Why South Korea's Judicial and Prosecutorial Reforms Under President Lee Jae-myung Are Troubling

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung's administration is pushing forward with significant judicial and prosecutorial reforms, including the controversial abolition of prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights. This move, driven by the ruling party's strong majority in the National Assembly, has sparked debate about its long-term sustainability and the method of its implementation.

“

All state performance is ultimately evaluated by the sovereign people. Even if a policy starts with good intentions, if the people do not feel its effects or if it harms their lives, it is worse than not doing it at all. We need a flexible and proactive administration that always examines all matters from the people's perspective and actively corrects problems without any sacred cows.

President Lee, speaking at a senior staff meeting on August 6, emphasized that "all state performance is ultimately evaluated by the sovereign people." He stressed the need for "flexible and proactive administration that always examines all matters from the people's perspective and actively corrects problems without any sacred cows." This statement comes amid concerns over the recent amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, which abolishes prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights, a key component of the reform agenda.

The article draws parallels with past reform efforts, notably those under President Roh Moo-hyun. While Roh's administration saw successes in judicial reform, such as the introduction of jury trials and the establishment of law schools, these were achieved through close consultation with stakeholders. In contrast, the current reforms are characterized by a more assertive approach, driven by the Democratic Party's legislative dominance and potentially influenced by the intense political battles Lee faced before becoming president.

“

Reform is about fixing things. It is about gradually pursuing change by altering systems or institutions. Reform is harder than revolution. Revolutionaries can eliminate anti-revolutionary forces, but reform requires patience and persuasion to deal with resistance.

The author highlights the risks of reforms pushed without bipartisan consensus. Citing the example of the National Security Act, which failed to be revised due to hardline factions, and the subsequent political fallout for the Uri Party, the article suggests that unilateral reforms are vulnerable to reversal if the political landscape shifts. The current push for prosecutorial reform, despite some internal party and public dissent, risks being overturned if the opposition gains power in future elections, mirroring past instances where political tides reversed reform agendas.

“

The supplementary investigation rights abolition, if examined closely, intuitively conveys the essence of complex judicial reform discourse to the public.