"Let's Have a Special Prosecutor" "We Said Let's"…Why There Is No Progress on the Daejang-dong Special Prosecutor Despite Bipartisan Agreement

Ruling and Opposition Parties, Despite Presidential Candidates' Special Prosecutor Intentions, Discussions Remain 'Stalled'
Differences Arise Over Application of Permanent Special Prosecutor Law and Investigation Targets

[Asia Economy Reporter Naju-seok] "Let's quickly have a special prosecutor" "Yes, let's do it"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

The ruling and opposition parties are engaged in a tedious battle over the special prosecutor investigation into the Daejang-dong development scandal. Not only the leadership of both parties but also the presidential candidates from both sides have called for a 'special prosecutor,' yet actual discussions on the special prosecutor have not progressed at all.

Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party presidential candidate embroiled in the Daejang-dong development scandal, has repeatedly stated, "Rather than being suspected like this, let's have a special prosecutor investigation once more." The opposition party, which has raised the allegations, is in favor of swiftly passing the special prosecutor law. In fact, on the 18th of last month, Lee stated, "I do not attach any conditions, and it is desirable for the ruling and opposition parties to agree on a special prosecutor investigation at any time." Yoon, after being nominated as a presidential candidate on the 5th of last month, also said in an interview with a media outlet, "If the ruling party wants to go with two sets (Daejang-dong special prosecutor and the prosecution referral special prosecutor), I want to say go ahead as much as you want."

At first glance, it seems there is no disagreement about the special prosecutor, but why has there been no progress in the discussions?

The ruling and opposition parties have conducted behind-the-scenes negotiations regarding the special prosecutor, both officially and unofficially. Most recently, on the 22nd, Han Byung-do, the Democratic Party's senior deputy floor leader, and Chu Kyung-ho, the People Power Party's senior deputy floor leader, met at the National Assembly to discuss the special prosecutor. On the 23rd, the full meeting of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, which oversees the special prosecutor law, was also held.

According to what the ruling and opposition parties have stated so far, there are two major issues regarding the special prosecutor law: how to compose the special prosecutor team and the scope of the special prosecutor's investigation.

The Democratic Party's position is that to proceed quickly with the special prosecutor investigation, the existing "Act on the Appointment of Special Prosecutors, etc." (Permanent Special Prosecutor Act) should be applied. The background of this claim is that the preparation schedule for the special prosecutor is faster, allowing for a swift fact-finding investigation.

However, the opposition party opposes this and insists on establishing a separate special prosecutor law. The reason is that if the Permanent Special Prosecutor Act is followed, the special prosecutor is recommended by the Special Prosecutor Recommendation Committee, and according to the law's composition method, the ruling party's intentions could be strongly reflected. Instead, according to the special prosecutor laws proposed by the People Power Party and the People Party, the Korean Bar Association recommends four times the number of special prosecutors, which is then reduced to two by agreement among the negotiating groups, and the president makes the final appointment.

There is a power struggle between the ruling and opposition parties over the method of appointing the special prosecutor, as the investigation results could vary depending on who is entrusted with the special prosecutor role.

The scope of the special prosecutor's investigation is also crucial. The People Power Party insists that the special prosecutor investigation should focus on allegations related to candidate Lee. This intention is clearly reflected in the name of the special prosecutor law bill. The special prosecutor law proposed by members of the People Power Party and the People Party is titled "Act on the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor for Fact-Finding Regarding the Provision of Special Benefits and Involvement Related to the Daejang-dong Development by Lee Jae-myung, Presidential Election Preliminary Candidate." The core is to demand the truth about candidate Lee.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party believes the investigation scope should be broadened. Democratic Party lawmaker Park Ju-min criticized through radio interviews, saying, "(The opposition) refuses to accept issues like the prosecution referral allegations or matters related to the wife or mother-in-law," and added, "They want a special prosecutor for the opposition, by the opposition, and for the opposition."

Regarding the Democratic Party's claim, Chu Kyung-ho, senior deputy floor leader of the People Power Party, criticized, "The Democratic Party is playing a double game by saying they want to investigate everything but actually not wanting a special prosecutor."

Regarding the investigation scope, the People Power Party has mentioned the possibility of investigating Busan Savings Bank, which has connections to candidate Yoon, in relation to the Daejang-dong development scandal. On the 23rd, People Power Party lawmaker Yoo Sang-beom said at the full meeting of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, "Candidate Lee also said to include the Busan Savings Bank issue in the special prosecutor investigation, and candidate Yoon fully accepted it," adding, "If the Democratic Party proposes a special prosecutor law for Busan Savings Bank corruption, it will be submitted together with the Daejang-dong special prosecutor law." He also said, "If the Democratic Party does not propose the Busan Savings Bank corruption special prosecutor law, our party may propose it."

Meanwhile, Park Ju-min, the Democratic Party lawmaker serving as the ruling party's secretary on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, rebutted at the meeting, saying, "There is no intentional avoidance of discussions; it is just that there is a difference in positions between the ruling and opposition parties, so no proper agreement has been reached."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.