Political conviction is not always expressed through loud voices. Sometimes, the point at which one stops speaking about their grievances reveals much more.
On October 7, during a press conference marking his 100 days in office, Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon faced questions about the potential impact on his administration if he were to receive a sentence that could lead to his removal from office ahead of an upcoming appeal ruling. The question seemed to reflect concerns about the first trial's verdict.
Mayor Oh began by bowing his head to the citizens. "Regardless of the circumstances, I sincerely apologize for being involved in this trial," he said, placing the citizens' concerns first. He added, "Many new pieces of evidence that were not presented in the first trial have been submitted for the appeal." He expressed his humility in awaiting the outcome. He did not elaborate on the evidence or make demands of the court.
From his brief response, I sensed more confidence than anxiety. Of course, a reporter's impression cannot serve as the basis for a verdict. The assessment of evidence is the court's responsibility. However, his restrained response to a question that could jeopardize his political future was noteworthy. It suggested he was conserving his words for persuading the public while presenting evidence to convince the court.
Initially, I expected a different scene. Given that the press conference was held just before the ruling, I anticipated he might make strong statements regarding the investigation and trial, emphasizing his innocence, criticizing opponents, and seeking public support. However, Mayor Oh quickly concluded his remarks about the trial and focused on city administration issues. The center of attention that day was not the defendant Oh Se-hoon but the mayor of Seoul.
Nevertheless, his words carried a sharp edge. He stated, "The time is approaching when the prosecutors and special investigators who conducted the investigation recklessly will have to take responsibility once the truth is revealed." His claim of reckless investigation remains just that—a claim, not yet confirmed by the court's conclusion. However, it raises the issue that the investigation targeting him should also be subject to scrutiny.
It is natural for investigative agencies to hold politicians accountable. However, those agencies must also be responsible for their judgments and actions. The authority to raise allegations does not automatically make those allegations true. Both unfavorable and favorable evidence must be examined, and conflicting statements must be verified. The principles should be stricter in political cases. What the public desires is not the victory of an investigation but the confirmation of facts.
This brings to mind the dignity of politics. We have become too accustomed to politicians using trials as a platform to rally their supporters and deflect all criticism as attacks from adversaries. In such politics, the essence of the case disappears, leaving only division. Everyone has the right to claim their innocence. However, public officials should not hold up citizens' daily lives and administrative processes due to their grievances.
In this regard, Mayor Oh's demeanor was commendable. He expressed regret to the citizens, explained that he submitted evidence for the appeal, and stated he would await the judgment. He did not launch attacks against the court. The reason I felt he exuded an impression of confidence in his innocence was not due to the intensity of his attacks but rather his restraint in choosing to return to his duties instead of speaking more.
A reporter's question about the ruling scheduled for the 23rd highlighted the uncertainty surrounding Seoul's administration. It was a valid question. The mayor's response should not be a declaration to resolve that uncertainty through political means outside the courtroom. Evidence must be evaluated in court, and the mayor should be assessed through his administration before the citizens. It is crucial for Mayor Oh to maintain clarity between these two responsibilities.
"The time of truth is approaching," Mayor Oh remarked. This statement seemed to reflect his confidence that the timing would be favorable for him. However, the value of that confidence will ultimately be confirmed through evidence and the ruling. On that day, I observed not a politician proclaiming victory but a public official exercising restraint while awaiting results. He did not fill the conference with disparaging remarks about others; instead, he prioritized the affairs of Seoul over his trial. That attitude is what we can evaluate ahead of the ruling.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.