Editorial Confirmation Hearings Must Move Beyond 'Political Mud-Slinging' to 'Competency Verification'

Public sentiment toward the "confirmation hearing super week" taking place this week remains cold. The National Assembly will hold consecutive confirmation hearings starting on the 15th with deputy prime minister and finance and economy minister nominee Lee Hyung-il, justice minister nominee Kim Seung-won, and small and medium-sized venture business minister nominee Lee So-young, followed on the 16th by defense minister nominee Kang Shin-chul and land, infrastructure and transport minister nominee Hong Ji-sun. These are core government officials who must steer the nation's course amid soaring inflation and high interest rates burdening the people's livelihoods, and in the face of rapidly changing security and economic landscapes.

The verification of high-ranking public officials is a critical process that determines the direction of national policy and the lives of citizens. When the confirmation hearing system was first introduced in 2000, public expectations were clear: to end the evils of backroom personnel appointments and transparently verify the policy philosophies and governing capabilities of public office candidates.

'Policy interviews' have disappeared and only mud-slinging exposés abound

Yet over the past two decades, confirmation hearings have not been venues for debating national governance visions. Under the guise of personnel verification, only indiscriminate personal attacks and sensational exposés have flourished. As citizens who believe in representative democracy and have cast precious votes, there is nothing left but to feel deep disappointment beyond mere embarrassment.

Important policy verification takes a backseat, and if confirmation hearings concentrate only on candidates' past remarks, activities, and personal allegations unrelated to their duties, this will only entrench the phenomenon of "talent shortage" in which capable experts with aspirations for public service shy away from candidacy out of fear of personal humiliation.

The root cause of this vicious cycle lies in the structural limitation of simultaneously addressing morality verification and policy verification in a single venue. Once personal scandals that easily capture public attention spread, discussion of the policy competence needed for the relevant position is buried in an instant. When added to the extreme partisan confrontation and political feuding between the ruling and opposition parties, confirmation hearings have degenerated into a mud-slinging battle over "ouster" or "retention."

A dual structure separating morality and policy verification is urgently needed

Major countries abroad have erected institutional safeguards to prevent such abuses. In the United States, before candidates appear at public confirmation hearings, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Office of Government Ethics (OGE) conduct thorough preliminary background checks.

Personal morality and financial matters are first addressed through non-public reviews by Senate standing committees, while public hearings focus on verifying governing philosophy and policy competence. Parliamentary countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany likewise continuously assess candidates' policy implementation capabilities through rigorous screening verification within parties and regular standing committee activities in parliament.

Our confirmation hearing system must also change its framework. The most urgent task is "dualizing confirmation hearings (closed morality verification + public policy verification)." The candidate's personal background and morality issues should be handled impartially and confidentially by a subcommittee to first filter out grounds for disqualification.

The main hearing that is fully public should be restructured to address only job performance capabilities and governing vision. Simultaneously, the presidential office's preliminary verification system must be codified and strengthened to clearly assign responsibility for inadequate verification.

If old habits repeat, the National Assembly itself will face scrutiny of its qualifications

This confirmation hearing more than any other must abandon wasteful political personal attacks and return to the original legitimate approach of discerning the policy philosophy and job competence to resolve national challenges as leaders of each ministry. If the same old habits of shouting and personal attacks are repeated once more, it will merely expose not the candidates' but the questioning committee members' own lack of qualifications before the public.

If the National Assembly fails to shed its old ways, it must keep in mind that only intensifying public anger and fundamental demands for political reform regarding the entire political sector's lack of qualifications and backwardness will result.