Yoon Sanghyun: "Personnel Hearings Crucial for Nation's Future, Bipartisan Reform Needed" [Public Officials, Competency Must Come First]

⑤ [Interview] Five-term People Power Party Lawmaker Yoon Sanghyun
"Personnel Hearings Reduced to Political Stigmatization and Manipulation of Public Opinion"
"People Power Party Must Take a Broad-minded Approach to Personnel Hearing Reform Discussions"

Editor's NoteUtilizing talent in the right place is directly linked to the success or failure of national governance. The saying that “personnel is everything” did not come about by chance. The problem is that, even if there is a desire to use talented people, it is difficult to do so in reality. Even when talented individuals are identified and considered for important roles, it is common for them to decline. This is not unrelated to the fact that the very system established to vet public officials is now blocking the appointment of talent. It is problematic when personal background checks take precedence over competency evaluations. With the current personnel hearing system, which focuses on digging into not only the candidate’s private life but also that of their spouse and children to find faults, it is inevitably difficult to recruit talented people. We diagnose the problems of the personnel hearing system, which are repeated every time a new administration takes office, and explore possible improvements.

"(Personnel hearings) have lost the national philosophy and policy vision that the public deserves to know, leaving only political stigmatization and manipulation of public opinion."

Yoon Sanghyun, a member of the People Power Party who earned his Ph.D. in political science from George Washington University in the United States, is a prominent politician who has consistently voiced opinions on institutional improvements in Korean politics. Since his first election to the 18th National Assembly in 2008, he has been elected for five consecutive terms, each time presenting key political issues that both the ruling and opposition parties needed to address. In particular, he considers the National Assembly's personnel hearing system as a prime example in need of reform.

Yoon has experience in both the ruling and opposition parties. As a member of the ruling party’s leadership, he considered institutional improvements for personnel hearings, and as an opposition lawmaker, he researched what an ideal model for hearings should look like. Especially during the Park Geun-hye administration, he served as Secretary-General of the Saenuri Party and as Special Political Advisor to the Presidential Secretariat, which led him to consider the issue more deeply. This is why he has advocated for a dual-track system separating moral and competency vetting, and for the establishment of an independent body to evaluate hearings.

In an interview with Asia Economy at the National Assembly on June 16, Yoon proposed that, even under the Lee Jaemyung administration, the ruling and opposition parties should discuss personnel hearing reform in a bipartisan manner. His suggestion to seek alternatives for the future of Korean politics, setting aside partisan interests, is noteworthy. While the immediate focus is on correcting unqualified appointments in the early days of the new administration, he emphasized the need to reach a consensus on institutional improvements for the nation’s long-term future. The following is a Q&A with Yoon Sanghyun.

Yoon Sanghyun, a member of the People Power Party, is being interviewed by Asia Economy. Photo by Yoon Dongju

-You have participated in many personnel hearings. Which one stands out most in your memory?

▲The most memorable is Kim Jonghoon, the nominee for Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning, who was selected right after the Park Geun-hye administration took office. Kim was the head of Bell Labs, which produced 13 Nobel laureates, and was a key figure in the IT industry who had worked at Alcatel-Lucent, a major American telecommunications equipment company. However, during the personnel hearing, he was attacked over personal matters such as dual citizenship and voluntarily withdrew after two weeks. It is said that he tearfully told former President Park Geun-hye, "I could no longer bear it, seeing my wife and family cry and struggle every day." Although there were high expectations for his world-class capabilities, he ultimately could not overcome the obstacles of the hearing. When the personnel hearing fails to fulfill its role, it leads to talented individuals shunning public office.

-Why does skepticism about the effectiveness of personnel hearings persist?

▲Because hearings are being used as tools for political strife. Both the ruling and opposition parties conduct hearings based on their political interests, turning them from a venue for vetting personnel into a stage for scolding and humiliation. As a result, public trust in hearings has significantly declined.

-What is the biggest problem caused by personnel hearings failing to fulfill their role?

▲Talented individuals become reluctant to enter public service. There are many cases where people withdraw due to family opposition. In the past, even the Blue House’s personnel chief lamented, "There is no one who can pass the vetting." On the other hand, there are cases where appointments are pushed through despite the hearing failing to properly vet the candidate. When the moral flaws or incompetence of public officials are later revealed, public trust collapses and social conflict intensifies. Ultimately, this threatens trust in the entire public personnel system.

-You have proposed separating moral vetting from competency vetting and making moral vetting non-public. Why?

▲I still stand by that idea. The dual-track approach is a realistic compromise that protects talented individuals from excessive exposure of their private lives while satisfying the public's right to know and the need for vetting. Other advanced countries, including the United States, also handle much of the moral vetting in non-public settings. For this approach to work, there must be mechanisms to ensure the fairness and credibility of the non-public pre-vetting process. Transparent standards that the public can accept and the establishment of an independent vetting body should be discussed together.

More fundamentally, we need to change the very structure of our political system. Unless we change the adversarial symbiotic relationship between the ruling and opposition parties, we cannot solve personnel issues in public office. Rather than following party lines and targeting individuals for rejection, hearing committee members should act as independent constitutional bodies and make judgments according to their conscience. It is also important to create a political environment where free voting, independent of party positions, is possible.

