Preparation Status and Schedule for Ministerial Confirmation Hearing

Status and Schedule of Ministerial Confirmation Hearing

The Lee Jae-myung government is officially starting the National Assembly's personnel hearing process as the first cabinet is being formed. This hearing, which will take place from mid-July, involves a total of 17 ministerial candidates standing before the National Assembly, serving as both a political event that gauges the direction and level of governance, and a constitutional procedure. However, even before the hearings begin, some opposition parties and media are unleashing various allegations surrounding each candidate, shifting the focus from verification based on policies and qualifications to a smear campaign. Allegations are sometimes exaggerated or focus on personal matters unrelated to actual policy performance, resulting in a lack of insight into how candidates are preparing for governance. This article aims to suggest a more balanced perspective by revisiting the candidates quietly preparing for their roles amidst these external disruptions, as well as the substantial preparatory situation being conducted behind the scenes of political conflict.

Hearing Schedule and the Weight of Governance

The confirmation hearing for the first cabinet of the Lee Jae-myung government will begin on July 14 with the nominee for the Minister of Science and ICT. Following this, nominees for key ministries such as the Ministry of Unification, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Health and Welfare will sequentially hold hearings, which are referred to as 'Super Week' due to the intensive scrutiny taking place over the week. This confirmation hearing carries significance beyond a mere ministerial appointment process, as it serves to explain and verify the government's national philosophy and administrative system to the public. In particular, for subsequent appointments to be organized after the Prime Minister's confirmation, prompt cabinet formation and approval are essential. Government operations cannot be halted, and each ministry is already awaiting significant practical tasks such as budget execution, policy planning, and responses to public livelihoods. Against this backdrop, the confirmation hearings should be seen not as political debates but as a process aimed at administrative completeness, with the candidates’ policy preparations and philosophies at the forefront.

The Reality of the Controversy over Material Submission and Witness Selection

However, the biggest controversy that has arisen ahead of the hearing is the candidates' material submission rates and the selection of witnesses. Some opposition parties are strongly criticizing this as a 'no-materials, no-witness hearing.' In fact, it is true that some candidates have low material submission rates for instance, it was revealed that only about 30 out of 846 requests were submitted by the candidate for the Ministry of Science and ICT, Baek Gyeong-hoon. However, this is merely a partial figure that does not take into account the overall context. Many candidates are preparing as much material as possible within the submission deadline, and documents that require security or contain personal information may inevitably be delayed or restricted based on the legal judgment of the department or individual. Additionally, if the questioning during the hearing is policy-centered by the members of the National Assembly, it will naturally focus more on preparing policy documents rather than submitting a vast amount of personal data. Criticism related to witness selection is similar. The selection of witnesses and informants for the hearing is fundamentally the authority of the National Assembly, but consensus between the ruling and opposition parties is essential. Therefore, the narrative that suggests a candidate has blocked or refused the selection of witnesses may distort the facts. There have been instances where some hearings have proceeded with only one informant or without witnesses, but this is also a choice made to avoid the failure of political negotiations in the National Assembly or unnecessary political strife. Nevertheless, the candidates are fully prepared to engage in the hearing diligently with prepared answers and policy materials.

Nature of External Allegations

What commonly appears in media reports and political reactions surrounding this hearing is that concerns are centered more on personal aspects of the candidates, their past records, and familial relationships rather than policies. Issues like military service, the process of asset accumulation, stock ownership under family names, and allegations of plagiarism in academic papers are recurring topics in every hearing. Of course, it is a natural expectation of the public to demand high moral standards from public office candidates, and a certain level of transparency verification is necessary. However, the problem lies in the fact that these suspicions are granted 'legitimacy of doubt' merely as suspicions without clear evidence or legal judgment. For example, the sale of stocks by the children of candidate Baek Kyung-hoon and his real estate assets have all been voluntarily reported within the ethics standards for public officials, and no legal violations have been confirmed. In the case of candidate Kang Sun-woo for the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, allegations of 'bullying' against her aides were raised, but the criticism was more emotional rather than based on confirming the facts. The allegations of plagiarism against candidate Lee Jin-sook for the Ministry of Education are also being highlighted unilaterally in the political arena without specific verification. Such political stigmatization of candidates based on unverified content can ultimately obscure the original purpose of the hearings. This acts as a curtain that hides the candidates' policy vision and governance capabilities, leading the public to be swayed by fragmented information rather than a comprehensive assessment of the individuals.

Quiet preparation, sense of responsibility towards governance

Unlike the political squabbles and sensational allegations reported by the media, the actual candidates are calmly preparing for the hearings while feeling a heavy sense of responsibility for the national administration. Candidate Baek Kyung-hoon has a wealth of experience in the private ICT sector and possesses a clear direction for information and communication policies. He is working on a policy roadmap regarding artificial intelligence, data sovereignty, and the public nature of communications. The personal information leakage issue he was involved in during his time at SKT also stems from structural problems at that time, and there has been no direct responsibility revealed for the candidate himself. Candidate Kang Sun-woo has actively participated in legislative efforts related to women's and youth policies during his tenure as a serving member of parliament. Amid discussions on the adjustment and integration of the Ministry of Gender Equality, he is expected to explain in the hearings how to maintain the continuity of women's policies and the values of gender equality. The submission rate of materials is also high, and the request for some witnesses is rather a demonstration of transparency and confidence. Candidate Jeon Jae-soo for the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries has years of legislative experience in welfare and budget sectors, focusing on restructuring the marine and fisheries sector and enhancing support policies for fishermen. Candidate Lee Jin-sook for the Ministry of Education has experience in both the educational field and broadcasting media, and is developing plans for the reorganization of educational administration in the era of digital transformation. Although some media focus solely on morality, he plans to present before the public centered on educational policy vision and implementation strategies. Additionally, Jeong Eun-kyung, the former head of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and candidate for Minister of Health and Welfare, was at the center of COVID-19 response efforts and is preparing plans for the reform of the public health system and the revitalization of health insurance finances to present at the hearings. Each candidate is calmly continuing their preparations without being swayed by political interpretations in the face of the practical responsibilities of national governance.

Conclusion: Assessment by the People, Not Political Perspective

The confirmation hearing is not just a mere formality. It is a venue for candidates, who will take responsibility for running the country, to present themselves before the public, while also explaining the philosophy and direction of national governance. However, contrary to this original purpose, some political forces are turning the hearings into a battleground, and the media is repeatedly reporting unverified allegations. This can ultimately undermine the continuity of national governance and the efficiency of administration. What is needed now is verification, not political strife. Evaluations should be based on achievements rather than rumors, and on policies rather than suspicions. Even after the hearings are over, the government must continue to work, and the public will assess it based on its results. It is time for the political arena to stop the infighting, for the media to judge calmly, and for the public to view candidates based on facts. As we prepare to take the first step in governance without wavering, the confirmation hearing should serve as a place to confirm administrative responsibilities rather than a venue for political attacks. In doing so, the public will entrust the fate of the nation to prepared individuals.