The ruling and opposition parties, crafting pledges for the upcoming presidential election, are moving to rein in the prosecution, which exercises near absolute power in legal proceedings against criminal suspects. The parties share with the public a belief that criminal justice cannot be properly administered without reforming the prosecution.
Their desire to subject the prosecution to greater control reflects the growing public distrust in the law enforcement agency, which has often been denounced for being subservient to the power elite. A case in point is a closed investigation into a criminal case involving President Lee Myung-bak and his family, which is now being reopened by an independent counsel.
The latest salvo came from the ruling Saenuri Party, which questioned on Sunday why the law enforcement agency needs so many high posts. It was an irony that at the forefront of attack was Ahn Dae-hee, a former prosecutor, who now heads the party’s special political reform committee. He was appointed to the party post recently, after retiring as a Supreme Court justice.
Ahn said that people would not regard it as proper for the prosecution to have as many as 55 vice-ministerial-level posts. Indeed, they account for more than half the 105 vice-ministerial posts in the entire executive branch of government. Moreover, the starting grade on the public service pay scale for prosecutors is two notches higher than that for similarly qualified public officials at other offices in the executive branch.
The inflation in remuneration and perks started with military-backed dictatorships, which wanted to reward the prosecution for helping them keep their tight grip on power. This practice has continued until now despite the restoration of democracy in the mid-1980s. Even the progressive Roh Moo-hyun administration, which did not regard the prosecution favorably, agreed to create eight new vice-ministerial-level posts for the law enforcement agency.
The prosecution is quick to defend itself, claiming that 55 senior prosecutors deserve the same treatment as 133 senior judges in court, who are equal in status to vice ministers. But it is comparing apples to oranges, given that those judges belong to a separate branch of government ― the judiciary. Moreover, judges are held in higher esteem than prosecutors.
A drastic reduction may be needed in the number of vice-ministerial-level posts, given reports that it is not unusual for a senior prosecutor to lobby powerful figures close to the president for appointment to one of those posts. But the main opposition Democratic United Party believes that a more fundamental change is needed if it is to be ensured that legal proceedings are carried out without bias.
Moon Jae-in, the opposition party’s presidential nominee, pledges to press ahead with the creation of a separate law enforcement agency empowered to look exclusively into cases involving the president, his family members and others close to the president, including Cabinet members. Moon’s call for a separate law-enforcing agency is shared by Ahn Cheol-soo, an independent candidate.
On the other hand, the ruling party, which is opposed to the proposal to create a new law enforcement agency, says no such permanent office is needed. Instead, it suggests that an independent counsel be appointed to start an investigation at the request of a special watchdog monitoring activities of those close to the president for corruption.
Either way, the prosecution will have to pay for what it has failed to do in the past ― live up to public expectations for unbiased criminal investigations. A case in point is its earlier decision not to prosecute any of those involved in the allegedly illicit purchase of land by President Lee Myung-bak for his retirement home.
One of the prosecutors acknowledged shoddy work in their investigation when he said they decided not to bring charges against some of those involved so that the first family would not be entangled in the case. Later, he withdrew his remarks.
The prosecution finds itself at a critical juncture, now that an independent counsel has reopened the closed case. To their humiliation, some of the prosecutors may be called on to testify on their decision. Should it be found that they decided to close the case, bringing no charges against anyone, to protect the first family, public pressure would undoubtedly mount on the political community to reform the prosecution and take other remedial measures.
