Lee must accept opposition-chosen special counsel
Critics often compare President Lee Myung-bak with ex-U.S. President Richard M. Nixon. Neither of them is considered the most ethical nor were they good at communicating with their own people. Both mixed public and private interests and are suspected of breaking laws in the process. The late U.S. leader met a disgraceful end by deceiving Americans, but most Koreans hope theirs will avoid the same fate at the least.
Which is why President Lee should squarely allow an investigation into a scandal on his abortive retirement home project, by an independent counsel.
It is regrettable in this regard that Lee is reportedly considering vetoing the independent counsel bill written in a rare bipartisan agreement. The reason: the President thinks the provision that allows the main opposition party to recommend two special prosecutors is unconstitutional by violating the independence of the three arms of the state.
Cheong Wa Dae also notes the independent counsels should be free from not just the President but also political parties, and there have been no precedents of the political opposition naming them. These are not wrong as a form of logic.
But the President and his aides must first think why even the ruling Saenuri Party has agreed to the bill.
In the “Naegok-dong scandal,” so called after the southern Seoul (Gangnam) neighborhood the private residence might have been located, the presidential security team furtively bought land along with the President’s son, and is suspected of paying for part of the latter’s portion from its budget. The security chief resigned taking responsibility, but the public think he was a scapegoat. The prosecution cleared everyone involved later without summoning Lee’s son.
Koreans have seen the previous 10 probes conducted by independent counsels, recommended by either the Korean Bar Association or Chief Justice, fail to solve their questions. Those making recommendations had to watch the face of the final appointer ― the President. Will they be able to name special prosecutors with enough integrity and strength to make a difference, especially in a case involving the President and his family members? Not a chance. The President’s hinting at exercising of his veto power is nothing but an insistence he will choose his own investigator.
Before posing as a guardian of the Constitution, Lee must reflect on why he has become the first sitting President undergoing this disgrace. We can’t help noting the veto suggestion came after Lee’s meeting with Rep. Park Geun-hye, the ruling party’s standard-bearer. If there were some political compromise in the Lee-Park meeting, voters will not forgive it.
Lee should name one of the two opposition-recommended independent counsels, face the probe, and accept responsibility if needed. That is the only way everyone ― his family, his party and the nation ― can move on.
Critics often compare President Lee Myung-bak with ex-U.S. President Richard M. Nixon. Neither of them is considered the most ethical nor were they good at communicating with their own people. Both mixed public and private interests and are suspected of breaking laws in the process. The late U.S. leader met a disgraceful end by deceiving Americans, but most Koreans hope theirs will avoid the same fate at the least.
Which is why President Lee should squarely allow an investigation into a scandal on his abortive retirement home project, by an independent counsel.
It is regrettable in this regard that Lee is reportedly considering vetoing the independent counsel bill written in a rare bipartisan agreement. The reason: the President thinks the provision that allows the main opposition party to recommend two special prosecutors is unconstitutional by violating the independence of the three arms of the state.
Cheong Wa Dae also notes the independent counsels should be free from not just the President but also political parties, and there have been no precedents of the political opposition naming them. These are not wrong as a form of logic.
But the President and his aides must first think why even the ruling Saenuri Party has agreed to the bill.
In the “Naegok-dong scandal,” so called after the southern Seoul (Gangnam) neighborhood the private residence might have been located, the presidential security team furtively bought land along with the President’s son, and is suspected of paying for part of the latter’s portion from its budget. The security chief resigned taking responsibility, but the public think he was a scapegoat. The prosecution cleared everyone involved later without summoning Lee’s son.
Koreans have seen the previous 10 probes conducted by independent counsels, recommended by either the Korean Bar Association or Chief Justice, fail to solve their questions. Those making recommendations had to watch the face of the final appointer ― the President. Will they be able to name special prosecutors with enough integrity and strength to make a difference, especially in a case involving the President and his family members? Not a chance. The President’s hinting at exercising of his veto power is nothing but an insistence he will choose his own investigator.
Before posing as a guardian of the Constitution, Lee must reflect on why he has become the first sitting President undergoing this disgrace. We can’t help noting the veto suggestion came after Lee’s meeting with Rep. Park Geun-hye, the ruling party’s standard-bearer. If there were some political compromise in the Lee-Park meeting, voters will not forgive it.
Lee should name one of the two opposition-recommended independent counsels, face the probe, and accept responsibility if needed. That is the only way everyone ― his family, his party and the nation ― can move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment