JOURNALISTS PROSECUTED FOR COVERING MURDER CASE INVOLVING PRESIDENT’S RELATIVES

http://en.rsf.org/south-korea-journalists-prosecuted-for-14-01-2015,47479.html

Reporters Without Borders condemns the criminal defamation proceedings against two independent journalists, Kim Ou-joon and Choo Chin-woo, that have been under way for more than a year. President Park Geun-hye’s brother, Park Ji-man, accuses them of insinuating that he was involved in the 2011 murder of his cousin.

They were acquitted on all charges in a jury trial last year but the prosecutor appealed, without presenting any new evidence, and a Seoul high court judge is due to issue a verdict on 16 January.

Kim presents Naneun Ggomsuda, a podcast created in April 2011 (20 months before President Park’s election), in which Choo criticized inconsistencies in the investigation into the murder of Park Ji-man’s cousin, Park Yongchul.

According to Choo, the police failed to account for many facts and contradictions that cast doubt on the investigation’s hasty conclusions. Claiming he had been defamed, Park Ji-man sued both of them.

“This prosecution is a crude manoeuvre designed to dissuade journalists from doing their job in a matter of public interest,” said Benjamin Ismaïl, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Asia-Pacific desk.

“The work done by Choo and Kim could not only shed new light on the murder but also expose an attempt to hush up the case. The courts must recognize the media’s right to cover public interest matters, regardless of their sensitivity. They must also refrain from applying defamation laws that provide for jail sentences and thereby encourage self-censorship and endanger freedom of information.”

The Korean Union of Media Workers issued a statement on 7 January accusing the authorities to trying to intimidate the two journalists, who have received international support from various quarters including well-known US philosopher and political commentator Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky called their prosecution “a serious attack on freedom of press” and, referring to South Korean democracy, said “some of its achievements are being undermined.”

A petition for the journalists’ acquittal can be signed here.

South Korea has been falling in the Reporters Without Borders press freedom index for the past three years and is now ranked 57th out of 180 countries.

(photo: Makiko Segawa)

IN THE SAME COUNTRY » SOUTH KOREA

• Criminal defamation charge brought against Japanese journalist - 10 October 2014
• Seoul-based Japanese reporter accused of defaming South Korea’s president - 8 September 2014
• Seoul newspaper’s journalists locked out by owner - 28 June 2013
• Trial of MBC producers on defamation charges is “act of revenge” - 9 September 2009
• Court acquits blogger known as “Minerva” - 20 April 2009

Stop and search: huge increase in police portable background checks

Use of portable background check devices by police

Crime rates are not on the rise, suggesting police checks are more of an exercise in police convenience and public intimidation

A man surnamed Kim, 32, was waiting for a friend on Seoul’s Jongno 3-ga avenue earlier this month when a police officer stopped him to ask for identification. The startled Kim handed over his ID and asked what it was about. “You were loitering around here for a while, and we just wanted to check up,” the officer said. After doing a background check on Kim, the officer thanked him and disappeared.

“I just handed over my ID without thinking,” Kim recalled. “After the officer had left, it occurred to me: this was a ‘questioning of a suspicious person.’ I was really angry. It seemed like they were treating me like a criminal without identifying themselves.”

Once in decline, cases of police stopping “suspicious persons” for questioning have made a major comeback under the Park Geun-hye administration, doubling each year since 2013. Figures on the use of portable background check devices over the past five years, which the Hankyoreh received on Jan. 11 after an information disclosure request to the National Police Agency, showed they were used for a total of 28,208,383 searches last year on passing individuals or vehicles. The amount is nearly double the 15,630,880 recorded in 2012, the last year of the Lee Myung-bak administration.

Random searches of citizens have shown an especially sharp rise. Background checks with portable devices rose from 3,238,918 in 2012 to 6,213,650 in 2013 and 11,807,970 in 2014 - nearly doubling each year. Statistically, roughly one in four adults has been subjected to one. The use of the devices to check on vehicles has also risen from 12,391,962 cases in 2012 to 16,400,413 last year.

The Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers defines “Police Questioning” by stipulating that “A police officer, by using reasonable judgment from a suspicious act or surrounding circumstances, may stop and ask a person questions when he has a considerable reason to suspect that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime.” Citizens have the right to refuse to answer and to say no if asked to go with the police officer - but many find it difficult to assert these rights when faced with a surprise request from the police.

In 2010, portable background check devices were used roughly 72,020,000 times: 16,027,707 times for personal questioning cases and 55,997,503 for vehicle checks. Human rights groups responded with a campaign against the questioning practices, while the National Human Rights Commission of Korea acknowledged the potential for human rights infringements. By 2012, the number was down to 15,630,000 cases, or about one-fifth its previous levels. The fluctuations could suggest the questioning was more a measure for police convenience than a reflection of real need.

Experts said the real reason for the sharp rise in questioning since Park took office is a desire to crack down on demonstrations in the first few years of the administration.

“An especially large number of people were stopped for questioning in the area around the Blue House after the sinking of the Sewol ferry [in April, 2014],” said Lee Ho-joong, a professor of law at Sogang University. “In many cases, the questionings were performed to scare people off and prevent them from taking part in large demonstrations. The police have talked about the ‘crime prevention effect,’ but there doesn’t appear to be much of one.”

Indeed, the ratio of arrests of wanted criminals with suspended cases out of all background check using the portable devices has dropped yearly from 2.4% in 2012 to 1.5% in 2013 and 0.75% last year.

The National Police Agency said the background check statistics “include not only people stopped for questioning, but also checks on traffic violations, violations of basic order, and pursuit of suspects in criminal cases.”

　

By Seo Young-ji, staff reporter

　

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

In surprise move, Blue House senior secretary resigns instead of facing questioning

Latest move in scandal over leaked documents could indicate a crisis of leadership inside the Blue House

A Blue House senior secretary resigned on Jan. 9 after refusing to appear before the National Assembly Steering Committee in connection with the allegations of a “secret circle” involved in state affairs.

The unprecedented “defiance resignation” by senior civil affairs secretary Kim Young-han, 58, is expected to have major repercussions, coming after a bipartisan agreement earlier that morning to have him present at the committee, as well as a direct order to appear by Blue House Chief of Staff Kim Ki-choon, honoring the wishes of President Park Geun-hye.

Kim Young-han, senior civil affairs secretary

The surprise resignation could indicate a leadership crisis for Park’s Blue House, with a direct act of defiance by the senior secretary in charge of managing the havoc already wracking the presidential office after a civil affairs secretary leaked a Blue House document to the outside.

The day’s events in the Steering Committee began when the ruling and opposition parties, which had been unable to agree on whether Kim Young-han should appear up until the day before, finally reached a deal that morning to keep the number of questioners to a minimum. As the person in charge of the Blue House’s special inspection in connection with the leak of documents alleging interference in government operations by Park’s Chief of Staff when she was a second-term lawmaker, Chung Yoon-hoi, Kim was to be questioned by the opposition on allegations of pressuring and forcibly investigating individuals involved the leak.

What happened next was a shock. Kim Ki-choon ordered Kim Young-han to go before the committee, at which point the defiant Kim refused, declaring he would “rather resign” than go. A number of lawmakers raised questions about Kim’s absence when the committee’s meeting resumed in the afternoon, prompting Kim Ki-choon to respond, “I ordered him to appear, and now he is acting as though he cannot. If a public official does not comply with a demand by bipartisan agreement for him to appear at the National Assembly, or an order from the Chief of Staff, then I believe he should bear serious responsibility.”

When news of Kim Young-han’s resignation announcement broke, Kim Ki-choon said, “I plan to accept the senior civil affairs secretary’s resignation and discuss his dismissal [with President Park].”

The Chief of Staff also appeared before the Steering Committee in the morning to apologize in connection with the document furor. When asked his responsibility for the leak controversy, he replied, “As Chief of Staff, I feel a grave sense of responsibility for causing the public concern and drawing their criticism over inappropriate activities by secretary office employees, and I am very sorry.”

“I will not insist on holding on to my position, and I am prepared to step down at any time when my responsibilities have finished,” he continued.

