It has been 14 days since the Board of Audit and Inspection undertook the main audit of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission.
The head of the audited institution, Jeon Hyeon-hee, chairman of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, has been posting articles criticizing the special audit of the Board of Audit and Inspection in his name one after another on his SNS account for the past two weeks.
There are 9 related articles published up to today (14th).
“Please keep the ACRC’s independence and neutrality”, “Jeon Hyun-hee was targeted by the Board of Audit and Inspection for whale hunting”, “I am experiencing shame and mental pain due to the disgraceful audit”, “The ACRC’s authoritative interpretation is based on laws and principles It is a strict interpretation of the deadline."
Most recently, in relation to the whistleblower's intention to accuse the ACRC, he added a political assumption (interpretation) saying, "I want a promotion."
It seems that you can publish additional articles criticizing the Board of Audit and Inspection at any time.
The head of the audited agency has stepped up to counter the audit of the Board of Audit and Inspection and is building a solid defense and counterattack front for counterattacks.
Special thanks to Jeon Hyun-hee... What are you checking?
First, let's look at the contents of the allegations that the Board of Audit and Inspection are trying to determine the truth (眞僞: true and false) in the audit of the ACRC.
A well-known thing is the suspicion of 'time and attendance'.
In response, Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee said, as mentioned earlier, that auditing ministerial-level personnel is unfair and unfair compared to other ministers.
However, this audit focuses on whether the ACRC's authoritative interpretation process was appropriate for the case involving former Attorney General Cho Kuk and former Attorney General Chu Mi-ae.
Suspicions have also been raised that there was undue influence from superiors in the process.
In September 2020, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission conducted an investigation into the prosecution's suspicions about the military leave preference of the then Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae (Jan. dropped the
At the time, there was criticism that the so-called 'Chu Mi-ae' division, including prosecutors Kim Kwan-jung and Lee Jong-geun, was placed in the prosecution's investigation and command line for the suspicion of military leave preference for Minister Chu's son. "We made this decision based on Minister Chu's position," he said.
Prosecutors later acquitted Choo and his son.
Enlarging an image
Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee said that applying this logic to the prosecution's investigation into his wife Jeong Kyung-shim during the tenure of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk (September 9, 2019 ~ October 14, 2019) would have come to the conclusion that there was no conflict of interest.
He had a contradictory opinion with former Chairman Park Eun-jung, who said that it is possible to be excluded from work because it is related to the job.
The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission whistleblowers have virtually pre-determined the conclusion of this authoritative interpretation and are raising suspicions that they had undue influence on the judgment process.
The Board of Audit and Inspection is verifying whether the allegations are true based on their reports.
We are also investigating what precedents were applied mutatis mutandis, what legal principles were applied, and what data were used in the process of interpretation.
An official from the Board of Audit and Inspection responded, "At the time, there were enough suspicions in the National Assembly, and there were even insider reports, but I can't help but audit. I'll look into it and come to a conclusion."
Three years ago, even in the nuclear power plant audit conducted by the ruling and opposition parties, the Board of Audit and Inspection focused on the part where the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, etc. made a de facto conclusion and distorted the evaluation, such as excluding or deleting unfavorable data in the process of evaluating the economic feasibility of Wolsong Unit 1. I did.
We need to leave room for the conclusion to change depending on the process, but when an unwanted conclusion is reached, former Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Baek Un-gyu used his power to force the conclusion by saying, 'Will you die?'
(For reference, the direction of nuclear denuclearization may be right or wrong depending on how you see it. The Board of Audit and Inspection did not conduct an audit on the policy's mandate (當否: right or wrong), but focused on the part where public officials violated the law in the process of making such a decision. I did.)
In this special audit process by the ACRC, the key is whether the Board of Audit and Inspection secures enough clear evidence.
During the nuclear power plant audit, there were enough statements and evidence about the illegal and unjust acts of public officials, so they could go to trial.
If there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the whistleblower's allegations or allegations in this audit by the ACRC, or as explained by Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee, if the whistleblowers have a political purpose for promotion or contaminate evidence or information for this purpose, the Audit Office will conduct an audit. We cannot rule out the possibility of a headwind in the future.
Even if it is a “report that cannot be overlooked,” it should be carefully scrutinized.
All information is poisonous.
Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee has always been protesting, saying, "The ACRC's authoritative interpretation is a strict interpretation based on laws and principles."
The success or failure of this audit depends on whether the Board of Audit and Inspection establishes factual facts to refute Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee's words, secures clear evidence, or screens out contaminated information.
