen Roh Moo Hyun much more often than Roh Moo-Hyun, but if the latter is the official form, so be it.
§ has also moved the Revised Romanization article. – Wikipeditor


[edit] His name

is indeed NOH (노) not ROH (로). I'm not sure how this whole name situation came about but the President and my Korean side of the family have the same last name (no relation). I get the feeling that someone misunderstood the pronounciation and it took off from there. I find it rude that no one, not even Korean translated newspapers has changed this, so it must have become universally accepted. It's kind of like how in Korea many Koreans spell Korea with a "C" instead of a "K", especially during World Cup time in 2002.

Generally it's up to the individual how they choose to spell their name. -- Visviva 22:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That's true too.


[edit] Introduction

Someone's got to do something about the introduction.

It's obviously biased, and if there wasn't something positive about him, why would he be re-instated due to popular support after his illegal impeachment by parliament? Also, don't tell me he's NOT popular even from his supporters, he has a higher approval rating than George Dubya!

Someone fix the intro please. Bias should have limited place in Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.83.251 (talk • contribs).

I agree that the intro is more or less biased and needs to be fixed, but you introduce another bias that he was impeached on a illegal basis. It's true the impeachment was heavy-handed and politically motivated, but imo it was executed in a legal manner nonetheless. - noirum 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

K that's better. Not as pro-Roh as I would've liked, but it's better than before. My only question is don't you think that in Korean national politics there is a shift from regionalist divide to an age/demographic divide? It would explain why the GNP is supported by older people and the Uri by more younger people. Also should include the Dokdo issue as that has been the main focus of Korea and Roh's Presidency recently.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.77.11 (talk • contribs).

I see the Dokdo issue is an ongoing one started decades ago, not an issue that particularly gained some significance under current administration. Hence no mention. Also, I agree that Roh's victory in the presidential election indicates the trend you've suggested, but I hesitate to apply that framework to current situation where the popularity of the government hit a rock bottom. Hopefully we can sum up the situation more objectively after current uncertainties in the ruling party cleans up. - noirum 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Illegal Impeachment?

um... NOIRUM, the impreachment was ruled illegal and unconstitutional by the Korean Supreme Court, that's how he got re-instated. Hence, ILLEGAL and NO BIAS in that particular sentence that I wrote as I was supported by Legal Authority.

PS Someone fix the intro or I will.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.77.11 (talk • contribs).

The impeachment procedure was conducted in a legal manner, and the Constitutional Court did not rule all of the claims made by the opposition is without basis. I don't intend to continue this argument though, because it is out of context with the article itself. - noirum 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you should the leave the argument alone, because there is no way you can support the fact that it was legal. I'm only an Australian Law Student so I don't know about Korean Law, but in American and Commonwealth Law systems - when the courts make a decision in the main aspect of the case, minority dissent from fellow judges or claims made from the losing side are deemed null. Therefore as the Constitutional Court deemed in favour of Roh, this has created a 'precedent' and 'Legal Authority' which cannot be claimed against unless it is over-ruled by a higher legal authority. Therefore, your statement that the 'impeachment procedure was conducted in a legal manner' is still biased.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.81.211 (talk • contribs).

Korean law system is based on Continental one, although I don't know the details as I'm not a student of law. Normally they publish the final sentence, and minority dissent is attached to it (as the courts in Australia probably would). Whereas in this case, the Constitutional Court chose not to publish the dissenting opinion (probably not to cause further controversies), but specified in the main sentence that the President did violate many cases submitted for the impeachment, albeit they were minor and circumstantial. They did rule that the cases don't collectively stand, but they suggested the President to take good heed of the Court's findings so as not to get in the situation again (which the President duly ignored and declared total victory). My point is that, you can't simply call the impeachment as being illegal; if it was downright illegal, the Court would have declared no contest, and rejected the case.
But then, I'm just a layman and probably you'll get a clearer idea than I have if you can read the text of the sentence. - noirum 07:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

K I haven't read the text so I'm basically just drawing from my own knowledge of law - (not Korean law though). First of all 'minor and circumstantial' breaches are not a condition of contract repudiation, (I'm talking about employment contract of the President here). Therefore anyone with a job including the President's job cannot be sacked or impeached as a result of 'minor and cirucumstantial' breaches of contract terms. I also have to ask whether there was dissenting argument or they just didn't publish it? Like I said I didn't read the case - but most legal cases don't censor their own dissenting opinions just because of outside factors including something like 'its potential to cause controversy' so I'm thinking there was none. Even if there was dissenting opinion, the case is still ruled in favour of Roh and therefore of small circumstance unless the same case is contested again with different arguments at a later date (which it wasn't). Also, as Roh won the case and the Presidency back he is fully entitled to politically call his legal victory 'a full victory'. This is because suggestion by the Courts on a matter outside the perimeters of the legal case, does not have to be observed as they are not legally enforceable. As the main aspect of the case (the impeachment process) was deemed illegal, the whole aspect of the impeachment can also be deemed illegal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.72.123 (talk • contribs).

