Victims from collective care facilities and overseas adoptees demand the creation of a third investigation bureau within South Korea's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) focused on their issues.
As South Korea prepares to launch the third iteration of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), concerns have arisen regarding the lack of personnel allocation in the new legislation that governs it. Survivors from collective care facilities and overseas adoptees expressed their worries in a statement to the Minister of the Interior and Safety, Yoon Ho-jung, urging the establishment of a dedicated investigation bureau for facility and adoption cases within the new TRC setup. This call for a specialized bureau (Investigation Bureau 3) stems from the reality that the current staffing proposal issued by the Ministry fails to include necessary increases in personnel designated for these critical areas of investigation.
Recently, 22 organizations representing survivors of collective care facilities and overseas adoptees released a statement highlighting their deep concerns over the potential absence of Investigation Bureau 3. They emphasized that the new basic law for the TRC, passed by the National Assembly, expands the scope of inquiry to include private adoption agencies and collective care facilities, necessitating additional resources and personnel to adequately address these complex issues. Furthermore, the TRC's membership has been increased to 13, which includes a new commissioner, yet the organizational plan put forth by the Ministry retains only two investigation bureaus.
The organizations criticized the Ministry for seemingly failing to grasp the implications of the new law, suggesting that the proposal not only mirrors the previous structure but also risks marginalizing the voices and experiences of those affected by poverty and disability. They pointed out that the previous commissions had largely dismissed cases related to collective care facilities, with many being rejected outright in the first commission. They articulate a growing frustration that highlights the need for a more equitable and thorough investigation process that adequately represents and investigates the traumas experienced by survivors and adoptees.
