Election commissions' absurd nepotistic hiring practices
Published: 28 Feb. 2025, 00:00
A recent audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI) into the hiring practices of the National Election Commission (NEC) and its provincial offices over the past decade has revealed a shocking reality. From high-ranking officials to mid-level managers, NEC officials frequently lobbied recruitment officers to hire their family members. A prime example is former NEC Secretary General Kim Se-hwan, who exerted influence to have his son hired as a level 8 civil servant at the Ganghwa County election commission in Incheon. Likewise, former NEC Deputy Secretary General Song Bong-seop asked for his daughter to be hired as a career civil servant at the Danyang County election commission in North Chungcheong. The BAI found 878 violations of hiring regulations and procedures, and it has demanded disciplinary action, including severe penalties, for 32 NEC officials.
Personnel officers at the NEC facilitated these illicit requests through unlawful and underhanded means. They preselected NEC employees’ children without even posting official job openings and formed interview panels composed of personnel they knew well. In some cases, they even tampered with interview scores. These absurd practices directly disadvantaged general applicants who lost opportunities due to these corrupt hiring processes.
The audit also uncovered that the NEC had knowingly turned a blind eye to these preferential hires. One NEC personnel officer, despite being aware that the children of high-ranking officials were being hired during a large-scale recruitment drive ahead of the 2022 presidential and local elections, took no action. Even when a whistle-blower reported that a regional election commission director’s child had been hired under suspicious circumstances, the NEC closed the internal audit without thorough verification. The extent of corruption was so normalized that, during the BAI investigation, some involved individuals even remarked that the NEC had a “tradition of hiring relatives in career positions to ensure trustworthy employees” or that the NEC functioned like a “family business.”
As the BAI audit progressed, those involved in hiring irregularities attempted to destroy evidence and cover up the truth. When the National Assembly requested data on NEC employees’ family connections, the NEC falsely claimed that it did not maintain such records — an assertion later exposed as untrue by the BAI investigation. Since its establishment in 1963, the NEC had never undergone a BAI audit until 2023, when nepotism scandals sparked public outrage, prompting the agency to permit an investigation limited to its hiring practices.
Despite these findings, the Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that the BAI’s audit of the NEC constituted an overreach of authority. The court’s reasoning was that, as an independent constitutional body, the NEC is not subject to oversight from the BAI, which is part of the executive branch. It argued that allowing the presidentially affiliated BAI to audit the NEC could compromise public trust in the neutrality and fairness of election management. However, without the BAI’s large-scale audit, would the full extent of the NEC’s deep-rooted hiring corruption ever have been exposed? The ruling raises an urgent question: How should independent constitutional agencies be monitored to prevent unchecked abuses of power?
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
Personnel officers at the NEC facilitated these illicit requests through unlawful and underhanded means. They preselected NEC employees’ children without even posting official job openings and formed interview panels composed of personnel they knew well. In some cases, they even tampered with interview scores. These absurd practices directly disadvantaged general applicants who lost opportunities due to these corrupt hiring processes.
The audit also uncovered that the NEC had knowingly turned a blind eye to these preferential hires. One NEC personnel officer, despite being aware that the children of high-ranking officials were being hired during a large-scale recruitment drive ahead of the 2022 presidential and local elections, took no action. Even when a whistle-blower reported that a regional election commission director’s child had been hired under suspicious circumstances, the NEC closed the internal audit without thorough verification. The extent of corruption was so normalized that, during the BAI investigation, some involved individuals even remarked that the NEC had a “tradition of hiring relatives in career positions to ensure trustworthy employees” or that the NEC functioned like a “family business.”
As the BAI audit progressed, those involved in hiring irregularities attempted to destroy evidence and cover up the truth. When the National Assembly requested data on NEC employees’ family connections, the NEC falsely claimed that it did not maintain such records — an assertion later exposed as untrue by the BAI investigation. Since its establishment in 1963, the NEC had never undergone a BAI audit until 2023, when nepotism scandals sparked public outrage, prompting the agency to permit an investigation limited to its hiring practices.
Despite these findings, the Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that the BAI’s audit of the NEC constituted an overreach of authority. The court’s reasoning was that, as an independent constitutional body, the NEC is not subject to oversight from the BAI, which is part of the executive branch. It argued that allowing the presidentially affiliated BAI to audit the NEC could compromise public trust in the neutrality and fairness of election management. However, without the BAI’s large-scale audit, would the full extent of the NEC’s deep-rooted hiring corruption ever have been exposed? The ruling raises an urgent question: How should independent constitutional agencies be monitored to prevent unchecked abuses of power?
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)