Subscribe
E-Paper
 |
| Rep. Pyo Chang-won of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) / Yonhap |
By Hong Dam-young
A "young" opposition lawmaker has stirred a political dispute over the "retirement age" of elected officials, including the President and lawmakers, in what appears to be a move against the rise of senior politicians in the lead-up to the presidential race.
Rep. Pyo Chang-won, 50, of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), wrote on his Facebook page on Monday that the retirement age for public officials should be set at 65.
"Serving 28 years in public office and one year in politics got me to realize that public officials should retire at 65 and provide more room for younger officials to participate," he wrote.
"Elderly officials should step back from the front line so that they can arbitrate different interest groups more objectively and stabilize the society.
"Once retired, they can still have a voice by acting as advisers, writing journals or giving lectures."
But ruling and opposition party officials dismissed Pyo's argument as a gimmick to disadvantage presidential hopefuls older than Moon Jae-in, 64, the leading presidential candidate of the DPK and a close friend of Pyo. They argued that Pyo's remarks are especially aimed at Ban Ki-moon, 73, another potential presidential candidate, who is second to Moon in opinion polls. Kim Chong-in, a former interim leader of the DPK, and Sohn Hak-kyu, a former opposition leader ― possible allies of Ban in the presidential bid -- are also well over 70.
"Former French President De Gaulle and former England Prime Minister Churchill were both over 70 when they made their main achievements," Kim Chong-in said.
"Setting an age limit is absolutely preposterous."
Some argued that Pyo's remarks were disparaging of elders and that he should apologize.
"Pyo's argument insulted elders," Kim Sung-won, a ruling Saenuri Party spokesperson, said. "He should apologize to them and step down from the office."
In the face of the roiling controversy, Pyo defended himself on Wednesday, saying he only intended to criticize elected officials who have been vested with rights and privileges for a long time. But he admitted he had kept Ban in mind when making the argument.
