{"id":2203713,"date":"2024-02-02T17:25:01","date_gmt":"2024-02-02T08:25:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/?p=2203713"},"modified":"2024-02-05T19:02:20","modified_gmt":"2024-02-05T10:02:20","slug":"itaewon-disaster-bill-falls-victim-to-political-maneuvering","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/2024\/02\/itaewon-disaster-bill-falls-victim-to-political-maneuvering\/","title":{"rendered":"Itaewon disaster bill falls victim to political maneuvering"},"content":{"rendered":"
The Itaewon crowd crush disaster, which resulted in 159 deaths in 2022, has become a focal point of political contention in South Korea this week following President Yoon Suk-yeol\u2019s veto of a bill for a \u201cspecial investigation\u201d into the tragedy, despite international and domestic calls for a thorough inquiry.<\/span><\/p>\n The handling of this bill, from its drafting to its rejection, reflects a trend in South Korea where responses to disasters are mired in political division rather than leading to effective resolutions.<\/span><\/p>\n All relevant political entities, including the opposition Democratic Party (DP), the ruling People Power Party (PPP) and the Yoon administration, are responsible for the bill\u2019s failure and the subsequent deepening political polarization, experts told <\/span>Korea Pro<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Critics argue that their actions were driven more by electoral interests than by a commitment to address the societal impact of the tragedy or to prevent similar incidents in the future.<\/span><\/p>\n The DP, in its push for the Itaewon Special Act, granted sweeping powers to the proposed investigation committee. However, this was done without securing a bipartisan agreement, making the act contentious from the outset.<\/span><\/p>\n The PPP, for its part, claimed that existing investigations were sufficient, ignoring persistent calls from the South Korean public and international organizations for more in-depth scrutiny and accountability.<\/span><\/p>\n Yoon, confronted with a bill seen as legally and politically problematic, chose to veto it. This decision, though based on the bill\u2019s perceived flaws, did not align with widespread public opinion that saw the disaster as indicative of state failure and sought accountability from senior officials, not just local authorities and police.<\/span><\/p>\n The political conflict surrounding the bill ultimately detracted from what many see as the most important need arising from the tragedy: conducting an impartial investigation that seeks accountability for the victims and their families and works to ensure such a catastrophe is not repeated.<\/span><\/p>\n PROBLEMS FROM THE START<\/b><\/p>\n The \u201cSpecial Act for the Protection of Victims\u2019 Rights, Clarification of the Truth and Prevention of Recurrence Regarding the Oct. 29 Itaewon Disaster\u201d was <\/span>established<\/span><\/a> in response to domestic and international demands for accountability following the crowd crush.<\/span><\/p>\n For instance, the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Nov. 2023 <\/span>called<\/span><\/a> on the Yoon administration to set up an independent body to investigate the disaster and hold responsible parties accountable, including those in senior government positions.<\/span><\/p>\n However, the PPP perceived the bill as a DP attempt to politically target administrative figures, especially due to a clause allowing the investigation committee to request special prosecution.<\/span><\/p>\n Despite efforts by the Speaker of the National Assembly to depoliticize the bill, including by removing the special prosecution clause and delaying its implementation, the amended version <\/span>passed<\/span><\/a> without the support of PPP lawmakers, who boycotted the bill and walked out of the vote.<\/span><\/p>\n Controversies within the act included its definition of victims. It recognized two categories: those who died directly or indirectly from the disaster and those significantly impacted, including families of the deceased, affected business owners and bystanders involved in rescue efforts. Both groups were entitled to compensation, including financial support and medical aid.<\/span><\/p>\n The act also proposed a special investigation committee with extensive powers. The bill proposed an 11-member committee that would be given the authority to issue expedited search and seizure warrants, issue summons without court approval and reopen previously closed investigations.<\/span><\/p>\n While the DP argued that these broad powers were necessary to conduct a thorough investigation, it raised questions about the committee\u2019s seeming lack of judicial oversight.<\/span><\/p>\n Finally, the composition of the investigation committee was a point of contention. While the ruling and opposition parties would be able to appoint four people each, the Speaker of the National Assembly, technically unaffiliated but practically a DP member, would appoint the remaining three members. This arrangement led to concerns from the PPP about the committee\u2019s neutrality and objectivity.<\/span><\/p>\n