I see your point.
For your information, in the appendix the judges explained the reason they chose not to publish the dissenting opinion, citing that it is generally prohibited in the Constitutional Court to publish the details of the deliberation process, including the opinion of each judges. Although exceptions are allowed in many instances (perhaps most cases they deal with), they say, but there is no such provision pertaining to the impeachment procedure.
Personally, I oppose to the use of the word "illegal" here. It gives the impression that all of the impeachment process has been devised and executed in violation of established legal system, which is not. In fact, many pro-Roh supporters exploit this sense and often refer to the move as a "coup." "Dismissed by the Court" should be enough, and in fact that is the neutral way to refer to it. - noirum 09:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The removal of a democratically elected leader without legal precedents and/or constitutional basis by a minority should be rightly considered as a coup. Also, although I am not aware of the exact wording of the court's decision. If they ruled that is was unconstitutional, it would = illegal. As acting against the constitution would be illegal in most countries. (Again - I am unsure about Korea)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.144.92 (talk • contribs).

Then you're surely beside the point. The Court only acted upon the provision of the constitution which gave the Court the final authority to validate the move: the sentencing declares that the Court dismisses the request for decision on the (impeachment) incident, without any comment about it being unconstitutional or illegal. (On the contrary, it was the President who violated a number of constitutional provisions, which provided the motive for the impeachment.) Also, the lawmakers themselve were fully aware of the constitutional process and acted accordingly when they voted for the impeachment. I told you before, that all the procedures were done in a legal manner, as provided by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. If they wern't, the participants would've been arrested for charges of treason or something.
Like I've commented before, it's true the move was harsh and heavy-handed, but it was a democratic and constitutional action nonetheless, participated by more than two-thirds of all the lawmakers as was required by the constitution. - noirum 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that's it, can you provide me a link with of the court case decision? English version.

Meanwhile,

Coup = sudden overthrow of a government through unconstitutional means by a part of the state establishment that mostly replaces just the top power figures.

All of these terms apply in Roh's case. Although I haven't read the case decision myself, the Constitution Court would have a limited basis to reject the decision of the Legislative Arm of the Government if it wasn't constitutional. That is to say, that the Judicial Arm CANNOT reject most decisions made by the Legislative Arm unless IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In which case the Legislative Arm and the Executive Arm can decide to hold the referendum on the issue to change the constitution and therefore get it past the Courts. (Now this didn't happen, because the Executive Arm were mostly voted off by the Korean people in popular support of Roh). Therefore a rejection of the Courts on legislation passed by the Legislative Arm = most cases UNCONSTITUTIONAL. UNCONSTITUTIONAL = ILLEGAL

I honestly don't understand which angle you are coming from, the courts are designed specifically to interpret the law and constitution of the land and/or reject legislation that is deemed unconstitutional.

As the courts rejected legislation passed by the legislative arm, it can only be assumed it was because it was unconstitutional. As no legal cases has challenged this decision, therefore the current legal status of this legislation to remove Roh remains unconstitutional and illegal. The only way this can be counted is either via. referendum and/or overthrowing of the ruling by the same or higher legal authority at a later date. (I'm assuming this court is the highest in the land). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.144.92 (talk • contribs).

I think the results of the general election effectively boycotted the move, and the Court may have sought for a reasonable solution to recognize the people's choice. The Court's decision was a kind of stop-gap: while it generally recognized the impeachment request was reasonable, it maintained that the punishment in the form of impeachment was too harsh for the nation to bear, and requested the both parties to take a moderate stance. The lawmakers have taken the toll by losing the election, while the President came victorious, only to be ridiculed and derided a year later.
I think I've fully explained my view, that the whole procedures were within the legal and constitutional provisions, while you maintained that the move was unconstitutional and illegal. According to your reasoning, any move for an impeachment that failed, be it whatsoever legal and constitutional in its execution, is illegal and unconstitutional, and could be considered as a coup. Clearly there's some gap between each person's definition of constitutionality and legality.
I don't have the English version of the decision, but I wish you read further reports and analyses on the incident to fully assess the situation. I know that's hard, for in-depth analyses on things Korean are so few and far between. - noirum 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No No No No No, I don't think you get this. In Law, there is no such thing as 'a person's definition of constitutionality and legality' - law is law handed down by the Courts.

