Unfit and unchecked: Do we really need confirmation hearings like this?

Rep. Kang Sun-woo of the Democratic Party of Korea, nominee for minister of gender equality and family, is seen during a confirmation hearing held at the National Assembly on Monday. Yonhap

The confirmation hearing for Gender Equality and Family Minister nominee Kang Sun-woo on Monday turned into a tense political showdown, with lawmakers fiercely divided between defending and attacking the nominee. Kang, a sitting lawmaker from the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), remained composed throughout the contentious session, denying most of the allegations against her.

The hearing was heated from the outset. Dozens of legislative aides staged a protest outside the National Assembly hearing room, demanding Kang withdraw her nomination. Holding signs featuring a disparaging acrostic poem using Kang’s name, the protesters accused her of abusing power and treating her aides like personal servants. “Shame on you,” one shouted as Kang approached the room. Unfazed, Kang, escorted by Assembly staff, entered the room without reacting.

Inside, the atmosphere was hostile. Lawmakers grilled Kang over her alleged mistreatment of staff and failure to submit requested documents. In the media, she has been portrayed as a self-serving bully, with accusations of sending abusive text messages to her aides nearly every 10 minutes. One former aide claimed that shouting and profanity were commonplace, and that Kang once asked a staffer to check a toilet flush at her home — suggesting she saw her aides as personal help rather than public employees.

DPK lawmakers sought to shield Kang and ensure she completed the hearing process, paving the way for President Lee Jae Myung to appoint her as scheduled. Meanwhile, the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) voiced strong objections, arguing she was unfit for the role.

“You’re a hypocrite,” PPP Rep. Suh Bum-soo said. “You’re harsh on the underprivileged while currying favor with powerful figures like President Lee, hoping to land a plum position. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Affairs was created to serve vulnerable people. How can someone who looks down on them represent their interests?”

DPK lawmakers came to Kang’s defense. Rep. Baek Seung-a even praised her writing skills. “I liked the statement you read on the day of your nomination. Did you write it yourself?” Baek asked. Kang responded with a satisfied smile, confirming that she had written it.

Watching the confirmation hearing, which was streamed live on YouTube, I felt a wave of embarrassment and frustration. I had hot flashes. How could writing style possibly be considered a valid criterion for determining whether someone is fit for a Cabinet-level position?

It was obvious that Baek was trying to shield her fellow lawmaker from scrutiny. But even in doing so, a lawmaker is expected to defend a nominee by presenting relevant qualifications and accomplishments. Instead, Baek’s off-topic question about Kang’s writing made me wonder whether she understood the seriousness of her role. It seemed she had no grasp of what she was doing.

What disturbed me further was the behavior of certain lawmakers who appeared ignorant and disruptive. Without making any serious attempt to verify the allegations, they simply dismissed all critical media reports as fake news or baseless attacks. They refused to acknowledge any of the ethical concerns surrounding Kang and focused solely on defending her. As members of the National Assembly, their duty is to rigorously scrutinize the nominee’s background and qualifications, but they failed to fulfill that role. They did not act as true representatives of the people.

Politicians are inherently political — every move they make is calculated. To understand their actions during this hearing, one must consider what drives them. Few dared to challenge President Lee’s nomination because doing so might jeopardize their own political careers. Their silence was due to not lack of evidence but a lack of courage.

The confirmation hearing system was introduced in 2000 as a parliamentary tool to assess whether nominees are truly qualified for their positions. Lawmakers are expected to examine each nominee’s professional credentials, ethical standards and past conduct. Over the last 25 years, some nominees have withdrawn voluntarily or were forced to step down after troubling aspects of their pasts were uncovered during the hearings. The reasons for their downfall varied, but the process held meaning.

In recent years, however, these nonbinding confirmation hearings have increasingly become symbolic rituals with no real consequences. Presidents have gone ahead with appointments, ignoring serious allegations and public outcry. The hearings have become rubber stamps rather than a check on executive power.

Confirmation hearings are meant to serve as a crucial democratic safeguard — one of the few mechanisms the legislature has to rein in questionable presidential decisions. If that system fails, democracy itself is at risk. The president must respect the role of the National Assembly, and lawmakers must, in turn, carry out their responsibilities with integrity and diligence.