[For Public Officials, Competency Verification Comes First] Experts in Unison: "It's Time to Reform the Confirmation Hearing System"

Dual-track Reform for Integrity and Competency Verification
Expansion of Vetting Subjects and Normalization of Hearings
Clear Standards Needed for Integrity Screening

Editor's NoteUtilizing talent in the right place is directly linked to the success or failure of running a nation. The saying "Personnel is everything" did not come about by chance. The problem is that, even when there is a desire to appoint talented individuals, it is often difficult to do so. Even when someone is identified as a capable candidate and considered for an important role, it is common for the person to decline. The system established to vet public officials is not unrelated to the reality that it now acts as a barrier to appointing talented people. It is problematic when the vetting of private lives takes precedence over the assessment of capability. With the current confirmation hearing system, which focuses on scrutinizing not only the public official but also the private lives of their spouse and children, it is inevitably difficult to bring in talented individuals. We diagnose the problems of the confirmation hearing system, which recur every time a new administration is formed, and seek ways to improve it.

Lee Jongseok, nominee for the Director of the National Intelligence Service, is speaking at the confirmation hearing held by the National Assembly Intelligence Committee on June 19, 2025. Photo by Kim Hyunmin

"Is it really necessary to appoint only saints and sages to public office?"

This statement succinctly captures the core problem of the current National Assembly confirmation hearing system. Experts commonly point out that the current confirmation hearing system is an obstacle to appointing talented individuals. The main reason is that the standards for vetting have strayed far from their original purpose. This is not to suggest that vetting for integrity should be neglected. However, the tendency to focus on finding even the smallest moral flaw or to dig into aspects of a candidate's private life that are unrelated to the essence of the role, without properly assessing their ability to perform key state duties, should be avoided.

"How many times have you been recommended as a candidate?"

This is a taboo question in the public sector. It is embarrassing for someone to be appointed as a minister of a particular department only to find out that others were offered the position before them. If the number is not just one or two, but more than ten, can a minister truly maintain their authority? This cannot be dismissed as mere rumor, as it is a reality experienced by past administrations.

It is not desirable for the country if those whom the appointing authority truly wants to bring in continue to decline, and those further down the list end up taking the position. Improving the confirmation hearing system is not just a concern for a particular administration or political camp, but an area where all sides must come together to find solutions.

It is noteworthy that the need to improve the confirmation hearing system was raised during the meeting between President Lee Jae Myung and the ruling and opposition party leadership on June 22, 2025. In fact, during the reporting process, both ruling and opposition politicians and various experts emphasized the need for reform, stating, "Now is the time for change."

As Asia Economy concludes its special series, "For Public Officials, Competency Verification Comes First," we asked experts for their diagnoses and solutions regarding the current situation. The experts interviewed were Kim Cheolhyeon, Distinguished Professor at Kyungil University; Park Seongtae, Research Director at the Human and Society Research Institute; Lee Jaemook, Professor of Political Science and Diplomacy at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies; Lee Jonghun, Political Commentator; Cho Jinman, Professor of Political Science and Diplomacy at Duksung Women’s University; Choi Changryul, Distinguished Professor at Yongin University; and Ha Sangung, Professor of Political Science and Diplomacy at Sogang University.

The experts suggested the following solutions: separating integrity vetting from policy competency vetting (with non-public preliminary vetting followed by public professional vetting); expanding the scope of those subject to vetting; introducing a system for participation of experts and citizens recommended by both ruling and opposition parties; establishing clear standards to ease excessive integrity requirements; adopting a U.S.-style Senate voting system; building a talent pool database; and minimizing political strife through a gentleman’s agreement between ruling and opposition parties. Below are the experts' diagnoses and solutions regarding key issues.

President Lee Jae Myung is taking a commemorative photo with the ruling and opposition party leaders before lunch at the Hannam-dong residence on the 22nd. From the left, Song Eon Seok, floor leader of the People Power Party, Kim Yong Tae, emergency committee chairman, President Lee, and Kim Byung Ki, acting party leader and floor leader of the Democratic Party of Korea. Photo by Yonhap News

-What is the biggest problem with the current confirmation hearing system?

▲Ha Sangung: The focus of the hearing should be on ability, not just integrity. The standards for integrity have become so high that almost no one meets them anymore. Whether it was under the Moon Jae-in administration or the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, check how many people declined the ministerial position. I have heard that, in some cases, the process went down to the 18th candidate. The reason all 17 before declined was, "I don't want to go through the confirmation hearing." If that's the case, it would be better not to have the system at all.

▲Cho Jinman: The most important thing is thorough preliminary vetting of candidates. At the very least, no one should be caught off guard due to a lack of information. The presidential office should rigorously conduct preliminary vetting so that the president can make a fully informed political decision. If a candidate has minor moral flaws but is essential for the president and the country, the president can step forward and persuade the public. However, it is a problem when issues not uncovered during preliminary vetting are revealed during the confirmation hearing.

-Why has there been no progress in reforming the confirmation hearing system so far?