Jeon Hyun-hee's Dilemma: Whistleblower
An official from the Board of Audit and Inspection said, "Where is the audited institution that welcomes the audit of the Board of Audit and Inspection? No matter the suspicion, the audited institution usually resists the audit of the Board of Audit and Inspection. The tension between the Board of Audit and Inspection is uncomfortable, but it is natural and healthy in a way." said.
The same goes for the audit of the National Election Commission, which started in mid-March.
When the Board of Audit and Inspection said that it would examine the problems with the voting management work of the National Election Commission in relation to the 'basket voting' that took place during the 20th presidential election, the National Election Commission protested, saying it was excessive.
Former Supreme Court Justice Roh Tae-ak, chairman of the National Election Commission, responded to a related question from Rep. Baek Hye-ryun of the Democratic Party of Korea at a personnel hearing on May 13th.
"I think that the National Election Commission has no choice but to interpret it as not entering (the subject of duty inspection). It was a mistake without any excuses..."
The purpose is that the National Election Commission made mistakes during the days of Roh Jeong-hee as chairman of the National Election Commission, but the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Central Election Commission was excessive.
However, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission has a different method of reaction compared to the Ministry of Industry and Election Commission.
Former Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Baek Un-gyu or Election Commission Chairman Roh Tae-ak directly protested to the Board of Audit and Inspection.
In addition, Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee is actively appealing to public opinion.
Appealing to public opinion with an unfair mind is one of the legitimate exercise of the right to defend.
In particular, for Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee, this crisis is also an opportunity to grow as a politician.
A politician from the political circles responded, "Even if there are unfavorable suspicions about you, it is important that your name be mentioned several times. For politicians, that's not all that bad."
The idea is that there is no reason to hide whether it is a good issue or a bad issue.
However, even if Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee exercised his right of defense, if he added remarks or political interpretations that could presume a whistleblower in the process, the ACRC could only cause further misunderstandings.
The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission is a whistleblower protection agency.
Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee recently posted on his social media account, "There are also suspicions that the Board of Audit and Inspection was mobilized for some kind of political transaction such as the resignation of the ACRC chairperson in a triangular formation, including a report on a high-ranking official of the ACRC seeking promotion, and promotion of the party power structure. "He said.
Even if it is presumed who he is from the perspective of Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee, if he repeats this, he will eventually become interested in who the informant is.
The identity of the whistleblower is confidential and must not be treated unfairly within the organization.
(Refer to ▶ Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission website 'Efforts to protect whistleblowers' middle: "The identity of the whistleblower is kept confidential … (omitted) … You must not be disadvantaged at work.")
Enlarging an image
What the Board of Audit and Inspection is Missing: Neutrality
The Board of Audit and Inspection aims to complete this special audit in August.
This is to minimize the time the Board of Audit and Inspection is at the center of political controversies.
From the point of view of the Board of Audit and Inspection, even if the direction or purpose of the audit is correct, it must painfully accept the controversy over 'political neutrality' that has arisen one after another.
It has been 100 days since the inauguration of the Yun Seok-Yeol government, and the Board of Audit and Inspection has been taking steps that raise doubts about whether it is going with the government.
Due to the high percentage of audits on allegations against the Moon Jae-in government, including politically sensitive cases such as the West Sea murder and forced repatriation, doubts continue to rise.
Of course, it could be because there were so many allegations raised in the previous administration.
Enlarging an image
However, in spite of these words, on the 29th of last month, Chairman Choi Jae-hae made false statements in his report to the National Assembly, saying, 'The Board of Audit and Inspection supports the administration of the president's state affairs', rekindling the controversy over the political neutrality of the Board of Audit and Inspection.
He responded that even Chairman Kim Do-eup made his ears suspicious.
The Board of Audit and Inspection Act stipulates that the Board of Audit and Inspection “belongs to the President, but has the status of independence with respect to duties.”
The phrase 'a presidential organization' doesn't really mean much.
If the emphasis is on the phrase 'belong to the president', the neutrality and independence of the Board of Audit and Inspection are set back.
Director Choi Jae-hae knows this better than anyone, so he even said that "neutrality is a core value" when he took office on November 15 last year.
If it was sincere rather than formal words, you should have been more careful with your words and actions.
When an audit is in progress, the leadership should only speak responsibly.
Words that are spit out cannot be picked up, and in particular, words spoken in the National Assembly come back as a boomerang.
It could also have a negative impact on future audits.
Ultimately, the burden falls on the front-line auditors who work in the field.