[EDITORIALS]Blue House lackeys

After President Roh Moo-hyun said the National Security Act must be abolished, the Uri Party acted very lamentably. Is this why the party has long been claiming that it has been separated from the administration and reborn as a new ruling party?
Until now, various opinions existed inside the ruling party over the fate of the National Security Law. Many Uri Party lawmakers said the law should be scrapped, but only 80 out of the party’s 150 lawmakers cosponsored a bill to end the law. There was a significant number of legislators supporting a revision of the law, while another group of lawmakers were reluctant to make public their position. Taking into account the heated controversy over the National Security Act, that was natural.
But after Mr. Roh’s remark, the entire atmosphere changed. Not only those who had argued to abolish the law, but also those middle-roaders within the ruling party stood up to put an end to the security law. The public debated whether Mr. Roh’s remark was appropriate or not, but criticism cannot be found inside the ruling party. No one is critical of Mr. Roh, and there is not even a debate over it. The situation is over only after a night.
We wonder why the ruling party needs a policy platform. Everything can be decided based on a word of the president, and the Uri Party needs to devote no time and effort. How can they say they are different from the ruling parties of past administrations? How can they say they are not raising their hands automatically?
Inside the ruling circles, many have argued that the law should be revised. Many of them actually suffered from the law’s political application. But, they probably thought the law should be revised, not be scrapped entirely, after deep consideration. Like the Supreme Court, some may have thought that we cannot tolerate freedom to overthrow a liberal democracy. Some may have come to a strategic conclusion that an interim position is needed before completely abolishing the law.
As Mr. Roh spoke the word, however, there seems to be no sign of agony over the decision. Some party members even barred internal discussion, saying they need no more debate.
For many years, public opinion has overwhelmingly supported keeping the law over repealing it. Will the Uri Party listen only to the voice of the Blue House and turn a deaf ear to the desires of the people?