▲Kim Cheolhyeon: There have been consistent calls within the National Assembly to improve the confirmation hearing system, but every time the ruling and opposition parties change, they fail to agree on legislation, and the effort collapses. As a result, the opposition uses confirmation hearings as a tool to attack the government and the ruling party.

▲Lee Jaemook: The root of the problem is political strife caused by politicians themselves. As partisan conflict intensifies, each side tries to bring down the other. The attitude is, "We suffered, so now it's your turn." This makes it harder for anyone to be appointed. A gentleman’s agreement is needed. For example, the Democratic Party could make concessions on things like committee assignments, and the ruling party should be willing to yield more. The party in power must make greater concessions.

-What do you think about separating integrity vetting from policy competency vetting?

▲Choi Changryul: The confirmation hearing should focus on verifying the candidate's expertise and competency for the position, not their personal integrity. Instead, a system should be established to vet integrity and other suspicions privately. The same problems have persisted for over 20 years since the introduction of confirmation hearings because only private matters are discussed. Separating the vetting process is the answer, but I do not understand why it has not been implemented. A professional body should privately vet the candidate's integrity, and if any issues arise during this process, the candidate should be immediately eliminated. Only those who pass the preliminary vetting should be allowed to attend the hearing.

▲Lee Jaemook: Matters related to ethics or integrity should be handled privately, and the public confirmation hearing should focus on professional competency. Even if the media does not report on it, if there is a shortage of lawmakers, experts or other qualified individuals could participate in the vetting. The pool of people eligible to attend the hearing could be determined by recommendations from both ruling and opposition parties, including members of civil society or academia. If about 30 people, recommended by both sides, sit and assess the candidate, and they determine the person is not qualified for public office, then the process should end there, and the rest of the hearing can focus on professional competency and be made public.

▲Park Seongtae: There are limitations to separating integrity vetting from policy competency vetting. What exactly constitutes integrity vetting? If a family-related issue involves abuse of power, it is not just a family matter. Moreover, making integrity vetting private does not mean suspicions will be hidden; they will inevitably be made public through the media. Therefore, rather than making integrity vetting private, it is more important to emphasize the competency verification process.

President Lee Jae-myung is speaking at a luncheon meeting with the ruling and opposition party leadership held on the 22nd at the presidential residence in Hannam-dong, Seoul. From the bottom left clockwise: Kang Hoon-sik, Chief of Staff to the President; Kim Byung-gi, Acting Party Leader and Floor Leader of the Democratic Party; President Lee; Kim Yong-tae, Emergency Response Committee Chair of the People Power Party; Song Eon-seok, Floor Leader. Photo by Yonhap News

-Beyond separation, what other improvements are needed in the confirmation hearing system?

▲Ha Sangung: Our confirmation hearing system was copied from the United States, but not properly. In the U.S., the hearing is first held by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then all 100 senators vote on whether to approve the appointment. We do not have this second step. Even when the National Assembly issues a hearing report against an appointment, there have been many cases where the president unilaterally proceeds with the appointment anyway.

▲Lee Jonghun: Currently, confirmation hearings are held only occasionally for ministers, making them more of an event. The scope of vetting should be expanded. In the U.S., everyone at the level of director or above is subject to vetting. The scope should be broadened, but the actual confirmation hearings could remain for ministers or vice ministers. Hearings should become routine. If they are routine, they will become less of an event, and the focus on gossip and scandal will diminish. With more people to vet, it would be difficult to focus excessively on integrity or scandal. Right now, it seems the media and politicians focus on scandal just to make headlines or test public opinion.

-How important is it to set clear standards?

▲Park Seongtae: Setting clear standards is important. During the Moon Jae-in administration, there were standards such as "no drunk driving after a certain number of years" or "no plagiarism after a certain number of years." There must also be clear standards for distinguishing between real estate speculation and investment. If those making appointments follow these standards, the process becomes much easier. Excessively strict standards should not mean only saints and sages can hold public office.

▲Cho Jinman: The Korean public values justice and fairness. It is true that a much higher level of integrity is demanded from high-ranking public officials than from ordinary people. However, for some matters, there should be a "gentleman’s agreement" to set boundaries that both sides agree not to cross. Regardless of which party is in power, there should be explicit standards for issues that will not be subject to vetting, and both sides should adhere to them.

-How feasible is it to implement reforms at this point?

▲Ha Sangung: Someone has to do it, and the Democratic Party will not always hold the presidency. Is timing really that important? What matters is getting it done. If the People Power Party, currently the opposition, voices its opinion on the confirmation hearing reform bill led by the Democratic Party and comes to an agreement at a reasonable level, it will benefit them if they win the presidency in the future.

▲Kim Cheolhyeon: We must start improving the confirmation hearing system now. It is desirable to only allow suspicions to be raised within a verifiable, objective scope. The current ruling party sees the opposition raising various suspicions about candidates as an attempt to undermine the administration. However, since the Democratic Party and its allies hold two-thirds of the National Assembly seats, the Democratic Party should take the lead in publicizing the need for confirmation hearing reform. Through public debate, institutional improvements should be found.