Presidential office should apologize for reckless act
The presidential office has sparked controversy over a public petition calling for an inspection into whether the prosecution violated the human rights of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk and his family in the course of its investigation into corruption allegations leveled against them. The episode erupted when Cheong Wa Dae submitted a formal document regarding the petition to the National Human Rights Commission twice on Jan. 7 and 9.
The submission could be interpreted as the presidential office's request for the state rights panel to initiate a probe into the prosecution over the petitioners' claim about law enforcement's possible infringement on human rights of Cho and his family. As the controversy arose, Cheong Wa Dae instantly withdrew the document which it said was sent to the commission "by mistake."
Nobody would understand how such a mistake was made. This cannot and should not be seen as a simple mistake. The document was signed by presidential chief of staff Noh Young-min. It implied that President Moon Jae-in might have approved the document or at least known about it in advance. That is why critics are arguing that the office referred the petition to influence the ongoing investigations to the advantage of Cho, one of Moon's most trusted aides, and his family.
We hope such an argument is not true. Yet Cheong Wa Dae needs to give a more convincing explanation about the incident. If not, the controversy will not go away. Lame excuses will not work. The office must disclose the whole story as it is. For this, it must conduct an inspection to find out what went wrong. Stern disciplinary action should be taken against those responsible for the incident.
Some presidential officials seemed to have yielded to temptation ― probably out of loyalty to Moon ― of using the petition to put pressure on the prosecution to go easy on Cho and his family. But they should not have done that, particularly when the government is at loggerheads with the prosecution over prosecutorial reform and expanding high-profile corruption probes.
More than 226,000 people signed the civil petition after it was posted on the presidential website last October. The office is required to issue a public response to any petition when the signatories surpass 200,000. But it is improper for Cheong Wa Dae to refer the petition to the human rights commission directly.
Most of all, the presidential office's action risks undermining the independent operation of the rights commission. It could be seen as Cheong Wa Dae's interference in the panel. It could also be tantamount to its attempt to wield undue influence over the prosecution's investigations.
By extension, the reckless behavior may put at risk the democratic checks and balances between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. This explains why 15 human rights advocacy groups have already urged the presidential office not to make any response to the petition. The office should apologize for the incident, taking full responsibility for it, and should also spare no effort to avoid a recurrence.
The presidential office has sparked controversy over a public petition calling for an inspection into whether the prosecution violated the human rights of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk and his family in the course of its investigation into corruption allegations leveled against them. The episode erupted when Cheong Wa Dae submitted a formal document regarding the petition to the National Human Rights Commission twice on Jan. 7 and 9.
The submission could be interpreted as the presidential office's request for the state rights panel to initiate a probe into the prosecution over the petitioners' claim about law enforcement's possible infringement on human rights of Cho and his family. As the controversy arose, Cheong Wa Dae instantly withdrew the document which it said was sent to the commission "by mistake."
Nobody would understand how such a mistake was made. This cannot and should not be seen as a simple mistake. The document was signed by presidential chief of staff Noh Young-min. It implied that President Moon Jae-in might have approved the document or at least known about it in advance. That is why critics are arguing that the office referred the petition to influence the ongoing investigations to the advantage of Cho, one of Moon's most trusted aides, and his family.
We hope such an argument is not true. Yet Cheong Wa Dae needs to give a more convincing explanation about the incident. If not, the controversy will not go away. Lame excuses will not work. The office must disclose the whole story as it is. For this, it must conduct an inspection to find out what went wrong. Stern disciplinary action should be taken against those responsible for the incident.
Some presidential officials seemed to have yielded to temptation ― probably out of loyalty to Moon ― of using the petition to put pressure on the prosecution to go easy on Cho and his family. But they should not have done that, particularly when the government is at loggerheads with the prosecution over prosecutorial reform and expanding high-profile corruption probes.
More than 226,000 people signed the civil petition after it was posted on the presidential website last October. The office is required to issue a public response to any petition when the signatories surpass 200,000. But it is improper for Cheong Wa Dae to refer the petition to the human rights commission directly.
Most of all, the presidential office's action risks undermining the independent operation of the rights commission. It could be seen as Cheong Wa Dae's interference in the panel. It could also be tantamount to its attempt to wield undue influence over the prosecution's investigations.
By extension, the reckless behavior may put at risk the democratic checks and balances between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. This explains why 15 human rights advocacy groups have already urged the presidential office not to make any response to the petition. The office should apologize for the incident, taking full responsibility for it, and should also spare no effort to avoid a recurrence.
![[INTERVIEW] North Korean defectors bear brunt of remittance scams](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/75c261156ac7415fad92dc1d7c1b30cf.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Foreign-born entertainers seek to revolutionize local industry](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/4a6b2bd3d23044d699dee3c5bb956863.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