Eg. Just because someone doesn't like Roe v. Wade, doesn't make that law void - the Courts give their interpretation of the current Constitution and Laws and we accept it, unless a ruling from a higher authority overrides the first decision. Therefore as the Courts decided for Roh and no overruling decision has been made since then, the impeachment procedures against Roh remains Uncostitutional and Illegal. This whole thing has NOTHING to do with personal opinion on whether it was unconstitutional or not - the Courts decided to reject, so it was not constitutional. FULL STOP.

Also, although I see you point about 'stop-gap' and bowing to the people's wishes after the congressional elections - it 'officially' would have no bearing in the case decision as the Judicial Arm cannot and should not be influenced by outside factors. Therefore, in the case - the only 'official' reason the impeachment process would be rejected is because it was both unconstitutional and illegal. And to rid all bias in Wikipedia, therefore the official line should be followed - not just someone's personal opinion.

Also, I can't read Korean so further analysis of the case by me is considered impossible. :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.71.217 (talk • contribs).

I consulted with a law student, who replied as follows:

The National Assembly is only entitled to submit a request for the impeachment with requisites, and the Court decides to permit or dismiss the request on the ground that whether the request is reasonable or not (no discussion on constitutionality or legality on his side).

Hence, imo, the Court doesn't deal with the matter of being unconstitutional or illegal when it deliberates an impeachment request. It's more like a policy review, considering the propriety of the request and providing the final say. A policy that didn't go into effect doesn't mean it was illegal - only that it's been deemed inadequate to be executed. - noirum 16:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

k? 'Reasonable'? Do you think these judges huddle together and decide through their own personal opinions whether it was 'reasonable or not'? No, they use case precedents, constitutional and common law to make their decisions (unless they're incompetent). Hence, good chance it was illegal. Let's face it, if what you're saying is correct and the courts can change, on a whim, what the Korean Congress (or whatever) legislates - then we wouldn't have an efficient government - as the government would be handicapped by court decisions that weren't based in legal authority. Although I'm not 100% sure for Korea, the Courts are not the mechanisms in the government for policy review. They're mechanisms used to interpret whether policy given out by Congress to be legal/illegal, constitutional/unconstitutional. Hence, the obvious conclusion applies.

PS Policy review = done by executive, legislative arms of government. President with the veto, Congress can reject - because they represent their constituents, hence different people with different policy thoughts/ideas. Legal Review = Undergone by the Courts, will reject legislation on a legal basis. As this case was rejected, not legal.

The Constitutional Court not only deals with the matter of constitutionality, it acts as a final institution to decide the disputes between governmental agencies and local governments, which is not about deciding which party is illegal or not. Hence, not every decision made by the Court is in the realm of being legal or not. This is according to the Constitutional Court Act of the Republic of Korea. If you don't agree with it, so be it.
As I repeat time and time again, the Court didn't say that they ruled the (impeachment) request was illegal in any part of the text of the sentence, hence your claim of "illegal" impeachment is simply nonsense.
Since you're generally ignorant of South Korean law system, and don't have access to related documents, none of your claims can stand. Even in the beginning of this discussion, you incorrectly pointed out that Korean Supreme Court made the decision, not the Constitutional Court. Without my conscientious correction, this discussion wouldn't have progressed.
Case closed. noirum 08:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A somewhat earlier appraisal of Roh's legacy

I don't intend to write my own assessment, as my English is somewhat limited, but here's an article [2] I've encountered during a quick google search, summarizing the situation of South Korean politics in the eve of local elections. The perspective of the article is generally accurate in my opinion, although I don't agree with the article's description of Roh government as a liberal one. This could be a starting point to understand current political trend of South Korea. - noirum 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not disagree with Roh's low popularity rating currently. One must realise, that Korea has a history of bad to mediocre Presidents. The fact is, the Korean Presidential Job is one of the hardest in the world, balancing North Korean relations with American relations, and trying to stay on top with economic giant Japan and potential economic power China are just two of many issues that the President faces. For eg, if we were to conduct a list of the best Korean Presidents, Roh would be in the top two (my opinion), this is not because Roh is inadequate for the job, rather that the job seems impossible for anyone to take and manage succesfully. Therefore, a current appraisal of Roh's Presidency should be seen as premature at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.71.217 (talk • contribs).

