Ruling, Opposition Clash Over Presidential Funds in South Korean Parliament

A heated exchange erupted in South Korea's National Assembly on August 24, as the ruling and opposition parties locked horns over the disclosure of special activity funds (SAF) allocated to the Presidential Office and three special prosecutors.

“

The Presidential Office's special activity fund expenditure details are already disclosed on the Presidential Office's website. While the principle of finance is openness and transparency, it is difficult to disclose special activity funds with complete transparency.

During a session of the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, opposition lawmaker Yoo Sang-bum of the People Power Party demanded the submission of SAF details for the National Security Office, the Presidential Office, and the three special prosecutors, all of whom reportedly refused to provide the information. Rep. Im Yi-ja, also from the People Power Party, pressed Presidential Chief of Staff Kang Hoon-sik on the matter. Kang stated that SAF expenditure details are already available on the Presidential Office's website, but added that full transparency is difficult due to the nature of SAF.

“

It is not a matter for us to answer separately, as it is the President's personal schedule.

Rep. Im Yi-ja further questioned whether SAF was used for a golf meeting involving President Lee and lawmakers from both parties. Kang responded that as it was a personal schedule of the President, it was not a matter for separate comment. The discussion also touched upon the government's proposed Future Response Fund, with Rep. Cho Bae-sook of the People Power Party criticizing the plan to use additional tax revenue as the fund's primary source. Minister of Planning and Budget Park Hong-keun clarified that surplus revenue does not necessarily have to be deposited into the fund, addressing concerns that it might function as an "unrestricted slush fund."

“

If surplus revenue occurs, it is not necessarily required to be deposited into the Future Response Fund.

Further debate ensued regarding the President's nomination of Supreme Court justice candidates via written recommendation. Rep. Cho questioned Presidential Secretary for Political Affairs Hong Ik-pyo about the legality of the written nomination. Hong acknowledged a perception that the President's appointment power might be somewhat infringed upon. Cho suggested that the public might interpret this as an attempt by the President to create a favorable judicial environment, possibly in anticipation of future legal challenges. Hong strongly disagreed, urging Cho to verify the source of such public sentiment. Notably, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo attended the committee meeting for the first time since taking office.

“

I cannot agree with your statement at all. You should check which citizen it is.