The opposition party protested the Board of Audit and Inspection’s announcement of the audit results that found corruption during the relocation of the presidential office to Yongsan and its demand for the dismissal of senior officials from the presidential security service, claiming that this was “a ploy to cover up the suspicions of state affairs meddling by Ms. Kim Kun-hee, who was identified as the main character in the corruption.”
The Democratic Party pointed out in a commentary by spokesperson Hwang Jeong-ah on the 13th, “The Board of Audit and Inspection’s audit revealed to the world that the Yongsan presidential office was a cesspool of corruption and illegality,” and “during the process of relocating the presidential office and official residence, all kinds of illegality and corruption were rampant, such as inflating estimates, giving work to unqualified companies, and falsifying final inspection reports.”
The Democratic Party raised suspicions, saying, “And yet, the Board of Audit and Inspection ended the audit that had dragged on for 1 year and 8 months with a pardon,” and “Is it possible that such irregularities and corruption were committed by a single senior official of the Presidential Security Service and that no one in the Office of the President knew about it?”
The Democratic Party criticized, saying, “The Office of the President announced the shameful position that ‘there was no preferential treatment’ as if it had been waiting for the Board of Audit and Inspection’s lenient decision. There is no such thing as a ‘Jirokwima’ even among the Ji-rokwima.” They added, “The powerful organizations that used to shout about law and justice are slamming on the brakes and talking nonsense as soon as they come in front of Ms. Kim Kun-hee.”
The Democratic Party again mentioned the suspicions raised, saying, “Everyone knows that the subject of the sentence hidden by the Office of the President is Ms. Kim Kun-hee,” and “Is it a coincidence that the interior design company that supervised the construction of the Yongsan presidential residence worked with Ms. Kim Kun-hee’s Cobana Contents?”
The civic group People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, which filed a public interest audit request for this case, also held a press conference the day before and claimed, “The Board of Audit and Inspection has extended the audit period seven times but has failed to properly reveal the truth about the numerous suspicions raised by the public and the media,” and that this is “the worst kind of lenient audit.”
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy criticized, “The Board of Audit and Inspection only notified the Office of the President, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, and the Presidential Security Service to take caution despite confirming numerous illegal activities,” and “They have been making a mockery of the people who are hoping for the truth to be revealed by just wasting time for two years.”
The Board of Audit and Inspection said that it had uncovered irregularities by senior officials of the Security Service during the relocation of the Presidential Office and official residence the day before, resulting in a loss of approximately 1.6 billion won in national funds, and that it had requested the dismissal of the relevant senior official from the Security Service. (☞Related article: Board of Audit and Inspection: “Irregularities in the process of relocating the Presidential Office to Yongsan… 1.6 billion won in national funds lost”)
In relation to this, the Office of the President said in a press release, “The audit results confirmed that there was no preferential treatment related to the relocation of the Office of the President or the official residence.” They added, “With the launch of the new government, we will inspect any procedural shortcomings that arose due to urgency and security in the unprecedented process of returning the Blue House to the people, and then prepare measures to prevent a recurrence.”
ⓒPressian photo archive
[곽재훈 기자(nowhere@pressian.com)]
Copyright © Pressian. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited.
What were the main findings of the audit conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection regarding the presidential office relocation in South Korea?
Table of Contents
Corruption Scandal Rocks South Korea: Opposition Party Demands Truth Behind Presidential Office Relocation
In a shocking turn of events, the Board of Audit and Inspection in South Korea has announced the results of its audit into the relocation of the presidential office to Yongsan, revealing widespread corruption and irregularities. The Democratic Party, led by spokesperson Hwang Jeong-ah, has come out strongly against the findings, claiming that the audit results are a “ploy to cover up the suspicions of state affairs meddling” by Ms. Kim Kun-hee, a key figure in the corruption scandal.
Allegations of Corruption and Illegality
The audit revealed a slew of irregularities and illegal activities during the relocation process, including inflated estimates, the awarding of contracts to unqualified companies, and falsified final inspection reports. The Democratic Party has questioned how such widespread corruption could have occurred without the knowledge of senior officials in the Office of the President.
“The Board of Audit and Inspection’s audit revealed to the world that the Yongsan presidential office was a cesspool of corruption and illegality,” said spokesperson Hwang Jeong-ah. “And yet, the Board of Audit and Inspection ended the audit that had dragged on for 1 year and 8 months with a pardon.”
Lack of Transparency and Accountability
The Office of the President has been criticized for its response to the audit findings, with the Democratic Party accusing it of trying to downplay the severity of the corruption. “The Office of the President announced the shameful position that ‘there was no preferential treatment’ as if it had been waiting for the Board of Audit and Inspection’s lenient decision,” said the party.
