Home > Opinion > Columns

Fixing the many gaps in the confirmation hearing system

Published: 30 Jan. 2026, 00:04

Sohn Byoung-kwon

The author is a professor of political science and international relations at Chung-Ang University.

Lee Hye-hoon, a former lawmaker from the People Power Party (PPP) who was nominated as the Lee Jae Myung administration’s first minister of the Ministry of Budget, saw her nomination withdrawn after a confirmation hearing. A National Assembly drama marked by shock, disappointment and anger came to an end after 28 days. President Lee’s attempt to appoint a three-term opposition lawmaker to lead a newly-established government ministry, under the banner of unity, balance and pragmatism, collapsed amid allegations involving abuse of staff, irregular housing subscription practices and preferential university admissions for a child.

Lee Hye-hoon, nominee for minister of the Ministry of Budget, greets lawmakers after taking the oath at a confirmation hearing of the National Assembly’s Planning and Finance Committee during the 431st extraordinary session at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on Jan. 23. [NEWS1]

The disruption of the hearing process exposed not only questions about the nominee’s qualifications but also serious problems related to the submission of materials. On the day her nomination was announced, the PPP launched fierce attacks, calling her a “collaborator with the current administration” and labeling the nomination “the worst act of betrayal,” before immediately expelling her from the party. The party also declared a boycott of the confirmation hearing, citing the failure to submit key documents. Although the nominee later provided some additional materials and public opinion pressed that she be given an opportunity to explain herself, a hearing was convened on Jan. 23. Even then, suspicions were not resolved but instead intensified, leading to the withdrawal of the nomination.

Public outrage over the dysfunctional confirmation hearing was not limited to this nominee alone. Candidates repeatedly dodged questions by claiming they could not remember and refused to submit materials on the grounds of personal privacy, displaying a familiar pattern of evasive behavior.

The stale structure of hearings also persists, with opposition parties focusing on undermining a nominee’s moral character while the ruling party closes ranks to defend its own. Presidents have repeatedly displayed unilateral behavior by clinging to their appointment powers despite angry public opinion, a pattern that has continued since the confirmation hearing system was introduced in June 2000. Many nominees have responded by effectively “blocking their ears and holding out for a few days,” ultimately assuming office without the adoption of a hearing report. This has fueled growing doubts about whether such hearings are necessary at all, and even calls into question their usefulness.

Yet in a presidential system that professes separation of powers and checks and balances, and in a country where demands for constitutional revision have arisen to curb the excesses of an imperial presidency, there is no reason to dismiss confirmation hearings outright. Just as the achievement of vertical democratization through direct presidential elections was important, the institutionalization of horizontal democratization through checks and balances between the National Assembly and the president is indispensable to a mature democracy.

The practical task, then, is to find ways for the National Assembly to exercise more effective oversight of presidential appointment powers while also identifying capable public officials who possess both expertise and integrity. Meeting these two requirements simultaneously is not easy.

This latest hearing suggests areas for improvement, particularly regarding document submission and ethical scrutiny. To meaningfully compel the submission of materials, the Confirmation Hearing Act should be revised to clearly mandate such obligations. While appropriately protecting the private lives of nominees and their families, the scope of required materials should be expanded beyond the current limits.

Kang Sun-woo, nominee for minister of gender equality and family, responds to parliamentary questioning at her confirmation hearing held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on July 14, 2025. [NEWS1]

Under Article 5, Clause 1 of the current act, nominees must submit supporting documents in five areas: occupation; education and career history; military service; asset declarations and tax payments; and criminal records. In many cases, this information is limited to the nominee alone. However, strict verification of a nominee’s integrity, ethics and law-abiding behavior often requires information across a broader range of areas, including real estate transactions, tax payments and asset accumulation processes, involving not only the nominee but also spouses, children and parents. If information essential to verification cannot be provided due to privacy concerns, the National Assembly’s ability to conduct effective moral scrutiny is weakened. The ruling and opposition parties should therefore revise the law to mandate broader submission of materials when deemed necessary for ethical verification.

At the same time, there is a need to consider a dual-track hearing system, given concerns that excessive invasions of privacy could discourage qualified individuals from entering public service, resulting in a loss for the state. One option is to conduct ethical evaluations behind closed doors while holding public hearings on expertise and competence. Article 14, Clause 2 of the current law already allows hearings to be closed by committee resolution when there is a clear risk of unjustly infringing on personal reputation or privacy. If necessary, legal grounds could be strengthened to ensure that nominees and their families fully submit relevant materials during closed-door ethical hearings.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.