The National Assembly's confirmation hearing for Kim Seung-won, the nominee for Minister of Justice, is set for September 15. However, not a single witness or reference person has been selected to verify the allegations against him. As it stands, the hearing is likely to consist solely of questions directed at the nominee and his responses.
The issues at hand are serious, including allegations of soliciting approval for clinical trials of a COVID-19 treatment, which could directly impact public health. There are also claims of potential pressure on investigations related to his deferred prosecution.
A confirmation hearing is not merely a platform for the nominee to provide explanations; it serves as a critical evaluation by the National Assembly on whether the nominee is fit for high office on behalf of the public. At the very least, individuals such as broker Yang and pharmaceutical company representative Kang, as well as former Food and Drug Safety Minister Kim Kang-rip, should be present. The absence of witnesses indicates a refusal to conduct proper verification, turning the hearing into a mere 'explanation session.'
Moreover, the nominee is set to lead the Ministry of Justice, an institution whose very name embodies justice. Higher standards are expected of him compared to other cabinet members. With fundamental changes to the criminal and judicial system scheduled for October, a Minister of Justice who has lost public trust will be unable to fulfill his duties effectively.
Compounding the situation is the current state of the Lee Jae-myung administration. After over a year in office, the administration's approval rating, which once exceeded 60%, has plummeted to the 30% range, with disapproval ratings nearly double that of approval. A recent Realmeter-Energy Economy Newspaper survey indicated that support among residents of Seoul and those in their 30s has dropped to the 20% range. Analysts attribute this decline to controversies surrounding the reversal of real estate tax reforms and allegations of favoritism and dropped charges against cabinet nominees. The government and ruling party must discern whether the signal from the public is to 'conduct more thorough verification' or to 'push through appointments.' The answer is clear.
When presidential approval ratings fall to the 20% range, the momentum for advancing national policies diminishes, and even ruling party lawmakers begin to prioritize their own political survival over the president's agenda. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as a 'lame duck' situation. A lame duck does not emerge suddenly; it develops gradually as the public loses trust in the president's judgment, the ruling party becomes hesitant about the president's choices, and the public service sector begins to look toward the next administration. One of the starting points for this decline is always 'appointments.'
Believing that blocking witnesses will protect the nominee is a dangerous political delusion. Just because allegations are not addressed during the hearing does not mean they will disappear. History has shown that if additional allegations arise through investigations or media scrutiny after the nominee's appointment, it can be detrimental not only to the individual involved but also to the president and the government.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.