South Korea’s prosecutors are believed to have been quite loyal to President Park and her predecessor Lee Myung-bak, both of whom came from the Saenuri Party.

The prosecution’s stance is in contrast to its tense relations with the late former President Roh Moo-hyun, who had tried but failed to root out irregular practices in the monopolistic agency via a drastic overhaul.

Unlike Roh, Lee and Park sought to maintain friendly relations with the prosecution by securing the agency’s vested interests.

The prosecution has yet to conduct an official probe into the allegations -- involving the reportedly poor four-river refurbishment project and shady use of funds from commercial banks -- surrounding Lee, who finished his tenure in 2013.

Likewise, the prosecution does not seem to have the willingness to investigate President Park, despite evidence released by cable channel JTBC suggesting that she let Choi Soon-sil, a close friend, meddle in state affairs.

Park is suspected of having orchestrated the leak of confidential documents, including presidential speeches, since taking office 3 1/2 years ago.

The constitution bars the prosecution from indicting incumbent presidents as long as they are not impeached by the National Assembly, but the prosecution is not banned from investigating presidents who breach the law.

Though the agency can’t summon Park, it can scrutinize Cheong Wa Dae officials, Choi and anyone else suspected of cooperating with the leak. Criminal action can be taken against the president after her retirement, if needed.

Among the alleged suspects are presidential secretaries -- Jung Ho-seong and Kim Han-soo -- according to a report by JTBC.

The prosecution said Thursday that it decided to form a task force to investigate Choi -- three days after the broadcaster revealed evidence showing that Choi had access to confidential files. Justice Minister Kim Hyun-woong, however, dismissed the possibility that the agency will question Park.

Choi’s corruption allegations -- involving the Mir and K-sports foundations and Ewha Womans University -- were raised by some media outlets last month. It is lamentable that the prosecution only raided the implicated offices after JTBC secured the evidence proving the allegations.
What is more regrettable is that citizens relied on state broadcasters for information, rather than state investigators.

The prosecution, of its own accord, is backing up the public claims that it is merely a puppet for the conservative administration. Further, questions over connections need to be answered given that there are many pro-government prosecutor-turned-lawmakers in the Saenuri Party.

Two years ago, the prosecution glossed over the allegation that Chung Yoon-hoi, Choi’s ex-husband, had meddled in state affairs.

On the contrary, the prosecution asked a Seoul court to issue arrest warrants for two police officers for leaking a presidential document alleging that Chung secretly influenced state affairs. It was rejected by the court.

Though the prosecution is continuously losing credibility, its position amid the scandal still appears to be lukewarm and indecisive.

It had desperately opposed former President Roh’s plan to set up an independent investigative entity to look into government officials and prosecutors.  

However, it continued to turn a blind eye to Lee Myung-bak’s BBK investment scandal even after his presidency ended.

Korean citizens have been duped by the incumbent president. If some prosecutors or Saenuri lawmakers had already known that she had been acting as a puppet, steered by Park’s private confidantes, they must also be investigated.