Calls for 'Reform' in Opposition, 'Silence' in Power... Confirmation Hearings Remain Unchanged [Public Officials, Competence Must Come First]

215 Amendment Bills Proposed Over 25 Years, Only 8 Passed
Repeated Personnel Failures Highlight Need to Move Beyond Partisan Interests

Although arguments questioning the effectiveness of confirmation hearings have been repeated for years, discussions on improving the process at the National Assembly level remain minimal. Over the past 25 years since the confirmation hearing system was introduced, more than 200 amendment bills have been proposed, but only eight have been passed. This is due to the nature of Korean politics, where parties call for strengthening the confirmation hearing system when in opposition, but become passive once they are in power. As a result, confirmation hearings continue to focus more on finding faults than on genuine vetting.

According to the Legislative Information System on June 19, a total of 215 amendment bills have been proposed since the Confirmation Hearing Act was established in June 2000. Of these, only eight have been passed. The most recent amendment to pass was in June 2020, requiring the head of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, which was newly established at the time, to be appointed through a confirmation hearing. Most of the enacted bills are practical in nature, such as expanding the scope of hearings in accordance with revisions to the National Assembly Act or refining terminology. It is difficult to find any amendments that would substantially improve the effectiveness of the system.

Unlike in the United States, proposals to impose civil or criminal penalties on nominees who make false statements or conceal information during the pre-screening process have been introduced multiple times but have never passed. In an amendment bill he led in December last year, Kim Yongman, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, pointed out, "The confirmation hearing system is becoming ineffective because there are no regulations to punish public office nominees who intentionally delay submitting materials or refuse to respond or provide materials without a valid reason."

Lee Jongseok, the nominee for Director of the National Intelligence Service, who is awaiting a confirmation hearing at the National Assembly, recently refused to provide certain documents, such as records of his visits to North Korea, by not consenting to the provision of personal information. After controversy arose, he belatedly submitted the documents to the National Assembly. Last year, under the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, Lee Jinsook, nominee for Chairperson of the Korea Communications Commission, and Sim Woojeong, nominee for Prosecutor General, also clashed with the opposition due to incomplete submission of documents. Although such issues have been repeated under various administrations, they have not been resolved for years.

The extension of the confirmation hearing period is another unresolved issue. Under the current Confirmation Hearing Act, the National Assembly must complete its review or procedures within 20 days of receiving a request for a confirmation hearing. The hearing itself must be completed within 15 days of the request being referred to the relevant committee. Because the period is so limited, there are concerns that the opposition party focuses on uncovering sensational flaws with greater impact, rather than on policy vetting.

Behind the National Assembly Building in Yeouido, Seoul, the buildings of the securities and financial districts are brightly lit. Photo by Jo Yongjun

The problem is that parties' positions on the confirmation hearing system change according to their political interests, making it difficult to pass amendments through bipartisan agreement. In fact, during the Park Geun-hye administration, of the 44 bills proposed, 33 were submitted by the opposition, including the Democratic Party; during the Moon Jae-in administration, of the 68 bills proposed, 50 were submitted by the opposition, including the People Power Party; and during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, of the 34 bills proposed, 29 were submitted by the opposition, including the Democratic Party. The two major parties have shown markedly different levels of enthusiasm depending on whether they are in power or in opposition.

Successive presidents have also repeatedly shown favoritism when it comes to personnel issues. In May 2021, during a meeting marking his fourth year in office, former President Moon Jae-in defended a ministerial nominee he had appointed who was criticized for plagiarism, saying, "Just because the opposition is against it does not mean the vetting process has failed." Conversely, former President Yoon Suk-yeol also stirred controversy in 2022 when, in response to criticism over personnel failures, he said, "Did you see anyone that outstanding among the ministers appointed by the previous administration?"