[EDITORIALS]Accept the top court’s decisionOpponents of the National Security Law in the political and legal communities are resisting the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday that emphasized the need for the law. Some lawmakers, in particular, overstepped their bounds in saying that the judges who made the ruling are reactionary and Cold War forces.
Lawmakers may well express their opinions concerning any bills and motions and engage in debates. A healthy debate to reach an agreement is a part of the democratic decision-making process. The issue of whether to abolish the security law is no exception to this rule. Lawmakers may express opinions about it, whatever they are. Still, that should not be to the extent of condemning the highest court’s ruling. If lawmakers disregard court rulings just because the rulings go against their opinion, then who would accede to decisions made in courts?
If there is a lawmaker who supports the abolition of the law, then he or she should make an effort to have the public understand why abolition is necessary and what kind of alternatives exist when the law is abolished.
Remarks coming from some of the governing Uri Party lawmakers are really regrettable. They demonstrate the reality of low-degree Korean politics. A Uri lawmaker said, “The judges are those who have lived only basking in their vested interests in society and never agonized over the issues of the division of Korea and national consciousness.”
Such a remark is not a criticism, it is a personal attack. He also said, “The ruling confirmed that there still are reactionary forces in Korean society that need to be cleared up.” That remark suggests that some lawmakers want to reform the judiciary according to their own interests.
Internal attacks in the governing party against those who are opposed to the abolition are also a problem. A Uri lawmaker who has argued for the revision of the law, as he believes it is still necessary, recently said, “I am being regarded as a coward who lacks the will to reform.” Another lawmaker who favors revision of the law said he experiences the same difficulties. We wonder how a healthy debate can take place in such an atmosphere.
The National Assembly should accept the intent of the Supreme Court, along with that of the Constitutional Court, which made a similar decision. Lawmakers should not pick a quarrel with the Supreme Court.