Kim Ji-yong, the first chief of the Major Crimes Investigation Agency, said on the 19th in his first briefing on the way to work after his appointment that he would "put an end to the politicization of investigations." He also said he would build an investigative body that the public need not worry about, by firmly upholding fairness, neutrality and procedural justice. The remarks carry unusual weight coming from the inaugural head of the agency, which was launched after the 78-year history of the Prosecution Service came to a close. Yet on the central point of contention — whether he will attend Cabinet meetings — he avoided a clear answer, saying he would "review the relevant statutes and decide in consultation with related agencies." Whether he attends the Cabinet meeting on the 20th, the first since he took office, has become the first test of his pledge.
The reasons for concern over the routine attendance of the heads of investigative and prosecuting bodies at Cabinet meetings are clear. The Cabinet meeting is where major state affairs are deliberated and policy directions shared, chaired by the president. The agency also falls under the executive branch, but its role differs from that of an ordinary administrative body in that it can investigate politicians from both the ruling and opposition parties as well as senior public officials. The sight of an investigative chief receiving the government's policy line and taking down instructions before the president every week is enough to raise doubts about the independence of investigations, even without any mention of individual cases.
Political neutrality is not enough merely to observe in practice; it must be realized in a way the public can accept. The past convention under which the prosecutor general and the national police chief did not routinely attend Cabinet meetings was rooted in this same intent. But after the president instructed the heads of external agencies to attend earlier this year, the heads of investigative and prosecuting bodies — including acting heads — also began sitting in on Cabinet meetings, on the grounds that they belong to the executive branch. If administrative cooperation is needed, however, the matter can be handled through consultation with the supervising ministry, or by attending when relevant items are on the agenda. There is no reason to insist on routine attendance at the cost of undermining the independence of investigations.
The agency has begun full-fledged investigations, securing its first detention warrant for a drug suspect the previous day. The success or failure of the new criminal justice system depends not on changing the nameplate but on how it establishes its relationship with power. The question of the agency chief's attendance at Cabinet meetings is not a matter to be left to consultations among agencies. Kim should state his resolve not to attend as a matter of routine, and the presidential office should respect that. Ending the politicization of investigations begins not with words but with keeping a distance from power.