President Yoon’s First 100 Days in Office Sees His Approval Rating Drop to 24%

I don’t remember a President having their approval rating dropping this fast before:

President Yoon Suk-yeol answers reporters’ questions as he arrives for work at the presidential office in Seoul on July 5, 2022. (Pool photo) (Yonhap)

What began as an approval rating of 52 percent in his first week in office was down to 24 percent by the first week of August, or only half of the 48.6 percent he won in votes during the election, according to Gallup Korea. 

Yoon’s personnel choices were cited as among the biggest factors behind the slide, the pollster said, as controversy erupted over Education Minister Park Soon-ae’s plan to lower the elementary school entry age to 5. Park resigned last week.

The minister was not the only person to draw fire. Yoon’s decision to abolish the first lady’s office backfired when friends and acquaintances of first lady Kim Keon-hee were found to be accompanying and assisting her on official trips, including on Yoon and Kim’s visit to Spain in June.

Economic challenges weighed heavily on the new administration as prices soared along with the interest rate and exchange rate. The COVID-19 pandemic showed no signs of abating as cases mounted with the spread of new variants, while flash floods in the capital area killed at least a dozen people and exposed deep flaws in the country’s flood control systems.

To add to the administration’s woes, the ruling People Power Party was in a constant state of turmoil that was worsened by the embarrassing disclosure of texts Yoon exchanged with the party’s floor leader in which Yoon was seen backbiting about suspended party leader Lee Jun-seok.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link, but if his numbers continue to decline it makes me wonder if the Korean left will try and invent some way to impeach him like they did to former President Park Geun-hye?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
setnaffa
setnaffa
2 years ago

BTW, this is every bit as sincere and meaningful as leftist polls:

It is with the saddest heart that I must pass on the following news:

Please join me in remembering a great icon of the entertainment community.

The Pillsbury Doughboy died yesterday of a yeast infection and complications from repeated pokes in the belly.

Born in 1965, he was only 57.

Doughboy was buried in a lightly greased coffin.

Dozens of celebrities turned out to pay their respects, including Mrs. Butterworth, Hungry Jack, the California Raisins, Betty Crocker, the Hostess Twinkies and Captain Crunch.

The grave site was piled high with flours.

Aunt Jemima delivered the eulogy and lovingly described Doughboy as a man who never knew how much he was kneaded.

Doughboy rose quickly in show business, but his later life was filled with turnovers. He was not considered a very smart cookie, wasting much of his dough on half-baked schemes.

Despite being a little flaky at times, he still, as a crusty old man, was considered a roll model for millions.

Doughboy is survived by his wife, Play Dough; two children John Dough and Jane Dough; plus they had one in the oven.

He is also survived by his elderly father Pop Tart.

The funeral was held at 3:50 for about 20 minutes.

hqdefault.jpg
Stephen
2 years ago

… some way to impeach him like they did to former President Park Geun-hye?

The “some way” that Park Geun-hye was impeached led to an indictment and conviction by prosecutors.

There was no “conspiracy” against Park Geun-hye.

Park Geun-hye enabled Choi Soon-sil to set government policies and make decisions on Park Geun-hye’s behalf.

Choi Soon-sil also demanded and received bribes from Samsung et al.

This nformation is freely available on public court records … despite what Jim and Ron Watkins may claim on their QAnon monotone voiced broadcasts.

setnaffa
setnaffa
2 years ago

Uh… Riiiiight…

FYPhzvoVsAAfOtq.jpg
Stephen
2 years ago

Jim and Ron Watkins just make stuff up.

e.g. Sean Bean played Dick Sharpe in a TV series.

Don Trump used a sharpie in his president TV series.

Therefore, playing the Sean Bean card is a dick move.

Korean Person
Korean Person
2 years ago

if the Korean left will try and invent some way to impeach him like they did to former President Park Geun-hye?

You still live in the fantasy that former Pres. Park’s impeachment was a conspiracy by the left.

But had you done your research, the Korean way of impeachment, unlike the US does not involve the legislative body handing out the verdict.

The National Assembly only votes whether or not to send the case to the Constitution Court, which makes the final verdict.

In former Pres. Park case the Constitution Court found her guilty of obstruction of justice and thus impeached her.

It is interesting to note that for the other charges, the Constitution Court either dismissed them or found her not guilty.

With her impeachment, she lost her immunity leaving the door open for Yoon(yes the current President) and his underlings to investigate her.

It was the result of these investigations that led to her conviction and jailing.

So, it would be better if you stop with these nonsense about the leftist conspiracy to overthrow Park.

Because at the end of the day, it was the judges of the Constitution Court, an independent judicial body that impeached her and Yoon who investigated and jailed her.

