The audio capture screen of the presidential office, Kim Ki-hyun, publicity article requesting dissemination, released by the Kyunghyang Shinmun on the 6th.
“Regardless of the results of the party convention, I hope the full picture will come out later.”
This is what Park Jeong-ha, chief spokesman for People’s Power, said on the 7th regarding the suspicion of interference in the presidential election by an administrative officer in the presidential office. During the Lee Myung-bak administration, he served as the director of the Blue House Chunchu and spokesperson, and he knows the way the presidential office works better than anyone else. Spokesman Park said on Channel A, “(The administrator) should be able to explain it in the version where the voice came out, but it doesn’t seem like it is going to be unconditionally rejected.”
The Kyunghyang Shinmun reported on three separate occasions from the 3rd to the 6th that the presidential office administrator was involved in the party convention. In the first article, administrators A and B and senior administrators C from the Office of the Chief Civil Society of the Presidential Office invited D and E, an unknown figure, to a KakaoTalk group chat room where they belonged together with party members, and Mr. D and E It was the content that posted articles supporting candidate Kim Ki-hyun and slanderous posts regarding candidate Cheol-soo Ahn. Afterwards, Mr. A told a party member, “There isn’t much left for the party convention, so” and “CEO Kim Ki-hyun, there is a room like this, if there is any content there, please look at it and if there is a (chat) room to spread it, please spread it. ”I wrote an article regarding what I requested. The third report was an audio release starting with “I am Administrator A”. The followingmath of the suspicion, such as leading to the accusation of the investigative agency, grew exponentially.
I want to ask the president’s office. A key official in the presidential office said on the 6th, “There were employees who were invited to the chat room, but out of etiquette (in the chat room), they mightn’t come out.” However, the point of the first article was not that there were posts promoting and slandering a specific candidate in the room where the administrators belonged. The key was that it was Mr. B who invited Mr. D and E, who posted these articles. There were several chat rooms like this. If the people personally invited by the executive officer of the presidential office posted articles in support of Candidate Kim, is this an intervention in the party convention? The identity of Mr. D E is also questionable. Candidate Chul-soo Ahn’s side raised the possibility that they may be another presidential office official or an official from candidate Kim Ki-hyun’s camp. Why doesn’t the presidential office reveal their identities?
Second, a high-ranking official in the presidential office said on the 6th, “Even if (the report) is correct, it cannot be a violation of the Public Official Election Act.” However, the provisions prohibiting public officials from campaigning are not limited to the Public Official Election Act. Article 65 of the State Public Officials Act prohibits public officials from engaging in political activities, and Article 49 of the Political Parties Act stipulates the crime of obstructing freedom, such as party representative elections. Rep. Kim Woong of the People’s Power also said, “There is plenty of room to see it as a violation of the National Public Officials Act.” Whether Mr. A’s act is a violation of the law or not should be investigated through an investigation. The perception that there is no problem as long as it is not a violation of the current law is also a problem. If it is not a violation of the law, is it okay for all the presidential office staff to come out and campaign in support of a specific candidate? It is also inconsistent with the fairness and common sense advocated by President Yoon Seok-yeol.
Third, Lee Jin-bok, senior secretary for political affairs in the presidential office, visited the National Assembly on the 9th following the party convention and said this to reporters. “(The administrative officer’s) personal expression of opinion, it seems that the presidential secretary’s office did not systematically intervene in the election or campaign.” In an article in the Kyunghyang Shinmun, there is only one official from the presidential office who asked party members to spread support for Candidate Kim, but this is only what has been ‘revealed so far’. How can the president’s office assure that ‘there was no systematic intervention’ without internal inspection? Can even administrator A, whose remarks have already been revealed, say that he did nothing wrong? Isn’t it the order to first investigate and then take appropriate measures depending on whether it is an organizational intervention or an individual deviant by an administrative officer?
68.5%. This is the percentage of the people who think that ‘President Yoon is intervening in the process of forming a new leadership for the power of the people’. These are the results of a public opinion poll conducted on the first anniversary of the presidential election conducted by KBS together with Hankook Research. Even in the supporters of the people’s power, the response that they thought they were ‘intervening’ exceeded half at 56.2%. The ‘festival of party members’ convention has been concluded, but ‘national suspicion’ is currently in progress. We are waiting for a reply from the President’s Office.
※The sample error of the KBS survey is ±3.1% points at the 95% confidence level. For details, refer to the National Election Opinion Survey Deliberation Committee (https://www.nesdc.go.kr)
A promotional message for party representative candidate Kim Ki-hyun, posted in a KakaoTalk group chat room belonging to officials of the Presidential Office’s Civil Society Chief’s Office. An administrative officer in the presidential office invited people who posted publicity articles regarding Candidate Kim and articles slandering Candidate Chul-Soo Ahn.