But the afternoon’s surprise resignation looks likely to leave Kim and the Blue House facing even harsher criticisms than before. Kim in particular looks likely to face questions about his responsibility for a senior secretary’s act of open defiance that comes just a week after his remarks stressing the importance of “loyalty” in secretaries’ offices at a Jan. 2 New Year kickoff meeting.

“What is this thing we call ‘loyalty’?,” the Chief of Staff asked at the time.

The resignation was met with a frosty response on both sides of the aisle. Kim Jae-won, the committee’s secretary from the ruling Saenuri Party (NFP), called it “extremely dismaying.”

“A senior civil affairs secretary bears tremendous responsibility, and a public official should be someone who responds sincerely when there is a bipartisan agreement for him to come before the National Assembly, whatever his intentions regarding resignation,” Kim said.

New Politics Alliance for Democracy floor spokesperson Park Wan-ju took aim at the Blue House over the resignation.

“This shameful episode shows the public just how far the Blue House has crossed the line with its disregard for the National Assembly and how thoroughly broken the Blue House’s internal system is,” Park said.

“Chief of Staff Kim Ki-choon’s pledge to ‘fix discipline’ among Blue House workers was utterly trampled before the ink had even dried,” he added.

By Seok Jin-hwan, Blue House correspondent and Lee Seung-joon, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

National Security Law again being used in communist witch hunts

Opposition lawmaker summoned, not long after Korean American deported for pro-North Korea comments

Article 7 of the National Security Law - the article that makes it illegal to praise or support North Korea - is once again being employed in communist witch hunts. Even though the UN has recommended that the article be revoked, it is emerging once more as a tool for suppressing the freedom of thought and expression, as can be seen in the case of a recent lecture.

After first ordering the deportation of Korean-American Shin Eun-mi for speaking positively about trips to North Korea during a lecture, the prosecutors and the police summoned Lim Su-kyung, a lawmaker with the New Politics Alliance for Democracy, to come in for questioning on Jan. 15. Lim was briefly on stage during the lecture, which took place at Jogye Temple, Seoul, on Nov. 19, 2014.

Meanwhile, on Jan. 13, a court will be reviewing a request for an arrest warrant for Hwang Seon, former assistant spokesperson for the Democratic Labor Party, who is charged with organizing the event and possessing material that praises the North Korean regime.

Because of a single lecture, these three individuals, who have all visited North Korea, are the subject of an investigation. “All she did was greet the audience. We will consider how to respond to the summons,” said a member of Lim Su-kyung’s office staff.

On Jan. 9, the US State Department expressed its concern about the attitude of the South Korean government and investigating authorities in relatively strong terms. “We’re concerned that the National Security Law, as interpreted and applied in some cases, limits freedom of expression and restricts access to the internet,” State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said when asked about Shin Eun-mi’s deportation.

But during the New Year’s press conference on Jan. 12, South Korean President Park Geun-hye responded to a question by a reporter from the Wall Street Journal by saying, “Given the unique confrontation between North and South Korea, this is the minimum law that is required to protect the security of South Korea.”

Article 7 of the National Security Law - which defines the punishment for “any person who praises, incites or propagates the activities of an antigovernment organization, a member thereof or of the person who has received an order from it, or who acts in concert with it” - is infamous as the part of a problematic law that was used to repress democratic groups when South Korea was under dictatorship.

In 1990, the Constitutional Court concluded that the phrasing of the clause is too ambiguous and wide-ranging. “The law could even make it criminal to tell a North Korean child that they are good at singing,” the court complained.

Given the fact that North and South Korea are still technically at war, the court concluded that the article had limited constitutionality, but it ordered that the article be limited to acts that endanger the safety or survival of the state or that damaged the basic democratic order.

The following year, the National Assembly added the condition that, to be prosecuted, these activities must be done “with the knowledge of the fact that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order.”

But as a series of conservative administrations have taken power, Article 7 of the National Security Law is once again flexing its muscles. In 2008, Article 7 was only invoked in 33% of cases involving a violation of the National Security Law; by 2014, this had risen to 70%.

The prosecutors gave Shin a suspended indictment because of various comments she made at the lecture, including that “North Korean residents consider themselves truly fortunate to be living under the regime of Kim Jong-un.”

