The confirmation hearing for Kim Ji-yong, the nominee to head the newly created Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, was held on the 14th, 37 days after his nomination. As expected, some hard-line lawmakers from the Democratic Party of Korea and other parties in the governing bloc pressed him only on suspicions that he is aligned with former President Yoon Suk-yeol and on his commitment to prosecution reform. Rather than addressing the disarray at the agency, which began operating on the 2nd of this month without adequate staff or facilities, they remain fixated on sorting out who is truly on their side. They appear to have no interest in how to establish the agency — one pillar of a criminal justice system overhauled for the first time in 78 years — or in easing public anxiety.
The agency is a core institution tasked with investigating six categories of serious crime, including corruption and economic offenses, as well as the crime of distorting the law. Whether the criminal justice system that separates investigation from prosecution succeeds or fails also depends on whether the agency takes root. Because it must investigate political power itself, independence and expertise are its lifeblood. If the governing bloc nonetheless asks first whether the nominee is on its side rather than examining his qualifications, the justification and purpose of prosecution reform inevitably come into question. One cannot demand an investigative body loyal to those in power while criticizing the erosion of the prosecution's political neutrality. Unless what is wanted is another politicized prosecution service under a new name, the ruling party must work with the government to guarantee the agency's independence and devote every effort to putting it on a normal footing.
Public anxiety about prosecution reform remains. Victims of violent crime worry about whether they will be adequately protected now that the power to conduct supplementary investigations has been abolished. In the business community, there is concern that investigations of those in power will be put off while companies and executives are treated as easy targets. The nominee's pledge — "I will not repeat the targeted investigations and fishing expeditions of the past, and will investigate solely on the basis of evidence and legal principle" — is a promise that every institution in the new criminal justice system must keep. Supplementary investigations on behalf of the socially vulnerable must also be carried out without gaps. If separating investigation from prosecution leads to weaker protection for victims and diminished capacity to respond to crime, it cannot be called reform.
The appointment of the agency's chief must no longer serve as a petty political fight for the governing bloc. Having changed the system, the failure to expand staff and facilities — or even to complete the appointment of its first chief on time — is irresponsible. What is needed now is not a contest of loyalty to reform but the normalization of an investigative agency. If the new criminal justice system falters and the lives and safety of the public are put at risk, the responsibility will fall squarely on the government and the ruling party.