The controversy surrounding the inadequate and false audits by the Board of Audit and Inspection regarding the allegations of moving the presidential office is gaining momentum. The standards used for the audit of the nuclear phase-out policy by the Moon Jae-in government did not apply to the case where there was suspicion of intervention by Kim Geon-hee, resulting in escalating controversy. The opposition parties are determined to verify the illegality and double standards of this audit led by former Auditor General Yu Byung-ho.
The Audit Office responded to reports of a lack of scrutiny in the decision-making process regarding the relocation of the presidential office, stating that the audit was conducted based on the determination of the Citizens’ Audit Review Committee. However, the criteria used to justify not conducting the audit, citing that government decisions were excluded from audits, were not addressed in relation to the suspected intervention by Kim Geon-hee.
When comparing the audits of the nuclear phase-out policy with the audit of the presidential office relocation decision, a clear double standard is evident. The Audit Office’s position on the matter has raised further questions and criticism. Former Auditor General Yu Byung-ho, who led the audit process, has faced controversy and legal battles, underscoring the complexities surrounding this issue.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding the Audit Office’s handling of the presidential office relocation decision raises concerns about its credibility and impartiality in auditing government policies and decisions. The need for a thorough and transparent audit process is essential to uphold the principles of accountability and integrity in governance.
For more information on this topic, please contact Kim Nam-il at namfic@hani.co.kr.
Source link