A suspended indictment means that the prosecutors conclude that the charges are valid but decide not to indict the suspect for various reasons.

In regard to why Shin was given a suspended indictment, Yun Ung-geol, second deputy director general at the Seoul Central Prosecutors’ Office, only said that Shin’s comments had romanticized North Korea and worked to its advantage. Yun did not say whether Shin had “endanger[ed] the existence and security of the State.”

“In order to apply this article constitutionally, a very strict analysis must be made about whether the act in question endangers the security and survival of the state. In the case of Shin, the prosecutors exercised restraint by giving her a suspended indictment, but the fact that they decided she was guilty represents an abuse of Article 7,” said Song Gi-chun, professor at the Chonbuk National University law school.

　

By Lee Kyung-mi, staff reporter

　

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

[Editorial] New Year’s address shows Pres. Park’s self-righteousness in Korea

President Park Geun-hye takes a question from a reporter during her New Year’s address press conference at the Blue House, Jan. 12. Behind her is Chief of Staff Kim Ki-choon. The question was about whether or not Park would be willing to have more frequent in-person briefings from her ministers and when answering she looked toward her Blue House secretaries. (by Lee Jeong-yong, staff photographer)

It was somewhat expected, but that doesn’t make it any less galling. The New Year’s press conference given on Jan. 12 by President Park Geun-hye came across as a declaration to the public that she has done nothing wrong and plans to continue on with the same kind of leadership style and approach to filling government positions. How is possible for someone to so completely disregard all the criticisms and advice that have emerged over the month since allegations first broke about her former Chief of Staff Chung Yoon-hoi’s interference in government operations? One is tempted to draw the most chilling conclusion of all: that she sees running the country as a way of testing her own obstinacy.

It’s almost too embarrassing to have to say it again, but the Chung case isn’t about what percent of the Blue House report was true or how it got leaked. At its heart, it’s about all the problems Park has created in the government and its job appointments with her insular, opaque leadership style and reliance on a “triumvirate” of secretaries. That’s what has so many people demanding that she change her approach to governing, and it’s also why people are talking about how a first step in turning things around would be dismiss the three secretaries - Lee Jae-man, Jeong Ho-seong, and Ahn Bong-geun - along with Kim Ki-choon, the Chief of Staff who failed to rein them in.

Park‘s answer was nothing if not clear. She made it official that the three secretaries were the main heavyweights in the Blue House, talking about how “we saw there really was no corruption.” Kim Ki-choon was praised as a “person of truly rare selflessness.” Her conclusions were the exact opposite of how the public sees them. And this suggests that Park is going to spend the last three years of her term continuing to use the trio to deliver her orders and filter back messages from the outside. What else can we expect from a President who has no plans for changing an insular communicative framework that even her own ruling party and conservatives - never mind the opposition - take issue with?

Park’s obliviousness and perverse logic don’t end there. She also defended the insubordination of a Blue House senior civil affairs secretary - a person whose job it is to look after discipline among public officials - by saying she “didn’t see it as insubordination” when he resigned rather than go before the National Assembly to answer questions. She also shrugged off accusations of regional bias in her appointments, saying she is “most interested in getting the best people, regardless of where they come from.” Even as the South Korean public rates her appointments as the worst thing about her administration, she persists in the lone delusion that she’s surrounded by the best of the best. Similarly, she responded to a foreign reporter’s question about potential National Security Law abuses by referring to the “particularity of the South Korean situation” rather than the universal value of human rights.

Park’s response to a recommendation for more frequent in-person briefings from her ministers was to say, “In the past, there wasn’t phone or email, but these days the telephone can sometimes be more convenient.” When the President describes in-person briefings as “old-fashioned,” you have to ask whether she is approaching major policies issues with the deep thought they deserve. A lot of people who watched the press conference are already talking about the inability to detect any kind of personal philosophy or vision in areas like social services, labor, or education. For all her talk about “selfless dedication,” the only thing the public gets to see is the administration’s bumbling.

If anything positive did come from the press conference, it’s that everyone got to see a relatively clear picture of Park‘s self-righteousness. It’s tremendously disappointing, though, to see her moving in exactly the opposite direction from public perceptions. Who is coming to take responsibility for the tragic consequences when the President keeps defying the public’s will? It’s exasperating to think about.

