The nation is in turmoil. Following the overhaul of the criminal justice system and North Korea's landmine provocations, one must question whether the government is fulfilling its role effectively. The criminal justice system has undergone a significant transformation for the first time in 78 years, with a complete separation of investigation and prosecution, and the abolition of the prosecution's investigative powers for the first time in 72 years.
Criminal investigations previously handled by the prosecution have been transferred to the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, while the functions of prosecution and maintaining charges have been assigned to the Public Prosecution Agency. The police now hold full authority over general criminal cases.
This shift is a result of the ruling party's perception of the prosecution as an organization subservient to unchecked political power, leading them to aggressively pursue its dismantling with their majority in the legislature.
However, it raises concerns about whether the government and ruling party have adequately prepared for these changes. Key positions in the new criminal justice framework remain vacant, and there are growing fears of investigative blind spots and overlapping investigations due to the fragmented jurisdiction among the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, police, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, and special investigative agencies.
Preparation for implementation appears insufficient, and there are worries that political calculations are taking precedence over public safety and protection from crime.
Politics is about winning the hearts of the people. As President Lee Jae-myung's approval ratings continue to decline, a cabinet reshuffle was made in an attempt to shift the narrative, but it remains uncertain whether this will win back the public's trust.
The principle of governing oneself before governing the nation remains unchanged today. In an era of artificial intelligence, those who cannot reflect on themselves or manage their households will struggle to govern the country effectively.
The recent resignation of Kim Seung-won, the nominee for Minister of Justice, shortly after the ruling party leader praised the appointment as a good one, reveals the stark reality of our politics.
Rather than thoroughly examining the capabilities and moral integrity of individuals entrusted with significant responsibilities for the nation's future, the ruling party leader's uncritical endorsement of government-nominated candidates raises doubts about their judgment.
Shouldn't Representative Kim Min-seok, who made such statements, apologize or express regret for his irresponsible remarks?
When a ruling party leader makes significant statements but then acts nonchalantly, it negatively impacts public trust in politics.
The government must first identify which policies have led to declining approval ratings and discuss how to adjust future policies. The fact that a candidate for a crucial position has stumbled due to personal corruption indicates a failure in the personnel system.
More fundamentally, there needs to be rational coordination of policies between the Blue House and the Cabinet. It is problematic if the Cabinet merely acts as an execution arm of the Blue House. There must be efforts within the Cabinet to create innovative and progressive policies.
If the Blue House leads everything, simply changing ministers will not easily alter existing policy frameworks.
The recent appointments seem to suggest a desire to maintain existing policies.
Public sentiment regarding real estate, as reflected in opinion polls, is cold. However, the likelihood of policy adjustments appears low. The government seems to believe that its tax and regulatory policies can control the market.
Despite pledging not to use taxes to control real estate during the election campaign, the government is poised to impose heavy property and transaction taxes, disregarding public discomfort.
Why does a progressive government change regulations to combat the illusion of speculation, ultimately burdening the citizens? This administration seems ready to introduce the concept of farmland speculation, potentially affecting farmers as well.
Housing, food, and clothing are essential elements for living. The government must ensure that citizens can live comfortably. If rising real estate prices make housing inconvenient for the public, policies should be implemented to alleviate that discomfort, rather than exacerbate it. The worsening public sentiment regarding new real estate policies is evidence of increasing inconvenience. Under the current tax system, very few people are likely to purchase real estate for speculation.
Imposing punitive taxes on those who have owned property for residential purposes or inherited it long ago should be reconsidered.
Particularly, there needs to be consideration for the elderly who have lived in their homes for a long time but now face high property taxes due to rising values without any income. Is it reasonable for the government to force them to sell and move elsewhere? If they sell and pay capital gains tax, they will only be able to move to less desirable locations. Who will they blame if they find themselves in such a situation in their old age?
Reports that apartment prices and rental rates in Seoul have risen for 86 consecutive weeks should be interpreted as a signal to change policies. The government should take note of the relative stability of real estate prices under conservative administrations that did not impose heavy regulations and taxes, and learn from that experience.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.