President Lee Defends Attendance of Major Crime Investigation Chief at Cabinet Meetings

President Lee Jae-myung defended the attendance of the Major Crime Investigation Agency chief at Cabinet meetings, calling it a "normalization of the abnormal." However, he indicated that attendance does not need to be mandatory every time, allowing for flexibility in frequency.

Kim Ji-yong, the head of the Major Crime Investigation Agency, attended the 46th Cabinet meeting held at the Blue House on the 27th, marking his second attendance since the 20th. Upon entering the meeting room, Kim took notes on documents and engaged in conversation with Kim Jong-cheol, the acting chief of the National Police Agency, just before the meeting began.

During the meeting, President Lee emphasized that "all ministries and central administrative agencies are under the direct command and supervision of the President in accordance with the Constitution and laws." In response to criticism regarding the attendance, he questioned, "What does it have to do with political neutrality?"

He further asked, "Would our Cabinet members make personal requests to heads of investigative agencies in such a setting? Or would they give improper instructions?" He explained that public meetings serve as a space to block illegal influences. He stressed the importance of sharing the government's policy direction and reflecting it in the work of each agency.

President Lee noted, "While there is no need for mandatory attendance every time, it would be reasonable to attend about once a month."

Earlier, on the 22nd, he stated on his X (formerly Twitter) account that abandoning oversight of the Major Crime Investigation Agency would be grounds for impeachment, asserting it could lead to criminal charges for dereliction of duty. His comments on that day seemed to emphasize granting autonomy in operational methods rather than retracting the attendance policy.

The core of the criticism regarding the attendance of investigative agency heads at Cabinet meetings is that regular face-to-face interactions could place political pressure on them, especially since the President and Cabinet members could also be subjects of investigations.

The civic group Participation Solidarity previously pointed out that even without specific directives on cases, political pressure is exerted on investigative and prosecutorial agencies. Given that the President and government officials could potentially be subjects of investigation or prosecution, it is crucial to maintain not only actual impartiality but also the appearance of fairness to the public.

Kim's responses during the National Assembly's audit highlighted the complexity of the boundary between general national policy direction and individual investigations. When asked if he would refrain from answering if the President inquired about a specific case, Kim expressed confidence in his ability to do so.

However, regarding the alignment of investigative priorities with national policy direction, he stated, "I believe it is appropriate to follow cases that align with the broader direction of national governance rather than individual cases." This suggests that even without direct instructions on specific cases, the prioritization of crime response or allocation of investigative resources could vary based on government policy.

This controversy is also intertwined with the appointment of the Minister of Justice. Park Kyu-taek and Yang Boo-nam, both members of the Democratic Party and mentioned as candidates, have backgrounds in senior prosecutorial positions and have been involved in legal responses related to President Lee's cases. This creates a tension between the rationale of appointing qualified individuals to establish a new criminal justice system and concerns over conflicts of interest related to the President's cases.

President Lee remarked, "When heads of investigative agencies do not attend Cabinet meetings, has the neutrality of those agencies been well maintained?" He emphasized the importance of sharing national policy direction, values, and goals in such spaces and reflecting them in their respective responsibilities.

He pointed out, "When exposed to abnormal situations for a long time, one may mistakenly perceive the abnormal as normal, and the normal may be understood as abnormal." He reiterated that correcting wrong practices or exceptions is essential for reform and progress.