Stricter screening required for top officials

Former Korea Forest Service chief Kim In-ho was removed from office on Feb. 21 after causing a drunk driving accident. On the night of Feb. 20, he ran a red light while heavily intoxicated at an intersection near his home in Bundang, Seongnam, crashing into a village bus and a passenger vehicle in succession. Closed-circuit television footage showed his car failing to stop despite a pedestrian signal, forcing a person crossing the street to jump aside to avoid being hit. The head of a disaster response agency, entrusted with safeguarding public safety, nearly committed an act that could have taken innocent lives.

The incident occurred during the Korea Forest Service’s designated wildfire caution period, which runs from Jan. 20 to May 15. On Feb. 21 alone, the day Kim was dismissed, 12 wildfires were reported nationwide, placing agency staff on heightened emergency alert throughout the day. As the agency’s labor union stated, this is the most critical period of the year, a quasi wartime situation in which all employees are operating under emergency duty status. That the agency’s chief chose to drive while intoxicated at such a time reveals a striking absence of the sense of responsibility required of a senior public official.

Kim’s appointment in August last year was controversial from the outset. He faced criticism for effectively recommending himself through a public nomination system by posting a message that read, “For a truly Republic of Korea forest policy, I strongly recommend Professor Kim In-ho.” During his confirmation hearing, Kim defended the move by saying he believed he knew himself best. After displaying such confidence in his own qualifications, Kim leaves office barely six months after his appointment, stepping down over a criminal act that disregarded public service ethics and leaving a stain on the Lee Jae-myung administration.

The presidential office and the government must not suggest that dismissing Kim resolves the matter. They should acknowledge their responsibility for appointing a candidate whose qualifications had already been questioned and treat this episode as an opportunity to strengthen vetting procedures for senior officials. Otherwise, a second or third case like Kim’s will inevitably follow.