Appraisal of Roh's legacy is not a simple matter of liberalism vs. conservatism. No one denies that Roh had entered office with liberal agenda, and has been depicted outside Korea as such. But the thing is, he so often betrayed the liberal agenda unlike his predecessor Kim Dae-jung, that most liberals don't have a faith in him anymore, except for only a handful of his hardcore followers who effectively handed a blank check to him despite all the mistakes he has committed. I urge my Australian friend to study more about current South Korean politics if you want to lay claim to support Roh. If Roh was to be considered as the second best Korean president ever, the gap dividing him from the first would be far greater than ones from the rest of them. - noirum 06:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out the fact that because past Presidents included Lee Syng Man, Park Chun Hee, Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae Woo were military dictators and the ones following were mediocre. We really don't have a 'good' Korean President to compare with the others - therefore appraisal of Roh in a good or bad light would be unfair at this time.

I also think an appraisal of his administration would be premature as his administration has another year+ left in office and history has a habit of vindicating leaders that were considered mediocre in the past. ie. Harry Truman

Anyway that's the focus of my argument.

PS. I will be back after finishing horrible horrible horrible end of semester Uni tests to edit some parts of Roh's article.

I disagree with your assessment. Kim Dae-jung leaves a far better record as Korean president, both domestically and internationally. Roh Moo-Hyun will go down as the worst leader in Korean history. That's an undeniable fact. The word "incompetent" follows any description of Roh. The introduction must accurately give a summary of his presidency which has been a total failure.--222.233.205.166 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What? Worse than Lee Syng Man, Choi Kyu Ha, Chun Doo Hwan, Roh Tae Woo?

I sense Bias and a lack of appreciation for the Korean people's efforts in dismantaling dictatorships for hard-fought democracies. Although, I do agree that Kim Dae Jung is a better leader than Roh Moo Hyun.



K um... did you just change the introduction without consulting us first? I'm changing it back.

Seriously, I had to discuss extensively with NOIRUM to change from the biased intro before, and now you just change it on a whim? Don't be a dickhead.


K, I've replaced 'huge drop in popularity' with 'drop in popularity' - my basis for this is because George W. Bush's rating went down from near 90% to near 30% yet the terms 'huge drop in popularity' cannot be found in his article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.80.136 (talk • contribs).


K, in 'Early political career' I've erased the Lee Hoi Chang supporters claiming rigged elections. Just as the other user said that the core supporters for Roh should not be included in the article (as I let it slide), so this should also not be included as this position was not adopted by Lee Hoi Chang himself but only from the hardcore fringe of his supporters who were in denial with reality. Also I believe the difference of 600 000 votes is not 'very' so that word has also been deleted.

As the person who initially put a (negative) assessment of Roh's presidency in the introduction, I'm curious to know what exactly Roh has done that's considered a success or even positive.--Sir Edgar 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, the current intro, has no bias one way or the other (it certainly is not pro-Roh). No bias = win. As I live in Australia and the only news I get from Korea is from the two (very) conservative newspapers that we all know is overtly biased against the Roh government. (This would explain the low selling numbers of these newspapers). Therefore, Roh's positive aspects including a stable economic growth for the country, the continued development of Korea as a high-tech nation connected by the internet (also Roh's supporters have developed politics on the internet greatly) and the juggling of the North Korea-US alliance while not greatly succesful deserves recognition that is ignored continuosly by the mainstream media and even in this 'unbiased' article. Also, regionalism in Korea is not as fervant as before and a greater sense of Korean nationalism has been established - which must be also recognised as a step in the positive direction.

Read the current intro. It's not pro-Roh, it's far from it. So stop whining.


Due to the establishment of the fact that the impeachment procedures against Roh were illegal, (See above in 'Illegal Impeachment'). I will now go through the article putting the word illegal where there is mention of impeachment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.44.132 (talk • contribs).


I think you generally have wrong ideas about current situation of South Korea, my Australian friend.

