Civil Complaints vs. Improper Requests: Korean Politics' Thin Line

One often hears the saying, 'The more you know, the harder it is to write an article.' In political news, where the line between truth and falsehood is blurred and intertwined with all sorts of slander and conspiracies, there was even advice to 'write only 70% of what you know.' As a rookie, it was hard to grasp the meaning, but now I somewhat sympathize. While striving to adhere to facts and report the truth, it is only human to leave a way out for those cornered. Sometimes, bending an arm inward toward someone close can be a human trait. It's truly difficult to spit in the face of a smiling or familiar one. Perhaps the world of civil complaints and requests exists for this reason. The allegations surrounding the legal affairs minister candidate regarding requests related to a new drug are escalating. There is a saying that for a member of the National Assembly, a civil complaint for public interest and an improper request are just a paper-thin difference. However, it is highly unlikely that a candidate with a judicial background could not have judged the appropriateness of asking the head of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety for 'expedited processing' and 'pushing' (pressuring) the Ministry of Health and Welfare. During his time as a lawmaker, he was strict about others' mistakes, but when faced with his own issue, he failed to discern right from wrong. A photo of the candidate with a lobbying broker and a judge in charge of warrants raises questions about the ethical standards of the golden badge. Since there was a precedent in the same party where a judge was called to the lawmaker's office to request leniency for an acquaintance's case, perhaps he might feel wronged. When the Coupang incident led the U.S. White House and Congress to criticize the South Korean government for 'discrimination,' everyone readily blamed lobbying. In Washington, D.C., lobbying is not shameful. Our embassies and companies, when necessary, spend hundreds of millions of won to hire lobbyists to achieve their goals. However, it is transparently disclosed who from which company conducted what activities for which client. When foreign government interests are involved, stricter laws come into play, making reporting obligations much more rigorous. For this reason, some lawmakers avoid lobbying contacts altogether. A high-ranking official from the Trump administration faced criticism for hypocrisy after moving to a lobbying firm and representing a Chinese company. While requests can be made, it is not easy to cross the line between legality and illegality without regard for public perception. Unlike the U.S., South Korea prohibits professional lobbying activities that involve receiving compensation to influence decision-making. However, no one truly believes this. Prominent law firms assemble mammoth advisory groups, and political figures hired by companies roam the parliamentary building when issues arise. Skilled former officials possess information and influence nearly as strong as when they were in office. Even if not to the U.S. level, there is a need to legitimize lobbying so that it is known who contacted which lawmaker for what purpose and when. As it stands now, allegations of improper requests only surface when someone steps into the spotlight, exacerbating public distrust. When terms like 'brother' stir peculiar imaginations, everyone grows weary, and public distrust only deepens.