The dignified performance of Member of Parliament Kim Yae-ji in the confirmation hearing.

National Assembly's inquiries and procedures

The confirmation hearing is a unique authority of the National Assembly that checks policy verification, moral integrity, and the appropriateness of procedures. However, the way it is conducted greatly varies depending on the individual judgment of the members. Even if the same question is asked, the responses and the flow of the hearing can change depending on the approach taken. In July 2025, during the confirmation hearing for the Minister of Health and Welfare nominee Jeong Eun-kyung, the questioning style of Representative Kim Yae-ji was distinctly structured. Throughout the questioning, Representative Kim excluded language centered on specific assertions or impressions and conducted inquiries based on observable data and verification procedures. In that process, the questions were refined, and ample opportunities for response were ensured.

Confirming the Importance of Attitude

Kim Yeo-ji mentioned the damage caused by the heavy rain before starting her inquiry, extending her condolences to the victims and urging government authorities to focus on recovery efforts. She then congratulated Jeong Eun-kyung on her nomination as a candidate and inquired about her health and whether she had eaten. The questions 'Did you have a meal?' and 'Were you able to digest well?' are not just simple courtesy but stem from an awareness of the environment in which the hearing takes place that day. The fact that checking the candidate’s condition was the first thing mentioned during the lengthy hearing indicates that the questioning is fundamentally premised on the understanding that inquiries are conducted with regard to people. This approach is structurally distant from political confrontation or partisan attacks. It is distinguished by the premise that the purpose of the inquiry is not to convey a 'political message' but to confirm 'procedures and information.'

Structure of inquiries related to farmland

During the middle of the hearing, Member Kim raised a question about whether candidate Jeong Eun-kyeong or her spouse was actually cultivating farmland. In this process, he presented a photo of farmland in the Pyeongchang area as evidence and specifically described the cultivation state of the land. The farmland in the photo had fencing installed to block wildlife such as deer, and the condition of the crops was also orderly. Based on this, Member Kim used the expression, "Surely, you didn't cultivate it yourself," and immediately confirmed whether there were any lease agreements through the farmland bank. He then pointed out, based on a response received from the Korea Rural Community Corporation, that "the farmland had not been subject to a legal consignment contract through the farmland bank." However, this point was followed by a suggestion that "if you operate under a contract method through the farmland bank later, procedural issues could be resolved." Candidate Jeong Eun-kyeong responded, "I will consider improvement measures, including the entrusted method through the farmland bank." This line of questioning followed a linear structure of context confirmation → institutional basis confirmation → improvement suggestion → response elicitation. Throughout this process, rebuttals or critiques were limited, and the questions were structured based on the opponent's reaction.

Access to Property Declaration Inquiry

The inquiry regarding the unlisted stock called "Round Plan," which was part of candidate Jeong Eun-kyung's asset declaration, was conducted in a similar manner. Lawmaker Kim pointed out the explanation that it was acquired through an introduction by an acquaintance at the time of the declaration, confirming that this acquaintance was actually the candidate’s spouse’s sibling. The question was raised not in a form that pointed out the inaccuracy of the expression but as a clarification question: "This person is your husband's sibling, so why is this person classified as an acquaintance?" Candidate Jeong Eun-kyung explained that the entry had become simplified during the summarization process, leading to confusion, and stated that the original asset declaration clearly indicated "spouse’s sibling." In response, Lawmaker Kim requested, "Please submit the original document before the supplementary questioning." This request was presented as an additional procedure for verification of the record, based on the premise of accepting the counterpart's explanation. This inquiry is structured as follows: 1) Confirmation of the explanation of public information → 2) Verification of discrepancies with actual content → 3) Acknowledgment of the possibility of errors → 4) Request for original submission. In other words, it is a process-oriented inquiry structure, with the judgment of the results reserved.

Methods of Inquiry into Social Disasters

The inquiry related to the humidifier disinfectant disaster was among the most sensitive topics during the hearing. Representative Kim based his inquiries on a KBS report from July 17, 2024. This report stated that the Special Investigation Committee on Social Disasters planned an epidemiological investigation in May 2020 involving three officials from the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one of whom responded to the investigation claiming that 'more deaths could have been prevented.' Representative Kim then presented evidence that nominee Jeong Eun-kyeong had sent a text message requesting a postponement of the attendance of one of the investigation subjects. He asked, "Why did you request a postponement?" rather than "Why did you request to adjust the schedule despite not participating in the investigation?" The contents of the text were shown on the screen, and the questioning was focused on fact-checking based on documentation. Nominee Jeong explained that at that time, due to the spread of COVID-19 cluster infections in Itaewon, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was in full emergency response mode, and the person being investigated was a key member of that team. She also explained why she included the phrase "please let me know if there is an official channel" at the end of the message. Representative Kim clarified whether the title of the investigation subject was 'section chief' or 'team leader.' He then asked whether the failure to take follow-up actions, such as retrieval orders, despite recognizing the product's hazard was intentional concealment, to which nominee Jeong responded, "There was no intention to conceal at all." At the end of the inquiry, a question was raised: "Currently, former officials of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been reported for negligent manslaughter. Are you willing to cooperate with future related investigations?" Nominee Jeong replied, "I will check and cooperate." The flow of this inquiry follows a specific order: 1) Presentation of facts based on the report → 2) Confirmation of investigation delay circumstances → 3) Confirmation of personnel management reasons → 4) Inquiry into intent of actions → 5) Inquiry into future responsibility. The questioning flow was consistently data-driven, and the questioner did not reach a middle conclusion.

Structure of Inquiry Created the Hearing

Overall, Assembly Member Kim Ye-ji's inquiries did not follow a pattern where the questioner's assertions took precedence. They were composed of data-based presentations, confirmation of expressed content, review of procedural actions, and guidance on institutional pathways. The respondent did not react defensively and left ample room to continue the explanation. The ongoing clarification and confirmation from the candidate were possible because the questioner structured the hearing around fact-checking. Candidate Jeong Eun-kyeong did not react uncomfortably or roughly to any of the inquiries, and the questioner focused on the inquiries themselves without summarizing or consolidating expressions at the end of the questions. The questions were primarily short, focused on verification and processes, and excluded comprehensive policy judgments or political messages.

Conclusion: The Structure of Questions and the Density of Hearings

The questions posed by Representative Kim Yae-ji were based on the principle that "verification is necessary, but judgment is reserved until after examining records and explanations." Despite the political nature of the hearing, the structure of the inquiries was designed not to corner or define the counterpart, which ultimately influenced the overall flow of the hearing. Raising political suspicions differs structurally from verifying facts through procedures. Representative Kim entered the inquiries with a clear understanding of this structural difference. The questioning method, which consistently emerged across various items such as policy verification, moral integrity, asset declaration, and past administrative responses, focused on confirmation and responses. This method can arise when the questioner aims to organize the records through the counterpart's explanations rather than personal opinions. The hearing is ultimately a procedural examination of records. Representative Kim Yae-ji concretely demonstrated what the role of the questioner is within that procedure.