Demanding neutrality, but testing SCIA nominee for loyalty

President Lee Jae Myung has submitted to the National Assembly a request for a confirmation hearing on Kim Ji-yong, his nominee to become the first head of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (SCIA). Yet opposition from hard-liners in the ruling camp shows no sign of abating.

Lee has defended Kim on social media and sought to placate party hard-liners over dinner with former Democratic Party (DP) leader Jung Chung-rae. But prominent figures including Gyeonggi Gov. Choo Mi-ae and lawmakers Kim Yong-min and Park Eun-jung continue to demand that the nomination be withdrawn, branding Kim a “prosecution loyalist.”

When hard-liners labeled Kim a “pro-Yoon Suk Yeol prosecutor,” Lee ordered additional vetting and pushed back, saying, “Making a forced claim while knowing it is false amounts to obstructing state affairs.”

The SCIA investigates serious crimes previously handled by prosecutors. Its jurisdiction includes bribery of public officials, influence-peddling and violations of the Political Funds Act, meaning politicians and senior government officials can become investigation targets.

The most important qualification for the agency’s chief, therefore, is strict political neutrality — the ability to withstand political pressure and conduct investigations independently according to law and principle. The chief must also possess the experience and competence needed to direct complex investigations.

Yet such principles are conspicuously absent from the dispute within the ruling camp over Kim’s appointment. Instead, the debate appears to revolve around a single criterion: Is he one of us?

The tiresome argument over whether Kim favors former president Yoon illustrates the problem. Insisting that someone cannot lead the SCIA because he is not completely “on our side” effectively applies the very political bias that the ruling camp once condemned in prosecutors as a test for choosing the head of their successor investigative agency.

The logic and standards employed by ruling-party hard-liners also contradict the rationale they themselves offered for prosecution reform.

The DP pushed for the complete separation of investigation and prosecution, arguing that reform was necessary not only to prevent prosecutors from monopolizing power but also to create investigative institutions that remain politically neutral rather than serving any particular government.

It is little wonder that opposition politicians have responded with sarcasm, suggesting Kim might get the job if he publicly writes a pledge of loyalty to the DP in blood.

That ridicule points to the fundamental contradiction in the controversy. The ruling camp cannot publicly demand political neutrality from powerful investigative institutions while privately expecting their leaders to be politically sympathetic.