How can there be a leftist conspiracy when someone who now belongs to the conservative PPP jailed her?

And wasn’t it Yoon who vigorously investigated Cho Kuk?

TOK
TOK
2 years ago

The dubious tablet PC is what got the ball rolling on impeachment. A year after impeachment the tablet PC was found to contain no evidence

Personally, I would take Tara O’s posts with a pinch of salt.

But anyways, The Korean did a blog post about the Constitution Court’s ruling a while back, even taking the trouble to translate the ruling for those who are not fluent in Korean.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-impeachment-opinion-annotated.html#more

I think we can all agree here that The Korean as one of the original and respected K-bloggers has a lot of credibility, among those who read the K-blogs.

It’s a long read, but here’s a key passage from the post.

[TK: This long recitation of facts regarding Park Geun-hye’s involvement in Choi Soon-sil’s corruption is a sign that the court is about to dig deep into this issue. To be removed from office, Park Geun-hye must be found to have seriously violated the constitution and the law.]

Next, we consider whether such actions by the respondents violate the constitution and the law. The constitution declares the duty of the public official to actualize the public good by designating public officials as “servants for all people.” Such duties are specified through the National Public Officials Act and Public Official Ethics Act. The action by the respondent is an abuse of the president’s stature and authority for Choi Seo-won’s profit; it cannot be considered a fair administration of the duties of the office, and violates the constitution, the National Public Officials Act and Public Official Ethics Act. Further, the respondent’s action of directly and indirectly assisting Choi Seo-won’s profiteering violated the corporations’ right for property and their freedom to operate their business. Also, the leak of numerous confidential documents to Choi Seo-won based on the respondent’s direction or neglect violates the duty of confidentiality under the National Public Officials Act.

[TK: A big setup by the court, as it specifies exactly what law Park Geun-hye violated. But are those violations serious enough? Here it comes…]

We consider whether the respondent’s violations of the law are sufficiently serious for removal. The president must not only exercise her authority pursuant to the constitution and the laws, but also transparently disclose her carriage of duties to be assessed by the people. But the respondent tightly hid Choi Seo-won’s interference with governmental policies, denied any interference each time when questions arose, and denounced the fact that questions were raised. Accordingly, constitutional institutions such as the National Assembly could not check her actions, nor could the press monitor her behavior. Further, the respondent intervened and assisted Choi Seo-won’s private profiteering by establishing Mir and K-Sports Foundations and assisting Playground, The Blue K and KD Corporation. The respondent’s violation of the constitution and the law occurred consistently throughout her administration, and despite the criticism from the National Assembly and the press, the respondent hid the facts and punished the dissenters. Consequentially, those who followed the respondent’s directions, including An Jong-beom, Kim Jong, Jeong Ho-seong, were arrested and indicted for corruption. Such violations of the constitution and the law by the respondent damaged the principle of representative democracy and the rule of law. Although the respondent in her public statements promised to cooperate fully in ascertaining the truth, she failed to cooperate with the investigation by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and the Special Prosecutor, and refused to allow the Blue House to be searched. In reviewing the series of remarks by the respondent in relation to the bases for impeachment, we cannot find the resolve to uphold the constitution such that the violations of the law will not be repeated.

Therefore, as the respondent’s violations of the constitution and the law betrayed the people’s trust, they are serious violations of the law that cannot be condoned from the perspective of upholding the constitution. As the respondent’s violation of the law significantly and negatively impacts and influences the constitutional order, the gains of upholding the constitution by removing the respondent from her office is overwhelmingly great.

Accordingly, by unanimous opinion of all justices, the court hereby issues the order:

The respondent, President Park Geun-hye, is removed from the office.

[TK: BOOM. There it goes, in one-two-three step: (1) Park Geun-hye used her power to help Choi Soon-sil’s profiteering; (2) such use of power violates the constitution and the law, and; (3) the violations were serious enough to merit removal from the office. 

Overall, the court’s opinion is principled and disciplined. It painstakingly established in the beginning that all procedures were proper. The opinion also set up a high evidentiary standard and did not budge from the standard. The court aggressively pruned off the weaker grounds for impeachment, and focused on the strongest one: Park Geun-hye’s assistance of Choi Soon-sil’s profiteering. Note that the decision was not even about the claim that Park herself profited from bribery; rather, it is that Park abused her power to help Choi Soon-sil profit. This much is factually irrefutable, and inarguably in violation of the constitution and the law. It is a sound judicial practice for a court to make a major decision based on the strongest and narrowest grounds, so that the legitimacy of the decision would be beyond reproach.

