I hope the ministerial confirmation hearing will focus on policy verification.

Overview of the Confirmation Hearing

The confirmation hearings starting on July 14 are a thorough verification process for the formation of the first cabinet of the Lee Jae-myung administration. A total of 16 ministerial candidates will attend the National Assembly over five days to undergo verification of their qualifications and policy directions. This schedule, dubbed ‘Confirmation Hearing Super Week,’ is the first political event showcasing the administration's philosophy and governance capability to the public. On the 14th, confirmation hearings for the ministers of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the Ministry of Unification, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and the Ministry of Science and ICT are scheduled, and all of them are expected to face various ethical controversies and attacks. The confirmation hearings serve as the National Assembly's verification function and as an institutional mechanism for the public to evaluate the qualifications of ministerial candidates. However, the emergence of allegations and political attacks occurring even before the candidates' attendance threatens the original function of the hearings, which is policy verification.

Problems of Moral Verification

With the upcoming hearings, allegations against each candidate are already spreading through the media and political parties. The candidate for Minister of Gender Equality and Family, Kang Sun-woo, is embroiled in a 'gap-jil' controversy related to the number of changes in her aides. Some reports emphasize that 46 aides were replaced over five years, raising questions about Kang's organizational management abilities. Kang's camp argues that "the figure is exaggerated due to double counting, and the actual number of replacements is 28," and there are suggestions that some informants' claims may be false. Jeong Dong-young, nominee for Minister of Unification, is facing allegations that his legislative activities related to solar power overlap with his family's business interests. This has led to a conflict of interest controversy, with the opposition demanding clearer explanations regarding the background of proposed legislation and insufficient document submissions. Jeong's camp has stated, "The legislation is based on public interest needs and is unrelated to private benefits." Jeon Jae-soo, the nominee for Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, faces suspicions regarding past political fund usage and salary receipt structures. Baek Kyung-hoon, candidate for Minister of Science and ICT, is at the center of controversy over potential inadequate service during his time as a specialist research officer and possible violations of research ethics. While these allegations partially serve the purpose of verification for the public's right to know, there are also criticisms that they are spreading predominantly through unilateral claims and attacks before the hearings even occur, suggesting a political offensive. The repeated reproduction of the ways allegations are raised through media coverage further obscures the essence of the hearings.

Urgent Need for Policy Verification

The confirmation hearing is an official procedure for policy verification. The public wants to know what kind of policy vision and execution plan the candidates for cabinet positions have. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family needs to reestablish its gender equality policies amidst the ongoing debate about its existence, while the Ministry of Unification must present practical solutions for inter-Korean relations. The Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries faces the challenge of responding to the climate crisis and enhancing maritime sovereignty, and the Ministry of Science and ICT requires a strategy to lead the era of artificial intelligence and digital transformation. However, the recent movements in the political arena and media reports leading up to the hearing have focused almost entirely on ethical concerns. Policy inquiries are treated as secondary issues, and the prepared policy presentations or position materials from the candidates have not been given proper attention. As a result, even if the hearing actually takes place, there is a high likelihood that the discussion will drift towards personal attacks rather than policy discussions. From the perspective of the public, what matters most is the candidate's practical ability to take responsibility for the respective ministry, rather than their individual faults. While some level of ethical verification is necessary, if the criteria are unclear and the application is arbitrary, it could become a tool that undermines the stability of national governance.

Points of convergence in the hearing process

One more issue confirmed ahead of the hearing is the absence of witnesses. As of now, it has been confirmed that none of the four candidates scheduled to attend the hearing on the 14th has had witnesses selected. The People Power Party requested multiple witnesses, but most were thwarted by the ruling party's opposition, resulting in the National Assembly being unable to properly establish fundamental procedures for fact verification. Witnesses are the core of the hearing. They are the minimum mechanism to objectively verify the candidate's explanations and a means to ensure the effectiveness of the verification process. However, in the absence of witnesses, the truth regarding allegations must rely solely on the candidate's explanations. This not only undermines public persuasion but can also jeopardize the legitimacy of the hearing. If witness selection repeatedly fails due to political interests, the National Assembly will end up effectively nullifying the hearing itself. The National Assembly, regardless of political affiliation, must construct a verification structure that is fair and objective, and the selection of witnesses is the starting point for that.

The Necessity of Hearings Centered on Policy Verification

The confirmation hearing is not simply a procedure to approve or reject the appointment of an individual. It is a constitutional mechanism that ensures the executive branch is formed responsibly through the parliamentary verification function, and at the same time, it is a democratic institution that guarantees the public's participation in administration. However, when the hearings devolve into tools of political strife, their purpose is rendered ineffective, and the public only witnesses empty arguments. With the upcoming hearings, the political realm must abandon the dichotomous attitudes of 'falling' and 'defending' and focus on policy verification. Queries should center on what direction the candidate has in the relevant department and what action plans they have developed to solve problems. It is a desirable hearing culture to focus not on the candidate's words and demeanor, but on whether that person is genuinely capable of performing their duties. Furthermore, the media should strengthen its role in analyzing and presenting policy issues and hearing materials, rather than resorting to fragmented and sensationalistic reports on allegations. Public judgment can vary based on the quality of information, and the formation of public opinion surrounding the hearings is significantly influenced by the way the media reports. Wishing for this confirmation hearing to proceed smoothly and for the administration to operate without confusion is not a hope for a particular political party. It is a legitimate demand from the public for the proper functioning of government and the normal operation of state administration. The confirmation hearing is not a battleground for political victory or defeat, but rather a test to gauge the future of national governance. The political realm must reflect on this essence and fulfill its responsibility to restore the inherent functions of the hearings. When confirmation hearings centered around policy verification become established, the public's trust in the executive branch will also be restored.