-What should be the acceptable level of morality and integrity?

▲Looking at past personnel hearings, there is a tendency for excessive vetting that goes beyond common-sense moral judgment, such as condemning an entire past or expanding the scope to family issues. Such an approach risks sending the wrong message that only saints can become public officials. Assuming that thorough pre-vetting is conducted during the nomination process, the criteria should include whether there have been repeated illegal acts, whether there are potential conflicts of interest related to the job, and whether public service ethics have been seriously violated. If simple mistakes, old statements, or personal issues of family members are included in moral standards, this becomes a witch hunt rather than proper vetting.

Yoon Sanghyun, a member of the People Power Party, is being interviewed by Asia Economy. Photo by Yoon Dongju

-You have also suggested the need for institutional mechanisms to vet hearing committee members themselves.

▲There have been quite a few cases in the past where hearing committee members were embroiled in controversy over conflicts of interest or inappropriate remarks. It is unacceptable for the qualifications of hearing committee members themselves to become an issue during the vetting of public office candidates. Therefore, hearing committee members should also undergo some level of pre-vetting for morality and conflicts of interest. An independent and neutral vetting body should be established to evaluate and support the personnel hearing process itself. Through this, inappropriate remarks, scolding, humiliation, and insults should be eliminated from hearings. After the hearings, a system such as a "public evaluation system" (tentative name) could be introduced to allow the public to provide feedback on the hearing process itself.

-Despite the formation of a personnel hearing system task force in the National Assembly and the repeated introduction of amendments to the Personnel Hearing Act, these efforts have not materialized. Why?

▲When in opposition, parties use personnel hearings as a tool for political attacks. Conversely, when in power, they use the system as a shield. The structural duality of the political sphere has hampered reform. The National Assembly has repeatedly paid lip service to reform, only to go through the motions depending on political advantage. Ultimately, improving the hearing system is not a matter for just one side, but requires a political decision that transcends party lines. Personnel hearings are the final gateway for appointing national talent and a transparent process before the public. Therefore, bipartisan reform is essential to restore public trust.

-When is the right time to reform the personnel hearing system?

▲The best time is when you think it is already too late. For now, we must rectify the incompetence, bias, and unqualified appointments revealed during the Lee Jaemyung administration’s personnel process. It must be made clear that the ruling party’s attitude of covering up and pushing through appointments that do not meet public expectations is an obstacle to reform. The People Power Party will thoroughly monitor the personnel failures of the Lee Jaemyung administration but will also actively participate in discussions to improve the hearing system.

-Parachute and last-minute appointments at public enterprises are also problematic.

▲Institutional measures such as increasing the transparency of public institution head selection procedures and introducing a post-appointment evaluation system at the National Assembly level are needed. Specifically, the nomination and selection process and criteria for candidates should be made public, and the proportion of experts involved in the selection should be increased. Additionally, after a certain period following appointment, performance should be evaluated and, if issues are found, follow-up measures should be possible.

Yoon Sanghyun, a member of the People Power Party, is being interviewed by Asia Economy. Photo by Yoon Dongju

<Who is Yoon Sanghyun of the People Power Party?>

"Before wielding the rod, the hand that holds it must not be ashamed."
In 2014, when he was Secretary-General of the Saenuri Party under the Park Geun-hye administration, Yoon Sanghyun proposed a dual-track personnel hearing system and argued for the creation of a mechanism to vet hearing committee members. He criticized not only the hearing candidates but also the National Assembly, which operates the hearings, for needing to examine its own responsibility and dignity. For over a decade, he has sincerely advocated for changes in the personnel hearing system and the National Assembly.
Born in Cheongyang, South Chungcheong Province in 1962, he graduated from Seoul National University with a degree in economics. He earned a master's degree in international relations from Georgetown University and a Ph.D. in international politics from George Washington University in the United States.
He entered politics during the 2002 presidential election as a policy advisor to Lee Hoi-chang, the Grand National Party candidate. In the 2004 17th general election, he ran for the National Assembly seat representing Nam-gu Eul in Incheon (now Dong-gu Michuhol-gu Eul) but was defeated. However, since the 18th general election in 2008, he has been elected five consecutive times in the same constituency. Even when he ran as an independent in the 20th and 21st general elections due to internal party conflicts, he managed to retain his seat. At that time, he achieved a pledge fulfillment rate of 89.6% in his constituency, earning strong local support. In the 22nd general election, he was elected as a member of the People Power Party, becoming the only one in the party to win five consecutive terms in the same metropolitan area constituency.
During the 18th presidential election, he served as head of public relations and chief of staff for Park Geun-hye’s Saenuri Party campaign, rising as a key “pro-Park” figure. After the election, he served as the party’s chief deputy floor leader, supporting the Park Geun-hye administration. At the time, he was known as the “King Chief” due to his influence as a core pro-Park member.
Although he did not hesitate to voice criticism under the Yoon Sukyeol administration, he emerged as a key pro-Yoon figure during the presidential impeachment crisis. As a mainstream party member and a senior multi-term lawmaker in the metropolitan area, he is consistently mentioned as a candidate for future party leadership.