hankyoreh

President Yoon Suk-yeol takes questions from the press as he commutes to his office on the morning of June 17. (presidential office pool photo)

Roughly 40 days into the administration of President Yoon Suk-yeol, multiple clashes are now erupting between the current administration and figures from the previous one.

On June 16, a 2020 incident in which a South Korean government employee was fatally shot by North Korean soldiers in the West Sea reemerged as a political issue when the Yoon administration disputed the preceding Moon Jae-in administration’s explanation of the events. Further fueling the conflicts are matters surrounding prosecutors’ investigation of blacklisting allegations involving the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) and the fate of holdovers appointed during the Moon administration.

Commenting on the 2020 shooting incident in a Facebook post on Sunday, People Power Party (PPP) floor leader Kweon Seong-dong wrote, “The Moon Jae-in administration and Democratic Party ought first to apologize in response to the protests by [the victim’s] son.”

He also wrote, “The Democratic Party has constantly emphasized ‘justice’ and ‘human rights,’ but it has made two exceptions: one when it comes to the Democratic Party itself, and the other when it comes to North Korea.”

“It isn’t just a double standard; it’s a double standard that favors North Korea,” he continued.

The PPP now appears to be working to spin the incident as a political issue. The party has set up a special task force to investigate the 2020 death of the civil servant.

Lawmaker Ha Tae-keung, who is heading the task force, posted another Facebook message in which he wrote, “We must determine the truth of this incident, which assassinated the character of a South Korean national by portraying him as a ‘defector to the North.’”

President Yoon Suk-yeol also reportedly inquired about whether “more progress will be made” when he reported to work at the presidential office in the Yongsan District of Seoul on Friday.

Responding to the rhetoric, Democratic Party interim leader Woo Sang-ho called it a “neo-red-baiting approach, where they’re focusing less on livelihoods than on building a ‘pro-North’ image and claiming that [the Democratic Party] ‘bowed to Pyongyang.’”

Also fueling the conflict is an investigation by prosecutors into allegations that a former trade minister under Moon forced the resignations of officials heading up various government agencies. Yoon signaled his intent to proceed with the investigation.

“Didn’t the Democratic Party do the same thing when it was in office?” he asked.

The Democratic Party has countered by calling it a “targeted” investigation.

“The summoning of [lawmaker] Park Sang-hyuk for questioning and the summons request for former Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Paik Un-gyu can’t be seen as anything but targeting of the Moon Jae-in administration,” Woo said.

“It seems impossible to explain except as a strategic move,” he added.

A third battlefront concerns the fate of two holdovers appointed by the Moon administration: Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Chairperson Jeon Hyun-heui and Korea Communications Commission Chairperson Han Sang-hyuk. Yoon has effectively been pressuring them to step down, referring to them as “not necessary” within the Cabinet while stating that it is “up to them to decide” whether to stay or leave.

On Saturday, Jeon indicated her intention of completing her term, which continues until June 2023.

“I intend to faithfully perform my role of protecting civil rights as designated by the law,” she said.

The front lines of the conflict between the current and former administrations appear likely to extend into other areas as well.

The presidential office has reportedly been recently drafting a list of “information disclosure request appeal cases” for the Moon administration, including the 2020 West Sea shooting. One of the areas where the administration avoided disclosing information was a request concerning “special activity expenses” by its secretariat — a matter that had to do with the cost of first lady Kim Jung-sook’s wardrobe.

As the opposition party at the time, the PPP began alleging that outlays for Kim’s clothing were “excessive.” A civic group filed an information disclosure request, which the Blue House refused, citing “national security” reasons.

In February, the Seoul Administrative Court produced a ruling partially siding with the plaintiff, prompting the Blue House to appeal, citing concerns that the disclosure would be “detrimental to important national interests.” If Yoon’s presidential office abandons that appeal, the plaintiff’s partial victory will be upheld and the information will be disclosed.

An official with the presidential office said there had been “no special examination” of the matter of the former first lady’s special activity expenses.

“We’re at the stage of determining the current situation concerning information disclosure request appeal cases while taking over duties from the previous administration,” the official explained.

Woo Sang-ho questioned whether the Yoon administration’s approach was “really wise.”

“When they’re using the courts and institutions of power to pressure the opposition, is that going to come across as a commitment to overcoming the current economic crisis?” he asked.

By Kim Mi-na, staff reporter; Lim Jae-woo, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]