TOK
TOK
2 years ago

If you read on, the Constitution Court dismissed most of the charges bought against Park but did find that she abused her power to protect and assist Choi Soon-sil and obstructed justice, which to them were sufficient grounds for her removal.

As GI Korea mentioned, lobbying itself isn’t grounds for impeachment.

But unlike your typical lobbyist who uses the fact they know someone big to sell their services, in addition to other methods such as bribes, it seems this lobbyist had active protection and support from a sitting President.

It was this the Constitution Court found issue with and ruled that Park should be removed from power.

Of course with this removal from power she lost her immunity from prosecution.

And Pres. Yoon who at that time was a prosecutor swooped in, investigated and jailed her, which is ironic if you look at it now.

As for the news story about the tablet, it may have made people wonder, but as evidence it probably wasn’t sufficient enough to influence the Constituion Court’s ruling, which is the key here.

So trying to claim that there was a conspiracy and that Park may have been innocent based on a claim that “there was nothing on the tablet” is a bit of a reach, I’m afraid.

Stephen
2 years ago

… she failed to cooperate with the investigation by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office and the Special Prosecutor

Hubris by Park there. There are only about a thousand prosecutors in the ROK. There is a difficult and long process to become a prosecutor. All the prosecutors, men and women, are no dummies.

Neutral observers of Korean behavior: Even in a court, facing a potential perjury charge*, some Koreans “provide a different perspective on reality” <del>lie</del> to protect their “friend(s)”.

ROK Prosecutors: We know that. Our job is to sift through the evidence, of often conflicting witness testimonies, to determine the truth. Korean witness testimonies are often bogus, that’s why we rely more on documentary and forensic evidence. Ms Park, we have the evidence, now ‘fess up. You refuse to cooperate? OK. We’ll add obstruction of justice to the indictment.

setnaffa
setnaffa
2 years ago

The inability of left-leaning posters to eithwr summarize or provide links detracts greatly from their credibility and (possibly inaccurately) marks them as mere spambots.

Park was impeached because of who her father was and the lies about her being responsible for the Sewol tragedy.

2+2=4, no matter how many pages of worthless froth one posts.

TOK
TOK
2 years ago

For our conspiracy theorist setnaffa, here’s the Constitution Court’s ruling on the Sewol disaster.

First, The Korean’s summary of the ruling. The Court found that her handling of the Sewol disaster is not an impeachable offense and thus threw it out.

Which means, setnaffa’s wild theory about Park being impeached because of Sewol, is a non-starter.

[TK: The third argument was about Park Geun-hye’s failure to respond properly to the Sewol ferry disaster. Although this argument had a great deal of emotional resonance, as a legal matter it was a non-starter. As the court explains in the opinion, the Constitutional Court already established in a previous case (namely, the impeachment trial of President Roh Moo-hyun in 2004) that incompetence is not an impeachable offense.

And the ruling itself, kindly translated by The Korean.

Next, we consider the alleged violation of the duty to protect life and the duty to exercise due diligence as a public official. On April 16, 2014, the Sewol ferry sank, tragically claiming 304 lives. At the time, the respondent remained at her residence. The constitution provides that the nation recognizes the fundamental and inviolable human rights belonging to each individual, and has the duty to guarantee such rights. As the sinking of the Sewol was a tragedy that greatly shocked and pained all Koreans, no word would be enough to console the victims. The respondent has the duty to exercise her authority and carry out the duties of her office in order for the nation to faithfully execute its duty to protect the people’s lives and bodily safety. However, even in the case of a disaster in which people’s lives are threatened, it is difficult to find that a specific and particular duty to act, such as the respondent’s personal participation in the rescue effort, arises. In addition, the respondent has the duty to exercise her due diligence in carrying out the duties of her office as the president. But because the concept of due diligence is relative and abstract, it is difficult to impeach based on a violation of such an abstract duty as duly diligent carriage of duties. Previously, the Constitutional Court already held that, because the president’s duty to exercise due diligence in carrying out his duty cannot be accomplished as a matter of rule, it cannot be subject to a jurisprudential judgment, and that the existence of due diligence in carrying out the presidential duties in times of political incompetence or errors in policy decisions, by themselves, cannot serve as a basis for impeachment. Although the Sewol disaster could not be more terrible, whether the respondent diligently carried out her duties on the day of the tragedy is not a subject for determination in an impeachment trial.

Korean Person
Korean Person
2 years ago

The inability of left-leaning posters to eithwr summarize or provide links detracts greatly from their credibility and (possibly inaccurately) marks them as mere spambots

That is rich coming from a person who uses Chicken Head to post for him long winded fake news and misinformation in an attempt to forward his conspiracy theories.

12
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x