Minister Cho Kyu-hong, who attended the Cabinet meeting at the Yongsan Presidential Office just before President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law, stated that he did not agree with the martial law declaration.
At a full session of the National Assembly’s Health and Welfare Committee today (5th), Minister Cho responded to a question from Representative Kim Sun-min of the Innovation Party regarding his attendance at the Cabinet meeting. He mentioned, “I arrived towards the end of the Cabinet meeting around 10:17 PM and left the meeting room around 10:45 PM.”
He added that he did not agree with the declaration of martial law during the meeting. When asked by Representative Kim whether he agreed that the martial law was illegal and unconstitutional, Minister Cho initially said, “Please interpret my words as not agreeing to the martial law declaration.” However, upon repeated questioning, he confirmed, “I agree.”
When asked if there were ministers who physically tried to stop the martial law declaration during the Cabinet meeting, he replied, “I was too shocked and flabbergasted. Honestly, I can’t remember what anyone said.”
Regarding his absence from the Cabinet meeting discussing the lifting of martial law early the next morning, Minister Cho explained that he did not notice the text message requesting his attendance. He clarified, “A message came around 2 AM, but I realized it around 4 AM,” and added, “Had I known, I would have attended and agreed to the lifting of martial law.”
Assemblywoman Jeon Jin-suk of the Democratic Party of Korea asked him, “It is unacceptable that you were unable to prevent the martial law in the Cabinet meeting and did not attend the meeting discussing its lift. What is your position?” Minister Cho responded, “I believe I must of course take responsibility for that.”
He continued, expressing a desire to state his stance on the first proclamation of the Martial Law Command, which included content like ‘punishment for absentee medical residents.’ He stated, “I absolutely cannot agree with the content.”
He further commented, “The expressions were very rough and extreme, contradicting the government’s policy to encourage returns through dialogue, persuasion, and solid healthcare reform. Since it was the only item among the six proclamation points directed at a specific professional group, I cannot agree with it.”