Go to contents

[Editorial] Lavish Treatment Given to Yang and Unseemly Revelation about It

[Editorial] Lavish Treatment Given to Yang and Unseemly Revelation about It

Posted August. 01, 2003 21:45,   


The controversy over the president`s personal secretary, Yang Kil-seung, receiving lavish treatment appeared to escalate into a conflict for power surrounding the current government`s core, as a videotape containing shots of Mr. Yang being wined and dined was disclosed to the media. Speculations are widespread, including a conspiracy theory that he was caught in a trap that was prepared on purpose.

According to an analysis of the videotape, the fact is that there seems to have been a conspiracy. It seems impossible for anyone to have recorded this by chance. The person holding the camera kept track of where Mr. Yang and his company were going, continually bringing only Mr. Yang into focus. In addition, doubts remain concerning how the person who recorded this videotape got it into the media’s hands.

Despite all the fuss over the videotape, the essence of the case is whether Mr. Yang received lavish treatment in exchange for his influence. Of course, who recorded this videotape and for what purposes should also be disclosed.

In a letter of explanation submitted by Yang, his explanation was not satisfactory enough, and did little to explain how he and those he was with happened to be drinking with the owner of the nightclub known only as “K” in Cheongju, North Chungcheong province, a man who was being investigated by police on charges of tax evasion and trading minors for sexual activities. The president`s personal secretary explained that he had had no knowledge of the nightclub owner being under investigation. However, it is not believe that he was treated to drinks and a night at an expensive hotel room in return for nothing. Why the nightclub owner wined and dined the presidential secretary, along with those who were with him, should be made clear.

Cheong Wa Dae is reported to have decided to refer the case to the prosecution. However, if the prosecution just focuses on why the hidden camera was used, it is not examining the case properly. Disclosing the facts behind the lavish treatment to the “secretary of the presidential secretaries” and the unseemly revelation about the case is critical in this instance.