On February 13, 2026, South Korea’s People Power Party (PPP) was rocked by a dramatic disciplinary decision: Bae Hyun-jin, a prominent pro-Han Dong-hoon faction member and Seoul City Party Chairman, received a one-year suspension of party membership. The move, announced by the party’s Central Ethics Committee, effectively strips Bae of her leadership post and—just months before pivotal local elections—removes her influence over candidate selection in the capital. The decision has sent shockwaves through party ranks and reignited fierce debate over the party’s internal politics and standards of conduct.
The events leading up to this moment were anything but ordinary. According to Yonhap Infomax and other Korean media outlets, the Ethics Committee’s main charge against Bae centered on her conduct during a heated party dispute. Bae, who had been serving as Seoul City Party Chairman, publicly shared a statement that opposed the expulsion of Han Dong-hoon, a former party leader and influential figure. The catch? The statement was drafted by just 21 district chairpersons, yet Bae presented it externally as if it reflected the consensus of the entire Seoul City Party. This, the committee argued, misrepresented the party’s internal opinion and violated rules of fair communication.
But the controversy did not stop there. As JoongAng Ilbo and News1 reported, Bae faced additional allegations that would ultimately prove more damaging. In late January 2026, Bae became embroiled in a contentious exchange on Facebook regarding the withdrawal of a ministerial candidate. During the dispute, she posted a photo of a minor—believed to be a family member of a critical social media user—without any mosaic or privacy protection, accompanied by the comment, “posting child’s photo and receiving malicious comments.” The image lingered online for several days despite mounting demands for its removal. Only after four days did Bae delete the post, but she offered no public apology or explanation.
The Ethics Committee’s reaction was scathing. In their official decision, they stated, “Posting a minor’s photo without consent and leaving it online for several days, exposing the child to unnecessary public attention and criticism, constitutes possible emotional abuse and online child abuse.” The committee further noted the irony that Bae had, just two weeks prior to the incident, introduced a bill to toughen penalties for unauthorized disclosure of personal information and cyberbullying. “It cannot be assumed that she was unaware her actions contradicted the very bill she had proposed,” the committee added, underscoring what they saw as a glaring inconsistency in her behavior.
In addition to the main disciplinary charge, Bae was also cited for less severe infractions. She had used disparaging language toward former President Yoon Seok-youl and First Lady Kim Geon-hee on social media—calling the First Lady “vulgar Kim Geon-hee” and referring to Yoon as a “peddler.” For these remarks, the committee issued only a warning. Similarly, allegations that Bae had mocked party leader Jang Dong-hyuk’s hunger strike resulted in a recommendation for caution, not formal discipline, as the committee found insufficient grounds for harsher action.
Throughout the proceedings, the Ethics Committee insisted that its decision was based solely on ethical and procedural grounds, not political calculation. “If the committee were to deliberate and judge differently depending on political circumstances, public opinion, or internal party dynamics, it would undermine both its credibility and its very reason for existence,” the committee stated in its ruling, as reported by JoongAng Ilbo.
Still, the response from Bae’s allies was swift and furious. Pro-Han Dong-hoon faction members denounced the decision as politically motivated, accusing party leader Jang Dong-hyuk of using the Ethics Committee as a tool to sideline rivals ahead of the June 3 local elections. “The Ethics Committee, which should be independent, has once again made an absurd decision that caters to Jang Dong-hyuk’s preferences,” wrote fellow lawmaker Ahn Sang-hoon on Facebook. He argued that suspending the only legitimately elected city party chairman would dismantle the Seoul party organization, amounting to a de facto surrender in the election campaign.
Kim Jong-hyuk, a former senior party official, was even more scathing. “Unless we remove Jang Dong-hyuk and Ethics Committee Chairman Yoon Min-woo—who have turned the committee into a tool for political purges against those opposing ‘Yoon Again’—this party is doomed,” he wrote, warning that history would judge those responsible harshly. Another pro-Han lawmaker, Han Ji-ah, questioned whether the party’s recent disciplinary decisions were strategic for victory or destined for defeat, predicting that Bae’s suspension would plant “the seeds of electoral loss” for the Seoul party.
The broader context adds further intrigue. Bae’s suspension comes at a critical moment for the PPP as it gears up for the local elections, with candidate nominations and campaign preparations in full swing. With her removal, a by-election for Seoul City Party Chairman is now expected, throwing the party’s local organization into disarray. According to Yonhap Infomax, party rules dictate four levels of disciplinary action: expulsion, recommendation to resign, suspension of party membership, and warning. Bae’s one-year suspension is the second most severe, and it automatically strips her of her chairmanship.
Interestingly, the Ethics Committee moved with unusual speed in this case. The review of Bae’s conduct began on February 6, 2026, and the final decision was handed down just a week later. For many observers, this rapid turnaround, coupled with the timing ahead of the elections, has only fueled suspicions of political maneuvering within the party.
For Bae herself, the fallout is immediate and dramatic. Not only does she lose her leadership status, but her prospects for influencing candidate selection or party strategy in Seoul have evaporated overnight. For the PPP, the episode exposes deep rifts between its factions and raises questions about the balance between ethical standards and political calculation.
As the dust settles, the party faces a daunting task: reconciling internal divisions and restoring public trust in its processes, all while preparing for one of the most consequential local elections in recent memory. The Ethics Committee’s decision may have closed one chapter, but for the People Power Party, the real test is just beginning.