President Lee Jae-myung is considering directly presiding over a public discussion regarding prosecutor reform, the Presidential Office said on the 29th. Amid increasing dissent within the ruling coalition, with reformist Im Eun-jung, head of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office, publicly criticizing the government's prosecutor reform plan and referring to Minister Jeong Seong-ho as 'the 5 enemies of reform,' the president intends to directly lead the opinion-gathering process.
According to Spokesperson Kang Yoo-jung, President Lee presided over the Cabinet meeting at the Yongsan Presidential Office that day and stated, 'It is necessary to derive practical measures regarding fundamental issues, such as preventing the abuse of power due to concentration of power and smoothly operating the investigative authority,' adding, 'We will rationally debate and discuss important issues in front of the public to prepare measures and solutions.'
President Lee noted, 'Given the premise that there is public consensus regarding the abuse of prosecutorial power, there is a need for adjustments in this regard,' adding, 'There needs to be open discussions on solutions based on the common understanding that prosecutors must also be held accountable for any wrongdoing.'
In particular, President Lee emphasized that prosecutor reform should not become a form of 'window dressing' during a closed-door meeting that day, repeatedly urging the need for practical measures. He also mentioned, 'I could preside over the discussions. I can discuss reforms with an adequately open mindset.' Spokesperson Kang reported this.
When asked about the Presidential Office's stance regarding Prosecutor Im's comments on 'the 5 enemies of reform,' Spokesperson Kang responded, 'If there are differing opinions, we should establish a culture of discussion and specifically mention what is lacking, while preparing reasonable reform proposals that align with the public interest,' suggesting that 'rather than focusing on naming, it would be better to present reasonable alternatives in the arena of public debate.'