[fn Square] A Hearing Without Witnesses or Other Testifiers: What Was Actually Examined?

This week is confirmation-hearing season. The most closely watched hearing is that of lawmaker Kim Seung-won, the nominee for minister of justice. Yet there were no witnesses or other invited testifiers at Kim's hearing. Of course, this was not the first hearing to be held without witnesses or other testifiers. According to the National Assembly's records system, 66 confirmation hearings were held under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, excluding nominees related to the judiciary and the National Election Commission. Witnesses or other invited testifiers appeared at 24 of them. Since the Lee Jae Myung administration took office, 38 confirmation hearings have been held, excluding nominees related to the judiciary and the National Election Commission, but witnesses or other invited testifiers appeared at only 10. In percentage terms, witnesses or other testifiers appeared at 36% of all hearings under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, compared with just 26% since the Lee Jae Myung administration began. These figures show that hearings without witnesses or other testifiers were not uncommon under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, but the trend has become even more pronounced under the Lee Jae Myung administration. When hearings are conducted as a mere formality, they cannot fulfill their original purpose.
When the appointment of lawmaker Yong Hye-in also became controversial following Kim Seung-won's nomination, a Cheong Wa Dae official said on September 7, "My understanding is that the confirmation hearing system itself is a process of public scrutiny of nominees." That is correct. Moreover, the more a nominee attracts public attention and faces strong public opposition to his suitability for ministerial office, as Kim does, the more thorough the confirmation hearing must be. According to a regular poll released by the Gallup Korea Research Institute on September 11, which conducted telephone interviews with 1,000 people aged 18 or older nationwide from September 8 to 10, the response rate was 22% for Kim being 'suitable' as minister of justice and 43% for him being 'unsuitable.' The margin of sampling error was ±3.1 percentage points at a 95% confidence level. Further details are available on the website of the Central Election Poll Deliberation Commission. When negative public sentiment so clearly outweighs positive assessments, the nominee should face a genuine confirmation hearing and receive an accurate public 'judgment.' That is the only way to prevent a public backlash over the appointment. Preventing such a backlash means that forcing through a ministerial nomination against public opinion could instead intensify public resentment toward those in power. If the president's approval rating is falling rapidly, as it is now, the backlash could be even stronger. The government must therefore hold a hearing worthy of the name first, listen carefully to public opinion, and make a common-sense decision accordingly. The presence of witnesses and other testifiers is essential to that process.
The United States, regarded as the model for confirmation hearings, offers a clear example. It is not unusual there to summon large numbers of witnesses and other testifiers. A prime example is the 1991 confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, at which around 90 other testifiers appeared. They included everyone from Thomas's middle-school homeroom teacher to his university mentors, and they presented arguments for and against his qualifications and achievements. What is particularly noteworthy is that all 90 or so appeared without exception. Another important point is that in the United States, vetting a candidate before nominating that person to a major public office takes an average of about 290 days. That 290-day period includes the president's consultations with the leaders of each political party and congressional leaders regarding the candidate the president intends to nominate. The United States thus makes nominations only after extensive vetting and consultation, and then holds confirmation hearings with a substantial number of witnesses and other testifiers. By contrast, if South Korea holds hearings without witnesses or other testifiers even after being criticized for inadequate vetting, and ignores public opinion, the consequences are bound to be serious.
The Lee Jae Myung administration probably sought to consolidate support among people in their 20s and 30s and women by nominating lawmaker Yong Hye-in as a minister, while strengthening its backing among the pro-Lee Jae Myung camp and hard-line supporters advocating prosecution reform by nominating lawmaker Kim Seung-won as its candidate for minister of justice. But it is becoming clear that this was a self-serving attempt to overcome the situation, based on an arbitrary interpretation of events. The controversy surrounding Yong has intensified negative sentiment toward the administration among people in their 20s and 30s, while conservatives and centrists have developed an even more negative view of the current administration because of the issue involving Kim.
President Lee Jae Myung and others at the center of power are likely deeply concerned by the administration's steadily falling approval ratings. It is precisely at times like this that they must examine public opinion closely and respond accordingly.
Shin Yul, a professor in the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Myongji University