During the national audit, while lawmakers prepare the questions, they cannot control the outcome of those inquiries. Questions intended to challenge can sometimes reveal the strengths of the respondent. Such moments occurred multiple times during the national audits of the Seoul Metropolitan Government held by the National Assembly's Administrative Safety Committee and the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee on October 15 and 19.
Members of the ruling Democratic Party and other lawmakers launched aggressive inquiries regarding housing supply, real estate prices, and allegations of corruption related to the Han River Bus project. These are legitimate issues that need to be addressed, as they involve taxpayer money and citizens' lives. However, the depth of the arguments presented did not always match the intensity of the questioning.
Democratic Party lawmaker Jang Jong-tae compared housing completion rates before and after Oh Se-hoon's tenure, questioning the disparity between Gangnam and non-Gangnam areas. He pointed out that while housing in Gangnam has increased, it has decreased in other regions. The statistics were striking, but without context regarding the policies that led to these figures, the accountability could shift.
Mayor Oh seized on this gap in the questioning. He explained that redevelopment and reconstruction projects take a long time from designation to completion, and decisions made by previous administrations can affect the supply figures of subsequent mayors. He argued that the removal of maintenance zones during former Mayor Park Won-soon’s administration impacted supply in non-Gangnam areas. Oh stated that he is currently in the process of cultivating new land and planting seeds for future supply.
This explanation does not fully clarify the reasons behind Seoul's housing supply shortage. The performance of permits and project delays during the current term must also be scrutinized. However, it became evident that evaluating redevelopment projects cannot be reduced to a simple calculation of 'the houses completed now reflect the current administration's performance.' As the questioning side failed to adequately explain the timeline of policies, the responding side was able to provide that context.
A similar dynamic emerged in the debate over the Han River Bus project. In response to criticism that commuter usage has fallen short of expectations, Mayor Oh countered that commuting and public transportation cannot be viewed as synonymous. He explained that taking the subway to visit parks also counts as public transportation. He emphasized that the project serves both transportation and tourism/leisure functions.
Of course, this explanation does not address whether the initially promised transportation benefits have been achieved. A separate assessment is needed to determine how well commuter demand has been met and whether the outcomes justify the costs incurred. However, critics must also examine the various functions of the project before presenting evidence of failure. Narrowing the concept and rushing to conclusions opens the door for rebuttal.
The debate over shipbuilding costs and brokerage fees required a more stringent distinction. The fact that fees were paid, whether those payments were appropriate, and the allegations of money flowing to public officials are all issues that need to be substantiated. Mayor Oh delved into these distinctions. The more allegations are treated as confirmed corruption, the more the actual flow of funds gets overshadowed by the argument.
That said, the explanations provided by the Seoul City government should not be taken as the final word. It is essential to verify whether the timing of audits and investigations was appropriate and whether there were any gaps in contract and cost management. Questions regarding the changes in repayment conditions for loans from the Seoul Housing Corporation and the conversion to subordinate debt also raised significant concerns about the financial risks of public institutions.
There were positive moments during the national audit as well. Progressive Party lawmaker Yoon Jong-oh raised issues regarding wage payments and cost estimation at construction sites, to which Mayor Oh responded by correcting some factual inaccuracies while acknowledging, "It is a valid point." When questions are specific, responses tend to be more detailed. The national audit should leave behind a promise for such improvements.
While covering the Seoul City government, one notable aspect is how well the mayor explains his policies in his own words. Reading prepared statements differs from understanding the structure of policies and responding to counterarguments. During this national audit, Mayor Oh demonstrated strengths in explaining the time lag in supply, the profit structure of projects, and the differences between allegations and confirmed facts.
However, this capability does not guarantee the success of all policies or the accuracy of all judgments. Honesty should also be evaluated based on the consistency between words and actions, not just eloquent responses. Therefore, more precise questioning is needed in the National Assembly, and the Seoul City government must provide more transparent data.
The paradox of this national audit lies here. Questions aimed at attacking Oh Se-hoon sometimes provided him with opportunities to explain his policies. A louder voice does not necessarily lead to sharper questions. When one listens to the responses fully and follows up on points that remain unresolved, the questions gain real strength. What citizens will be waiting for in the next national audit is not louder outbursts but that one follow-up question.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.