Although people realize the necessity of parliamentary confirmations for cabinet nominees, they frown upon the process. The reason is obvious. Instead of examining a person’s abilities and qualifications, the hearing committee members tend to viciously bring forth all sorts of allegations and suspicions. During the process, they brutally expose all of the past mistakes and misdeeds of the nominee, thereby turning the supposedly solemn hearing into a scandal-rousing session. 

Everybody has a skeleton in their closet. Yet our nation’s parliamentary hearings often go too far and as a result, indiscriminately expose all the minute details of people’s confidential matters. By doing so, the hearing committee maliciously insults the integrity and dignity of the persons sitting before them, treating them as if they are criminals. Not only the nominees, but their entire family, and sometimes even their in-laws are humiliated and disgraced in public.

Thus people call the parliamentary hearings an “expressway to the ruin of your family’s reputation.” The televised hearings seem more like a brutal hunting game between a pack of ferocious predators and a helpless prey.

Even before a hearing begins, our media busily uncovers all the dark secrets of a nominee’s past. While reading the sensational, muckraking exposures about the person in the newspaper, people feel resentment against the “alleged” corruption of the person in question. And while watching the fall of the unfortunate soul, they seem to feel sadistic pleasure. Sometimes, the allegations turn out to be untrue, and flaws vastly exaggerated. Yet people still tend to believe whatever the press has “exposed” regardless of its credibility. The problem is that even if the allegations and accusations turn out to be false, the damage has already been done.

Who, then, can stand against the severe ordeal called the parliamentary hearing, and who can possibly pass the inquisition? And who would be willing to become a cabinet member at the cost of his reputation and the dignity of his family? Indeed, only few people could and would. The current hearing system will surely intimidate and drive away many able, competent nominees and as a result, perhaps only incompetent moralists or power-seekers will be willing to take the risk and able to pass the hearing.

In other countries, the parliamentary hearing is not as problematic as ours. In the United States, for example, sufficient preliminary investigations are done before the Congressional hearing. Prior to the hearing, the government gathers all necessary information about the candidate by extensively inquiring with his workplace and his acquaintances. If the person has a serious flaw, he does not move up to a Congressional hearing. At the Congressional hearing, therefore, the examiners can focus on the examinee’s abilities and competence.

When it comes to the secretary of state or defense, the nominee is asked about his stance, perception, and strategies for say, North Korea’s nuclear weapons, instead of the money or real estate he has clandestinely stashed away. Once, I had firsthand experience of a similar procedure when an American friend of mine applied for a position at the CIA. Immediately, two CIA agents approached my colleagues and me to conduct an extensive inquiry of the friend. The information they gathered never went to the press.

We have always been disappointed in cabinet nominees at their hearings. Their dark, secret histories reveal all kinds of crimes and misdemeanors committed in the past, such as embezzlement, tax evasion, military duty avoidance or illegal real estate investment, to name but a few. Nevertheless, the current parliamentary confirmation hearing should be radically altered so the National Assembly can primarily examine the man’s capabilities and aptitude as a leader.

Of course, a parliamentary hearing for public servants should be rigorous. It would be a problem, however, if no one can pass the hearing except a saint. We want our politicians to be flawless, incorruptible and morally upright people of integrity. Nevertheless, a morally superior person is not necessarily going to be a competent administrator or politician.

Sometimes, parliamentary hearings successfully prevent inadequate men and women from entering into government service. Other times, however, they are exploited by the opposition as a lethal weapon to cripple the President’s cabinet. We may not like our President’s choice of cabinet members. As long as the designated officials are truly competent, however, we should give them a chance unless they have decisive defects. A carpenter does not throw away a board simply because it has a gnarl on it. He can still use it after cutting the defect out. Under the current hearing system, however, we may be throwing away all the good boards because of only minor defects.

After watching the prime minister designate withdraw from his nomination after the massive bombardment from the press, people seriously worry about the negative side effects of parliamentary hearings. Perhaps it is time to modify the hearings, so that the system can focus on verifying the designated official’s abilities and capabilities, instead of digging out his past mistakes. In order to run the country successfully, we need able public servants, not incompetent moralists.

By Kim Seong-kon

Kim Seong-kon is a professor of English at Seoul National University and president of the Literature Translation Institute of Korea. ― Ed.