| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: Presidential Term |
 |
|
If my understanding is correct (just watched the Korean news), President Noh just proposed to change the Presidential term from 5 years to 4, with the possibility for re-election.
Personaly, I think it'd be a good move.
Last edited by Captain Corea on Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good idea Mr. Roh.
It's not as if you have a snowball's chance of re-election Mu Hyun.
You get your legacy: two-term presidency legislation followed by the first re-election loss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cassette
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
Good idea Mr. Roh.
It's not as if you have a snowball's chance of re-election Mu Hyun.
You get your legacy: two-term presidency legislation followed by the first re-election loss. |
This from the BBC website:
| Quote: |
| "Any change will not affect Mr Roh, who must step down in February 2008. " |
Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6243491.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://english.yna.co.kr/Engnews/20070109/410100000020070109140225E6.html
| Quote: |
Roh proposes debate on two four-year presidential terms
SEOUL, Jan. 9 (Yonhap) -- President Roh Moo-hyun on Tuesday issued a special statement, proposing a nationwide debate on a constitutional revision to change South Korea's presidential system from the current five-year single term to a four-year one with the possibility for reelection.
In South Korea, a constitutional amendment enacted in 1987 bars the president from seeking a second term in office. |
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200701/200701090040.html
| Quote: |
Roh Proposes Two Four-Year Terms for Presidents
President Roh Moo-hyun delivers a special statement at Cheong Wa Dae on Tuesday./Yonhap
President Roh Moo-hyun on Tuesday proposed a nationwide debate about changing South Korea's presidential system from the current single five-year term to a four-year term renewable once. The inauguration of a new president is due in February next year, and parliamentary elections are scheduled in April 2008.
In a statement from Cheong Wa Dae, Roh said, "It�s time to abandon the single five-year presidential term laid down to prevent one-man rule in a constitutional amendment in 1987. If we change the current five-year single-term presidency to two four-year terms, it will significantly improve responsibility and stability in managing national affairs and consistency and continuity in pursuing initiatives."
Roh proposed matching the term of the president to the National Assembly�s. "Under the current five-year presidency, elections are held too frequently, including those for four-year term lawmakers and local government officers, which seriously weakens stability in government by incurring huge social cost and deepening political disputes and conflict,� he said.
�Some may accuse me of some political motive since I am making a sudden proposal to change the Constitution with upcoming presidential election, but I have no political motive,� Roh said. Changing to two four-year terms for the presidency and matching the presidential term with lawmakers� hands no advantage or disadvantage to a particular political party." Instead, he said, the aim is to �lay the foundation for more responsible and stable government, whoever wins the election.�
The president promised to �listen seriously� to the opinions of ruling and opposition parties and the public, �not only whether they agree or oppose the proposal but to any input.� But he said if there are no obvious reasons not to, he would �invoke my right to propose constitutional revision before it is too late.� "If we focus on agenda where significant levels of public consensus are already built and interests are not in conflicts, we will soon complete the amendment procedure through parliamentary voting and national referendum,� he added. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bellum99
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: don't need to know
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who knows? This guy has followed no actual laws. He is a miserable leader. This could be a sneaky move to give himself three more years.
Term is now 5 years. New would be 2 terms of 4 years. That leaves him with three more years by default. It all depends on how he words it. I really hate this smiling moron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Personally I think two terms of four years is a bad idea. It's too long in this day and age. Things move quickly. Eight years = too much. Also, the end of the first term is nothing but a waste of time with reelection, and kowtowing to polls. It's bs in action. One term of four years, I say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bellum99 wrote: |
| This could be a sneaky move to give himself three more years. |
I don't get the feeling at all that he's trying to extend his stay in the Blue House. He knows the jig is up. What's wrong with giving the NEXT President a chance not to botch things up?
The way it is now, they only get one shot at it, so they could be the worst President ever (not pointing fingers at anyone currently in office) and nothing can be done until the next election 5 years down the line.
With the possibility of re-election, at least there is incentive not to be a total *beep* and to actually get SOME legislation done during your term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
This same topic comes up every 4-5 years, depending on how low the incumbent is rated. Some people want the parliamentary system, some want some version of the present presidential system.
It's all hot air.
All systems have weaknesses; all systems have strengths.
The mark of a leader is how well he or she uses the system that exists to better the condition of the people. Changing the system is just smoke and mirrors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like the idea. It encourages responsible governance. There is an incentive for the president to work much harder in his first term and it also gives the public the chance to show whether or not they were satisfied with his performance. Currently there is a "once you are elected you can do what the f*ck you like" mentality. With a two term presidency there is more accountability.
Last edited by Gwangjuboy on Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| With a two term presidency there is more countability. |
True, but of course, it didn't work out that way with the current US administration. (sorry, not hijacking the thread, promise!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