The civic group People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, which filed a public interest audit request for this case, has also spoken out against the lack of transparency and accountability in the audit process. “The Board of Audit and Inspection has extended the audit period seven times but has failed to properly reveal the truth about the numerous suspicions raised by the public and the media,” said the group.
Calls for Further Investigation
The Democratic Party has called for a more thorough investigation into the corruption scandal, including the role of Ms. Kim Kun-hee and her company, Cobana Contents, which was involved in the interior design of the Yongsan presidential residence. “Everyone knows that the subject of the sentence hidden by the Office of the President is Ms. Kim Kun-hee,” said the party.
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy has also demanded further action, saying that the Board of Audit and Inspection’s decision to notify only the Office of the President, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, and the Presidential Security Service to take caution is insufficient. “They have been making a mockery of the people who are hoping for the truth to be revealed by just wasting time for two years,” said the group.
Consequences and Repercussions
The Board of Audit and Inspection has requested the dismissal of the senior official responsible for the corruption, but the opposition party is calling for more accountability. “Is it possible that such irregularities and corruption were committed by a single senior official of the Presidential Security Service and that no one in the Office of the President knew about it?” asked the Democratic Party.
The consequences of this scandal are far-reaching, with the public losing trust in the government and the ruling party. The incident has also sparked calls for greater transparency and accountability in government dealings.
Keyword Optimization
Board of Audit and Inspection
Presidential office relocation
Corruption scandal
Ms. Kim Kun-hee
Cobana Contents
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy
Democratic Party
Office of the President
Presidential Security Service
Ministry of the Interior and Safety
South Korea politics
Political corruption
Government transparency
Accountability
What are the main allegations of corruption in the presidential office relocation to Yongsan?
Opposition Party Accuses Government of Covering Up Corruption in Presidential Office Relocation
The recent announcement by the Board of Audit and Inspection on the relocation of the presidential office to Yongsan has sparked controversy, with the opposition party claiming that the results are a ploy to cover up corruption involving a high-profile figure, Ms. Kim Kun-hee. The Democratic Party has raised serious concerns about the integrity of the audit process, citing irregularities and corruption during the relocation process.
Corruption and Irregularities Uncovered
The Board of Audit and Inspection’s audit revealed that the relocation of the presidential office and official residence was marred by corruption and irregularities, including inflating estimates, awarding contracts to unqualified companies, and falsifying final inspection reports. Despite these findings, the audit ended with a lenient decision, raising suspicions of a cover-up.
Opposition Party Calls Out Government for Leniency
The Democratic Party has slammed the government for its response to the audit results, accusing them of attempting to downplay the seriousness of the corruption allegations. Spokesperson Hwang Jeong-ah said, “The Board of Audit and Inspection’s audit revealed to the world that the Yongsan presidential office was a cesspool of corruption and illegality… Is it possible that such irregularities and corruption were committed by a single senior official of the Presidential Security Service and that no one in the Office of the President knew about it?”
Civic Group Criticizes Audit Process
The civic group People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, which filed a public interest audit request for this case, has also expressed disappointment and frustration with the audit process. They claim that the Board of Audit and Inspection has failed to properly reveal the truth about the numerous suspicions raised by the public and the media, and that this is “the worst kind of lenient audit.”
Suspicious Ties to Ms. Kim Kun-hee
The Democratic Party has also drawn attention to the suspicious connection between the interior design company that supervised the construction of the Yongsan presidential residence and Ms. Kim Kun-hee’s Cobana Contents. They have questioned whether this is a coincidence, and if not, what implications it may have for the corruption allegations.
Government’s Response Under Fire
The Office of the President has responded to the audit results, stating that there was no preferential treatment related to the relocation of the Office of the President or the official residence. However, the opposition party has criticized this response as “shameful” and “nonsense,” accusing the government of trying to downplay the seriousness of the corruption allegations.
Calls for Transparency and Accountability
As the controversy surrounding the presidential office relocation continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the public demands transparency and accountability from its government officials. The opposition party, civic groups, and the media are all calling for a thorough investigation into the corruption allegations and for those responsible to be held accountable.
Conclusion
The recent audit results and the government’s response have raised more questions than answers. As the people of [country] demand truth and justice, it remains to be seen whether the government will take concrete steps to address the corruption allegations and restore public trust. One thing is certain: the spotlight is now on the government to demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accountability.
Keyword Tags: Board of Audit and Inspection, Presidential Office Relocation, Corruption, Ms. Kim Kun-hee, Democratic Party, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, Presidential Security Service, Office of the President, Yongsan Presidential Office.
Meta Description: The opposition party accuses the government of covering up corruption in the presidential office relocation to Yongsan, citing irregularities and corruption during the process. Read more about the controversy and calls for transparency and accountability.