　

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

　

As S. Korea Cracks Down on Expression, US Comment, Ban's UN Notably Silent

http://www.innercitypress.com/skorea3banpress010915.html

As S. Korea Cracks Down on Expression, US Comment, Ban's UN Notably Silent

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 9 -- An ongoing press freedom case in South Korea has now echoed into the US State Department, after being repeatedly evaded at the UN in New York.

 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was a long-time South Korean diplomat before taking up his UN post. But he has been notably quiet about press freedom generally, and now strikingly, with regard to South Korea.

  The government in Seoul has summoned Sankei Shimbun's Tatsuya Kato on possible charges of defaming President Park Geun-hye, and has blocked him from leaving South Korea in the interim. 

 On January 9 Inner City Press asked the UN about another case in South Korea, the expusion of a Korean American woman for espousing apparently too pro-North Korea views. The UN had no direct response other than vague support for freedom of expression. 

 Later on January 9, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked about both cases. From the US transcript:

MS. PSAKI:  We can confirm that U.S. citizen Amy Chung, also known as Shin Eun-mi, was barred from exiting South Korea for the past three weeks.  We have seen the reports indicating the prosecution has asked that Ms. Chung be deported and banned from South Korea for five years.  We take our obligation to assist U.S. citizens overseas seriously.  We’re in contact with Ms. Chung and providing all possible consular assistance.

As it relates to the laws, I think it’s the application of the national security law was what was used here.  I think broadly speaking, our view is that the Republic of Korea has shown a consistent and longstanding commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights.  In – as it relates to law, we’re concerned that the national security law, as interpreted and applied in some cases, limits freedom of expression and restricts access to the internet.QUESTION:  You can confirm that she couldn’t leave for three weeks --MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.QUESTION:  -- but you can’t confirm that she’s going to be deported?  Or --MS. PSAKI:  We are aware of reports that she’s been deported for allegedly violating the South Korean national security law.  Beyond that, I don’t have any more details.QUESTION:  Okay, and then just one more on this.  This comes at the same time as a Japanese reporter who made some comments about President Park is – remains on trial and unable to leave the country.  Do you have any broader concerns that this raises about freedom of the press and freedom of expression in North Korea – in South Korea?MS. PSAKI:  I mean, I think I expressed that in the comments I offered as it relates to the law.  I mean, broadly speaking, we believe South Korea has a strong record on human rights and freedom of expression, and we expressed just a concern about the application of the particular law in some cases.

  At issue is an article that Tatsuya Kato wrote and Sankei Shimbun published, citing the South Korean publication Chosun Ilbo, that during the sinking of the Sewol ferry in April, President Park was not seen for seven hours and may have been trysting with a recently divorced former aide.

  While understandably causing anger, such a report should not trigger travel bans or criminal charges.

  It is particularly troubling that while Tatsuya Kato of Japan's Sankei has been targeted, the South Korean publication Chosun Ilbo from which he quoted is not being targeted. This disparate treatment of journalists, based on nationality or other factors, should not be tolerated.

  As a comparison, when Afghanistan recently imposed a similar travel ban on a New York Times reporter, not only the US State Department but also many others spoke out.

  But when at the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman was twice -- three times, actually -- asked about South Korea's treatment of Sankei Shimbun's Tatsuya Kato, only platitudes emerged. Continuing the trend on August 31, Ban Ki-moon's comment on the coup in Lesotho did not mention that the military took over the television and radio stations there.

  The day's New York Times recounted how South Korean artist Hong Sung-dam had his painting depicting Park Geun-hye and his view of her role in the sinking of the Sewol ferry censored by authorities in Gwangju.

  Some including the new Free UN Coalition for Access, an anti-censorship alliance established at the UN during and counter to Ban Ki-moon's time in control, have noted a trend toward ignoring some attacks on the media. How far back does it go? What will happen in South Korea, and at the UN? Watch this site.

