|
|
 |
| Ruling party backtracks on confirmation hearings
|
| FEBRUARY 06, 2013 06:24 |
Ruling party backtracks on confirmation hearings
.
FEBRUARY 06, 2013 06:24.
.
At an April 2005 session of speeches by leaders of parliamentary negotiating blocs in a parliamentary plenary meeting, Park Geun-hye said, “How shocking that ranking civil servants have been embroiled in suspicions over real estate speculation.” She then pledged that her Grand National Party (now the ruling Saenuri Party) will seek revision to the Confirmation Hearing Act to expand the scope of ranking officials subject to disciplinary hearings. In July that year, the law was revised at the initiative of her party to expand the scope of posts subject to hearings to include all Cabinet members, Constitutional Court justices and National Election Commission staff. The party made as a pledge for the 2000 general elections confirmation hearings on the "four major" posts of National Intelligence Service director, prosecutor-general, National Police Agency chief and National Tax Service chairman. In the 16th National Assembly, the party put Prime Minister-nominee Lee Han-dong on the stand for confirmation hearings for the first time in the nation`s constitutional history. In 2002, the party also forced Jang Sang and Jang Dae-hwan to withdraw their nominations for the same post after allegations arose that that were implicated in real estate speculation.
Considering the situation of the ruling Saenuri Party in the course of recent confirmation hearings, people might wonder Saenuri is truly the successor to the Grand National Party. Saenuri Party Chairman Hwang Woo-yea said Monday, “Let’s examine the ethics of candidates after holding preliminary closed meetings and conducting a Q&A survey to ensure that the privacy of candidates won`t be overly exposed and violated.” He also seems to have said, “Unnecessary criticism to damage candidates that surfaced in the course of preparation for confirmation hearings should be stopped” considering problems with the confirmation of former Prime Minister-nominee Kim Yong-joon and Supreme Court chief justice candidate Lee Dong-heup.
It is hard to understand why Saenuri is blaming the confirmation hearing system for the problems that surfaced due to the non-transparent selection and verification process by President-elect Park Geun-hye and her practice of airtight confidentiality. When it was the main opposition party, it went all out to confirm the eligibility of candidates, with Park herself saying “Water at the surface of a pond is clean only when that in the bottom is clean.” So the party should stop trying to impose barriers to the people’s right to know by citing the rationale of “closed confirmations.” Is it a confirmation hearing if the party conducts it, and is it excessive interference of privacy if its rival does it? The outgoing Lee Myung-bak administration created a questionnaire of 200 questions for verification of potential candidates, including their wealth, compulsory military service and whether they fabricated their registration of residential address, which is designed to check their qualifications for ranking government posts. If candidates were nominated on the basis of this questionnaire, a fiasco such as Kim’s withdrawal as prime minister nominee would have been prevented.
At a session of speeches by leaders of parliamentary negotiating blocs on April 8, 2005, then party leader Park said, “We will seek revision of the Confirmation Hearing Act to expand government posts subject to parliamentary confirmation hearings and boost the efficiency of hearings.” When she recently said, “Certain irregularities (committed by nominees) were common practices in the past, and (opposition parties) seem to make judgments on matters from 40 years ago,” the Saenuri Party concurred by saying, “President-elect Park is right” to demonstrate its loyalty to her. The Rev. In Myung-jin, former chairman of the Grand National Party’s ethics committee, recently said, “It is an act of self-incompatibility for the Saenuri Party, which created the Confirmation Hearing Act, to question the system.” This graphically illustrates how self-contradictory the party is and how it needs to get enlightened.
 |
| At an April 2005 session of speeches by leaders of parliamentary negotiating blocs in a parliamentary plenary meeting, Park Geun-hye said, “How shocking that ranking civil servants have been embroiled in suspicions over real estate speculation.” She then pledged that her Grand National Party (now the ruling Saenuri Party) will seek revision to the Confirmation Hearing Act to expand the scope of ranking officials subject to disciplinary hearings. In July that year, the law was revised at the initiative of her party to expand the scope of posts subject to hearings to include all Cabinet members, Constitutional Court justices and National Election Commission staff. The party made as a pledge for the 2000 general elections confirmation hearings on the "four major" posts of National Intelligence Service director, prosecutor-general, National Police Agency chief and National Tax Service chairman. In the 16th National Assembly, the party put Prime Minister-nominee Lee Han-dong on the stand for confirmation hearings for the first time in the nation`s constitutional history. In 2002, the party also forced Jang Sang and Jang Dae-hwan to withdraw their nominations for the same post after allegations arose that that were implicated in real estate speculation.
Considering the situation of the ruling Saenuri Party in the course of recent confirmation hearings, people might wonder Saenuri is truly the successor to the Grand National Party. Saenuri Party Chairman Hwang Woo-yea said Monday, “Let’s examine the ethics of candidates after holding preliminary closed meetings and conducting a Q&A survey to ensure that the privacy of candidates won`t be overly exposed and violated.” He also seems to have said, “Unnecessary criticism to damage candidates that surfaced in the course of preparation for confirmation hearings should be stopped” considering problems with the confirmation of former Prime Minister-nominee Kim Yong-joon and Supreme Court chief justice candidate Lee Dong-heup.
It is hard to understand why Saenuri is blaming the confirmation hearing system for the problems that surfaced due to the non-transparent selection and verification process by President-elect Park Geun-hye and her practice of airtight confidentiality. When it was the main opposition party, it went all out to confirm the eligibility of candidates, with Park herself saying “Water at the surface of a pond is clean only when that in the bottom is clean.” So the party should stop trying to impose barriers to the people’s right to know by citing the rationale of “closed confirmations.” Is it a confirmation hearing if the party conducts it, and is it excessive interference of privacy if its rival does it? The outgoing Lee Myung-bak administration created a questionnaire of 200 questions for verification of potential candidates, including their wealth, compulsory military service and whether they fabricated their registration of residential address, which is designed to check their qualifications for ranking government posts. If candidates were nominated on the basis of this questionnaire, a fiasco such as Kim’s withdrawal as prime minister nominee would have been prevented.
At a session of speeches by leaders of parliamentary negotiating blocs on April 8, 2005, then party leader Park said, “We will seek revision of the Confirmation Hearing Act to expand government posts subject to parliamentary confirmation hearings and boost the efficiency of hearings.” When she recently said, “Certain irregularities (committed by nominees) were common practices in the past, and (opposition parties) seem to make judgments on matters from 40 years ago,” the Saenuri Party concurred by saying, “President-elect Park is right” to demonstrate its loyalty to her. The Rev. In Myung-jin, former chairman of the Grand National Party’s ethics committee, recently said, “It is an act of self-incompatibility for the Saenuri Party, which created the Confirmation Hearing Act, to question the system.” This graphically illustrates how self-contradictory the party is and how it needs to get enlightened.
|
  |
|
|
|
