The prosecutors’ office is described as a semi-judicial agency. In other words, the office is granted a great degree of freedom in prosecuting criminal cases, if not the kind of uninhibited independence as is guaranteed to the court in the process of adjudication. What the prosecutors’ office has recently done, however, is far from semi-judicial.

When a corruption scandal involving a former vice culture minister and a businessman broke out, the office said it had no plan to launch an inquiry into the case. It said it had obtained no evidence in an earlier investigation into a claim by Lee Kuk-chul, chairman of SLS Group, that he provided Shin Jae-min, a former vice culture minister, with cash and other gifts, worth 1 billion won.

On Tuesday, the office reversed its statement and promised to carry out a “thoroughgoing investigation” into the case. It said it would take the process of confirming the probity of the businessman’s assertion from “a variety of angles.” The about-face followed remarks President Lee Myung-bak made earlier in the day.

Presiding over a weekly conference of Cabinet members, Lee said that his family members, relatives and others who were close to him must be “more strictly dealt with than other people” in criminal investigations if they were involved in corruption allegations. He was apparently referring to Shin and Kim Doo-woo, a former senior presidential secretary for public relations, who was suspected of taking bribes from a lobbyist. Shin began to assist Lee in his 2007 presidential campaign and Kim joined the presidential office when the Lee administration was launched in February 2008.

Following the conference of Cabinet members, the president’s chief of staff met on Lee’s directive with the justice minister, the secretary-general of the Board of Audit and Inspection, the national police commissioner-general and other senior officials involved in law enforcement. It was an unusual, high-powered gathering that might indicate a forthcoming crackdown on corruption in officialdom.

Was the prosecutors’ office following orders from President Lee when it said it would soon launch an investigation? It said it was not. Instead, it claimed it made the decision on its own. But who would believe it? It had no one else but itself to blame if it was discredited as a semi-judicial agency by the public.

The previous day, the senior presidential secretary for political affairs, commenting on the bribery allegation against Shin, said that “he did not take, if he ever did, too much money in bribes for influence peddling when compared with past practices.” As if on cue from the presidential aide, the prosecutors’ office said, “At the moment, we have no plan to launch another investigation.”

When the presidential office and the prosecutors’ office were dragging their feet, Rep. Hong Joon-pyo, chairman of the ruling Grand National Party, called on the presidential office to “take a preemptive action in an unprecedented move.” He also demanded that the prosecutors’ office launch an investigation into the case involving Shin as early as possible. As Rep. Hong put it, “all previous Korean administrations broke down in the face of corruption cases involving the president’s family members and relatives and senior public officeholders during the second half of his term in office.”

Rep. Hong’s urgent call for damage control was understandable, given an offensive from the main opposition Democratic Party. Rep. Park Jie-won, former floor leader of the opposition party, quoted the SLS Group chairman as saying he provided billions of won for another key confidant of Lee’s.

The opposition party has started to launch a blistering offensive ahead of the Oct. 26 Seoul mayoral by-election. This campaign is expected to roll into next year, with the next parliamentary and presidential elections scheduled for April and December, respectively, if the bribery scandals should prove to be true.

Now the question is why President Lee is belatedly demanding watertight inquiries into corruption allegations against those close to him. Shouldn’t he have learned lessons from his ill-advised predecessors and taken preventive action from the first day of transition, if not during the presidential campaign? He may say it is better late than never. But it gives little solace to the public, which is sickened by corruption scandals time and again.