Big changes coming in law that makes millions of people “potential criminals”

The National Assembly Policy Committee subcommittee deliberates over the so-called “Kim Young-ran Act” at the National Assembly in Seoul, Jan. 8. (Yonhap News)

Kim Young-ran Act would regulate entertainment, gifts and meals among public officials, and also their families and media members

Big changes look to be in store for public officials - and South Korean society in general - after the passage of the so-called “Kim Young-ran Act” by a National Assembly Policy Committee subcommittee on Jan. 8.

The legislation, formally titled the Act on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitation and Exchanges of Gifts, is very likely to be passed in the February extraordinary session of the National Assembly after its review by the Policy Committee plenary session and Legislation and Judiciary Committee (LJC), LJC chair Lee Sang-min said on Jan. 9. If passed, the law would go into effect one year later.

The terms of the law would apply not only to public officials but also employees at private schools and news outlets and their family members - a category estimated to include anywhere from six million to 20 million people. All past forms of solicitation and “entertainment” through personal relationships and connections, including meals and gifts, would be subject to regulation.

The response from officials was mixed, with many calling the law’s aims legitimate but the terms themselves excessive.

“I don’t think anyone is going to disagree that public servants and their family members shouldn’t be taking questionable gifts,” said an official with the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on condition of anonymity.

But an official from another central government agency called the terms “unrealistic.”

“When you’re eating with an acquaintance, it often comes out to more than the 30,000 won (US$27.30) per person given in the public servants’ behavioral guidelines,” the official said. “It’s not realistic to punish cases like that more severely.”

“It feels like public servants are being slandered, as though we’ve been taking thousands of dollars in ‘gifts’ every year,” the official added.

The law is also likely to result in a sharp decline in gift exchanges and “entertainment” in relationships between public officials, affiliated organizations, and companies.

“After the Kim Young-ran Act goes into effect, it’s going to bring changes to the practice of public servants, corporate employees, and journalists eating and drinking without any sense of guilt,” said Shin Dong-woo, a Saenuri Party (NFP) lawmaker on the Policy Committee.

“This is going to mean a big change for South Korean society,” he predicted.

Some lawmakers and public officials said the changes would be “refreshing,” as the law would provide an excuse for turning down uncomfortable requests and gifts.

But the inclusion of private school and news media employees and their family members as “public officials” subject to the law’s terms could raise questions about excessive government legislation and guilt by association. Indeed, the interpretation of the “professional relationship” between public officials and others is expected to be the subject of major debate. One concern is that with as much as half the country’s population becoming “potential criminals,” the result could be excessive authority for prosecutors, police, and other investigations - and a proliferation of indictments and complaints.

“I think it would have been better to apply [the law] to senior public officials first, and then expand it in stages,” said one National Assembly lawmaker on condition of anonymity.

“We could end up seeing someone file a constitutionality suit against the Kim Young-ran Act,” the lawmaker predicted.

Park Min-shik, a Saenuri lawmaker and LJC member, said the law should be “implemented full-scale to meet its goal of eliminating corrupt practices.”

“Any problem areas can be dealt with as they come,” he added.

Meanwhile, Saenuri floor leader Lee Wan-koo said on Jan. 9 that he planned to personally sponsor a bill expanding the scope of the special inspector system to senior officials at the ministerial level and higher, as well as the heads of administration agencies. The Special Inspector Act, which has been in effect since June 2014, establishes the position of special inspector to conduct investigations into potential wrongful acts by relatives and other individuals with a special relationship to the President. Its scope is currently restricted to presidential spouses, immediate family members up to and including first cousins, and public officials at the Blue House senior secretary level and higher.

“I want to return it to the special inspector system Park Geun-hye envisioned in her pledge during her presidential campaign,” Lee said at a meeting with reporters on Jan. 9.

“I plan to propose a bill that would extend regulations to the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers, the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection, the head of the National Intelligence Service, and the Prosecutor General, and I will work to pass it as quickly as possible,” he added.

The list of senior public officials did not include National Assembly members, judges, or prosecutors.

