March 30, 2012
A Statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission
SOUTH KOREA: Korean style of 'Watergate Scandal'?
After the case of Mr. Kim Jong-Ik, a victim of illegal surveillance by the Prime Minister's Office and exposure by a
former official of the Office, more illegal surveillance material conducted by the Office has been reported to the
public. The contents of illegal surveillance exposed by the new trade union of the Korean Broadcasting Corporation (KBS)
and other organisations, it appears that the unlawful surveillance by the Prime Minister's Office had been
systematically and widely carried out regardless of the status of person targeted.
According to the materials released to the public, the victims of this unlawful surveillance are former and incumbent
higher ranking public officials, legislators in particular who oppose the government policy, various trade unions,
academics who write critical articles to the government policy, high ranking police officials including police chiefs,
trade unions of broadcasting corporations and personnel in newspapers that are critical to the government's policy. This
is however, only a small part collected by one person of the Office while other materials are believed to have been
destroyed.
It is reported that the information through illegal surveillance by the Office had been used to make the victims comply
with or follow the government policies or pressurise them for to voluntarily resign from their position at public and
private bodies. In addition, individuals were also targeted for this illegal surveillance. The case of Mr, Kim Jong-Ik,
former CEO of private body, is indicative. Here, strategic plans by the Office were setup to remove him from his
position through provocation, intimidation or making his opponent file a complaint for investigation. There were also
other circumstances where the Presidential Office was involved in directing the Prosecution Service in cases that are
critical to the government. The information also included the various private relationships of victims and it was used
against the victims.
It is the ordinary work of the Office to investigate any public officials on allegations of corruption. However, the
materials released are far beyond of the work of the Office. The Office was in fact doing the role of the National
Intelligence. Whenever some unreasonable legal proceedings including investigation and prosecution or decision by the
court made, a rumour was heard that intelligent agencies used information critical to the integrity of the person being
handled in negotiation for such legal proceedings. The materials demonstrate that information by the Office was used to
such extent.
Another serious concern was raised why the prosecution service failed to conduct a thorough investigation on this case
when it was first made known to the public in 2010. According to the media, the prosecution service was fully aware of
all these materials but submitted limited evidence before the court which was only necessary for indictment for those
who were involved. However, no investigation was carried out to the illegal surveillance critical to the current
government. The question should be rather asked what kind of negotiations or instructions were made among state
institutions among the Presidential Office, Prime Minister's Office, Ministry of Justice and Prosecution Service.
Before these materials are released, the Prosecution Service has been conducting an investigation into this case.
Unfortunately, the government authorities in particular still believe that the investigation will be conducted
impartially despite the fact that people no longer trust the state institutions. It is believed that the Presidential
Office has more opportunities to negotiate with the Prosecution Service in private rather than public. People should
question what kind of system should be established to guarantee 'impartial and independent' investigating institution
from political interference. For this reason, it seems necessary that the public hearing at the National Assembly should
be conducted to understand the current practice of state institutions. Unless this issue is not properly taken up, such
unlawful practice will continue with punishment of few people involved with impunity of those who actually instructed or
ordered as experience shows (AHRC-STM-073-2012).
ends