[Initial Reaction] Do the Police Have the Right to Discuss 'Neutrality and Independence'?

"In the face of power, haven't the police bowed down and worked more submissively than the prosecution?"

"How many people really trust police investigations? A supervisory agency is absolutely necessary."

"The only ones who would say the police maintained neutrality are probably the police themselves."

These are comments left on articles about the hot-button issue of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety's control over the police. As the Ministry announced plans to strengthen its command and supervision over the police, police opposition has intensified, but public opinion is not very favorable toward the police. Following last year's adjustment of investigative authority between the prosecution and police, which granted the police the power to conclude investigations, the so-called 'Geomsu Wanbak' (complete removal of prosecution's investigative authority) law will take effect this September, transferring investigations of serious crimes such as public officials, elections, defense projects, and major disasters from the prosecution to the police. Two years later, the police will even acquire the National Intelligence Service's counterintelligence investigative authority. The police's power and status are becoming stronger than ever. It goes without saying that as their authority expands, corresponding checks and balances must be in place.

The police's opposition began when the Ministry of the Interior and Safety announced the establishment of a 'Police Bureau' within the ministry to handle police budgets, personnel, and inspections. The Blue House's Civil Affairs Office, which had performed command and supervision functions over the police organization including senior personnel appointments, was abolished with the new government, so the Ministry explained that a minimum organization to control the police is necessary. On the other hand, the police raised objections, arguing that if a prosecution bureau is established, the organization's independence and the neutrality of investigations could be severely compromised. Police Commissioner Kim Chang-ryong even submitted his resignation in protest. However, there are not many who support or cheer for the police's position. Rather, voices calling for stronger control over the now larger police force are growing louder.

While the police may feel unfairly treated, they need to reflect on the negative public opinion. One background is the continuous emergence of allegations of police corruption and favoritism. Incidents such as the Burning Sun case involving police executives in drug and sex crimes, the Jeong-in case where a child's life was lost due to inadequate investigation, and the taxi driver assault case involving former Deputy Minister of Justice Lee Yong-gu, which was marred by lenient investigations, have been etched in the public's mind. The police's delayed response in cases such as the woman killed by a stalker and the Incheon inter-floor noise stabbing incident, where the police fled alone leaving citizens behind, also reveal incompetence in the police's fundamental duty to protect public safety and lives. Cases of violence and traffic incidents where perpetrators and victims are frequently reversed are common, and police protecting their own is too numerous to list. Of course, any public organization is bound to have corruption. However, holding the police to a higher standard is the essential fate of investigative agencies that restrict human rights.

Is the police's claim of 'neutrality and independence of investigations,' which they use as justification to confront the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, truly justified? In the 2018 'Druking comment manipulation' scandal that shook the entire nation, the police failed to seize the key suspect's cellphone, appearing to curry favor with the regime and ultimately inviting a special prosecutor investigation. In the 2019 local elections, the police received intelligence from the Blue House and investigated a sitting mayor from the opposition party at the time, leading to prosecution investigations for 'Blue House-directed investigations.' It was enough to make political prosecutors weep. Given such behavior, the police's talk of neutrality and independence does not sit well with the public. No one disputes that the police, responsible for public security and investigations, must maintain neutrality, independence, and fairness. Ultimately, since everything began with negative public opinion, the order of business is to resolve this and appeal to the public. Before blindly running outside and raising their voices against government interference, the police must urgently show genuine apology and reflection on their past actions and turn public opinion in their favor.

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