Nearing second anniversary, Korean Sewol Ferry Disaster special prosecutor still not decided

Nearing second anniversary, Korean Sewol Ferry Disaster special prosecutor still not decided
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/733343.html
Mar.4,2016 10:08 KSTModified on : Mar.4,2016 10:08 KST

Sewol sinking bereaved families and members of civic groups hold a press conference in front of the main entrance to the National Assembly calling for a revision of the Special Sewol Act and approval of a special prosecutor appointment, Feb. 18. (by Shin So-young, staff photographer) 　
Ruling party lawmaker acts dumbfounded upon hearing about the need for special prosecutor to investigate sinking
National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee (LJC) member Kim Jae-kyung used only one word on Feb. 26 to describe a measure being introduced to request a parliamentary vote on a special prosecutor’s investigation into the appropriateness of the early rescue efforts for the 2014 Sewol ferry sinking: “Incredible.” The Saenuri Party (NFP) lawmaker seemed unable to comprehend why such a request was being put before his committee.
But he may not have been so quick to use the word had he even read the text of the Special Sewol Act (Special Act for Learning the Truth of the April 16 Sewol Tragedy and Building a Safe Society), or the request submitted on Feb. 19 by the Sewol Special Investigative Committee.
Videos from the assembly’s record system show Kim reacting to the special prosecutor request - presented before his committee by agreement between its ruling and opposition party secretaries - by asking, “If you want to appoint a special prosecutor, you just need to put forward a special prosecutor act. Why this ‘petition’? If you’re confident, you should just sponsor a special prosecutor act.”
But the Special Sewol Act empowers the Sewol Special Investigative Committee to request that the National Assembly appoint a special prosecutor. The appointment procedures are supposed to follow the terms in the Act on the Appointment, etc., of Special Prosecutors. Seemingly unaware of this, Kim asked, “What article in the Special Sewol Act says that?” Someone showed him a document - presumably the act’s text - at which point Kim muttered the word “incredible.”
Kim later said it “appears there wasn’t enough examination [of the special prosecutor requirement] when the law was enacted.”
“It’s unfortunate, but it seems to me like the terms of the Special Sewol Act themselves got in there without enough theoretical scrutiny because of the mood at the time,” he added.
Given the fact that the law was a product of bipartisan agreement, however, it doesn‘t make much immediate sense that Kim wouldn’t have known.
Kim wasn‘t the only one who seemed uncomprehending. Another Saenuri lawmaker, Kim Do-eup, asked Justice Minister Kim Hyun-woong for an opinion on the special prosecutor requirement during the latter’s participation in an LJC hearing. The response clearly wasn’t going to be positive.
“A separate special investigative team was set up to ensure fairness and credibility in the investigation, and all problems and allegations raised about the rescue process were investigated from multiple angles through a search and seizure of the West [Yellow] Sea Regional Headquarters Korea Coast Guard and questioning of the Coast Guard command,” the minister replied.
“There wasn’t a shred of bias in terms of fairness or neutrality,” he added.
In fact, prosecutors at the time summoned then-Coast Guard chief Kim Seok-kyun and West Sea Regional Headquarters head Kim Su-hyeon just once for questioning, and despite clear evidence of the Coast Guard’s rescue failure, the only member indicted over the rescue was patrol boat 123 captain Kim Kyung-il. The Sewol Special Investigative Committee requested a special prosecutor to conduct additional investigations on the Coast Guard command, with details included in a statement of reasons submitted to the National Assembly.
On top of that, ruling party LJC secretary Lee Han-sung used Kim Hyun-woong’s remarks to conclude that passage was unlikely.
“Since the matter was presented and discussed, we’ve heard even the government questioning whether a special prosecutor is necessary. Given the negative attitude, I have to wonder if we should even approve it,” Lee said.
There was something he had overlooked, though: the Sewol Special Investigative Committee requesting a special prosecutor was also a government organization. In other words, he’d heard the opinions of two different government organizations, but sided with only one of them - the Justice Minister’s.
Recall Oct. 31, 2014, when a bipartisan deal was struck on the Special Sewol Act. The public at the time was calling for a special committee with investigation and indictment powers, and tens of thousands of citizens were taking part in signature campaigns for enactment of a special law. Ruling and opposition party divisions had persisted before an agreement was finally reached that day on the Sewol Special Investigative Committee’s makeup and a special prosecutor. Sixteen terms were agreed upon, with the 13th and 14th reading as follows:
13. Of the candidates for special prosecutor as per the bipartisan agreement on the Special Sewol Act between the ruling and party floor leaders on Sept. 30 [2014], the Saenuri Party is to rule out any candidate(s) explicitly opposed by bereaved families in prior discussions.
14. To ensure that victims family members are able to participate in the selection of a special prosecutor, the New Politics Alliance for Democracy [NPAD; now The Minjoo Party of Korea] is to select Investigation Committee members, Special Prosecutor Candidate Recommendation Committee members, and special prosecutor candidates through a “five-person consultative group” including the NPAD policy committee chair and senior deputy floor leader, a lawmaker from the Special Law task force team, a representative of the family members, and an agent of the family members.
In other words, the ruling and opposition parties had reached a detailed agreement on everything down to who could be a candidate for special prosecutor. The discussions on that question suggest there was no disagreement between the two sides on the idea of having a special prosecutor‘s investigation at all. Further back in time was May 16, 2014, when President Park Geun-hye met with bereaved families and told them, “I think we should also have a parliamentary audit and special prosecutor besides what the prosecutors and police investigation headquarters are doing now.” To wait until now and claim that not just a plenary session vote on the special prosecutor request but even its passage by the LJC is impossible is a violation of the agreement’s spirit.
On Feb. 26, Lim Nae-hyun, an LJC member from the People’s Party, argued that “following the spirit of the Special Sewol Act and Special Prosecutor Act would mean presenting the special prosecutor request directly to the plenary session without going through an LJC vote.” Minjoo Party of Korea lawmaker Jeon Hae-cheol said the request “should be passed by the LJC and presented to the plenary session if we consider the purpose of the Special Sewol Act.” Speaking at a press conference on Feb. 29, Sewol Special Investigative Committee chairman Lee Seok-tae said, “This should be voted on right away by the plenary session.”
Will the bipartisan agreement on a Sewol special prosecutor actually be honored? A lot of people are watching as the tragedy’s second anniversary draws closer: the family members of those who died in the sinking, the survivors, and the tens of thousands of ordinary South Koreans who called for the Special Sewol Act’s enactment.
By Park Tae-woo, staff reporter