Former Anti-corruption and Civil Rights Commission chief Kim Young-ran. (provided by the Anti-corruption and Civil Rights Commission)

By Hwang Jun-beom and Jung Se-ra, staff reporters

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

In surprise move, Blue House senior secretary resigns instead of facing questioning

Presidential Chief of Staff Kim Ki-choon (right) talks with Senior Secretary for State Affairs Yoo Min-bong (centre) and Senior Secretary for Political Affairs Cho Yoon-seon at a hearing of the National Assembly Steering Committee in connection with the case of leaked documents, Jan. 9. (by Lee Jeong-a, staff photographer)

Latest move in scandal over leaked documents could indicate a crisis of leadership inside the Blue House

A Blue House senior secretary resigned on Jan. 9 after refusing to appear before the National Assembly Steering Committee in connection with the allegations of a “secret circle” involved in state affairs.

The unprecedented “defiance resignation” by senior civil affairs secretary Kim Young-han, 58, is expected to have major repercussions, coming after a bipartisan agreement earlier that morning to have him present at the committee, as well as a direct order to appear by Blue House Chief of Staff Kim Ki-choon, honoring the wishes of President Park Geun-hye.

Kim Young-han, senior civil affairs secretary

The surprise resignation could indicate a leadership crisis for Park’s Blue House, with a direct act of defiance by the senior secretary in charge of managing the havoc already wracking the presidential office after a civil affairs secretary leaked a Blue House document to the outside.

The day’s events in the Steering Committee began when the ruling and opposition parties, which had been unable to agree on whether Kim Young-han should appear up until the day before, finally reached a deal that morning to keep the number of questioners to a minimum. As the person in charge of the Blue House’s special inspection in connection with the leak of documents alleging interference in government operations by Park’s Chief of Staff when she was a second-term lawmaker, Chung Yoon-hoi, Kim was to be questioned by the opposition on allegations of pressuring and forcibly investigating individuals involved the leak.

What happened next was a shock. Kim Ki-choon ordered Kim Young-han to go before the committee, at which point the defiant Kim refused, declaring he would “rather resign” than go. A number of lawmakers raised questions about Kim’s absence when the committee’s meeting resumed in the afternoon, prompting Kim Ki-choon to respond, “I ordered him to appear, and now he is acting as though he cannot. If a public official does not comply with a demand by bipartisan agreement for him to appear at the National Assembly, or an order from the Chief of Staff, then I believe he should bear serious responsibility.”

When news of Kim Young-han’s resignation announcement broke, Kim Ki-choon said, “I plan to accept the senior civil affairs secretary’s resignation and discuss his dismissal [with President Park].”

The Chief of Staff also appeared before the Steering Committee in the morning to apologize in connection with the document furor. When asked his responsibility for the leak controversy, he replied, “As Chief of Staff, I feel a grave sense of responsibility for causing the public concern and drawing their criticism over inappropriate activities by secretary office employees, and I am very sorry.”

“I will not insist on holding on to my position, and I am prepared to step down at any time when my responsibilities have finished,” he continued.

But the afternoon’s surprise resignation looks likely to leave Kim and the Blue House facing even harsher criticisms than before. Kim in particular looks likely to face questions about his responsibility for a senior secretary’s act of open defiance that comes just a week after his remarks stressing the importance of “loyalty” in secretaries’ offices at a Jan. 2 New Year kickoff meeting.

“What is this thing we call ‘loyalty’?,” the Chief of Staff asked at the time.

The resignation was met with a frosty response on both sides of the aisle. Kim Jae-won, the committee’s secretary from the ruling Saenuri Party (NFP), called it “extremely dismaying.”

“A senior civil affairs secretary bears tremendous responsibility, and a public official should be someone who responds sincerely when there is a bipartisan agreement for him to come before the National Assembly, whatever his intentions regarding resignation,” Kim said.

New Politics Alliance for Democracy floor spokesperson Park Wan-ju took aim at the Blue House over the resignation.

“This shameful episode shows the public just how far the Blue House has crossed the line with its disregard for the National Assembly and how thoroughly broken the Blue House’s internal system is,” Park said.

“Chief of Staff Kim Ki-choon’s pledge to ‘fix discipline’ among Blue House workers was utterly trampled before the ink had even dried,” he added.

By Seok Jin-hwan, Blue House correspondent and Lee Seung-joon, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]