  • Conservative papers do skew and bend the facts on Roh government, but their selling numbers consistently stay on top.
  • South Korea as a wired nation is a work made by Roh's predecessor Kim Dae-jung, not Roh. Surely Roh took advantage of it when he won the election.
  • Located in the geopolitally strategic location with powerful neighbors, South Korea has always been a powerhouse when it comes to nationalism. Besides, promotion of nationalism by politicians hardly counts as a positive progress.
  • During the campaigning period of the latest local elections, Moon Jae-in, one of the closest aides of Roh, lamented that citizens of Busan (Roh's political home) don't recognize the fact that the current regime is effectively a "Busan regime." So much for the "not-so-fervantly-regionalist-government" claim.

By the way, I think the paragraphs dealing with the impeachment is neutral enough, and putting the word "illegal" is unnecessary and potentially POV. Like I've said, "Dismissed (or "overturned" as the current article says) by the Court" is fair enough, and I'll seek to maintain that part of the neutrality.

And my Australian friend, would you please add your signature when you finish your post (it's as simple as typing four tildes) and use colons to indent the paragraph? In fact, I put the appropriate tags to differentiate your posts, and you should be thankful for that;) Learn the basics before you participate. - noirum 04:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The expression "illegal" in this case is POV. I'm still not convinced of one thing Roh has achieved.--Sir Edgar 05:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but you see if you are intent on blaming Roh for rising housing prices, then by your theory - it's unfair as well. This is because the Korean State Bank would control interest rates and hence NOT be Roh's fault. This is just one example btw. However the article chooses to ignore this fact and list such events outside Roh's control - as being the negative effects of Roh's administration.

Also, if you think that the official line of the court decision was not 'illegal' please post up reasons in the 'illegal impeachment' discussion box, so far I seem to have had the last word - using legal authority, precedents, constitutional law and the fact that the judicial arm can only reject legislation from the legislative arm only if it goes against current law and current constitution. Therefore - actually **** it, my reasons are already posted there, if you want to talk about the issue - talk there using professional legal arguments and terms that are necessary when discussing this case. So far - the official line is 'illegal'.

'Australian Friend'


EDIT: Sorry about the 'aggro' guys, I've gots Uni works to do and less and less time to do it. :(

But I seriously think the illegal impeachment issue has been solved.

I've already provided my point about the misunderstandings the word "illegal" might bring, and that should be enough unless you intend to exploit the sense which may amount to propaganda.
By the way, apparently you haven't read my recommendation about putting the signature. noirum 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, *sigh* go talk in the 'illegal impeachment' - it's official - therefore it IS. I really don't see how you can possibly debate against the merits of that last paragraph. I'm seriously tired about debating against you on that subject - you bring nothing new to the table, and you think that an official decision is POV? Seriously.. it's over - unless you want to go up to 'illegal impeachment' and debate it again. But if you do, bring some knowledge of constitutional law please.

For eg.

'Clearly there's some gap between each person's definition of constitutionality and legality' - haha..ummm. k?

'Australian Friend' <-- isn't this good enough?

I've clearly indicated that the decision of the Court didn't suggest the (impeachment) request has been ruled illegal or unconstitutional anywhere in the text; only that it's been dismissed. Until you get access to the text of the decision, your position on the issue can be sketchy at best.
Btw, refer to Wikipedia help for info on using the signature tags correctly. noirum 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


As if I can read Korean. :(


[edit] Quotes and Events

This section has been created as an archive to contain quotes and events that may be used as referential items to assess Roh's legacy. Viewers are welcome to use these in revising the main article - noirum 09:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Here's a link [3] to a Hangyoreh article in which one of the leading figures of the Uri Party, Jang Young-dal, assessed the outcome of the local elections:

"The result of the elections comes as a stern judgment on President Roh and the ruling party. (...) It seems that (the South Korean people) has decided that the President and the ruling party are jointly responsible (...) neither the government nor the ruling party has produced satisfactory achievements in several issues including economic stability, the inter-Korea relation, and the relation with the U.S."

Meanwhile, President Roh said he accepts the result as "the trend of public sentiment"[4] without explicitly admitting that he was responsible for the defeat, while a poll conducted by MBC showed that fifty percent of the respondents agreed that the Roh's policy failures were the reason of the ruling party's heavy defeat in the local elections.[5]

Finally, this is a Hangyoreh editorial in English [6] summarizing the ruling party's defeat. - noirum 07:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/h/Talk%7ERoh_Moo-Hyun_087c.html"