my timesThe Korea Times

ED Defense minister must set record straight

Listen

Ahn's silence fuels unnecessary doubt and dispute

Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back speaks at a meeting with commanders  at the defense ministry in Seoul, July 1. Courtesy of Ministry of Defense

Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back speaks at a meeting with commanders at the defense ministry in Seoul, July 1. Courtesy of Ministry of Defense

Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back is facing mounting pressure over allegations of perjury.

Retired Lt. Cmdr. Kim Young-soo, head of the nonprofit group Center for Whistleblowers, has alleged that Ahn was arrested by military police for desertion while serving as a commuter soldier in the 1980s. According to Kim, Ahn was detained for one month and required to serve an additional seven months in the military.

At a news conference held at the National Assembly on July 6, Kim claimed that Ahn was drafted on Nov. 15, 1983, for 14 months of service as a commuter soldier and was originally scheduled for discharge on Jan. 4, 1985. Instead, Kim said, Ahn was not discharged until Aug. 31, 1985 — seven months later than expected. Kim argued that the extension resulted from Ahn's alleged desertion, requiring him to make up the period during which he was absent from service.

"Minister Ahn, please sue me if you think I am lying," Kim said, challenging the defense minister. Kim has also filed a police complaint accusing Ahn of perjury.

During his confirmation hearing last July, Ahn was questioned about the unusually long duration of his military service. He rejected the allegations then, insisting that the discrepancy resulted from flaws in Korea's military administration. At the time, he maintained that he had lived an honorable life and denied any wrongdoing.

Commuter soldiers were part of an alternative military service system that existed from 1969 to 1996. Men deemed physically unfit for regular active-duty service — for example, because of poor eyesight — were assigned to serve while commuting between their homes and military units.

Perjury is a serious offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. As defense minister, Ahn oversees the nation's military and defense affairs. Someone entrusted with such responsibilities is expected to meet the highest ethical standards.

So far, however, Ahn has not directly addressed the perjury allegations. Remaining silent in the face of such serious accusations is difficult to justify. If the claims are false, he should clearly explain his position and, if necessary, present verifiable evidence to refute them.

The issue has also spilled into the public arena. Calls for Ahn's impeachment have gained traction online. A petition posted on the National Assembly's petition website on June 18 has attracted more than 300,000 signatures. The petitioner accused Ahn of creating a security vacuum by dissolving the Defense Counterintelligence Command and pursuing a merger of the Korea Military Academy, Korea Naval Academy and Korea Air Force Academy. The allegations surrounding his military service were also cited as grounds for his removal.

Korea is no stranger to impeachment. Since the removals of former Presidents Park Geun-hye and Yoon Suk Yeol, impeachment has become an increasingly familiar feature of the country's political landscape. Even so, it is unusual for a sitting Cabinet minister to face calls for impeachment just one year after taking office.

In these circumstances, silence is not an adequate response to allegations that he lied during his confirmation hearing. Perjury strikes at the integrity of public office. The defense ministry has attempted to dismiss the allegations. On July 10, an anonymous ministry official told reporters that the accusations were baseless and that Ahn would seek to correct his military records after leaving office. The official argued that it would be inappropriate for a sitting defense minister to make such changes while in office.

If Ahn is confident that his testimony was truthful, he should explain his position now and support it with credible evidence. The most straightforward way to settle the controversy would be to disclose the relevant military service records held by the Military Manpower Administration. Until then, the accusations surrounding his testimony are likely to persist.