National Assembly's audit of the Lee Jae-myung administration kicks off on October 6. Over the next three weeks, intense debates between the ruling and opposition parties are expected across the National Assembly. Last year's audit occurred just four months after the administration took office, but this year marks the first comprehensive review of the policies and governance outcomes pursued by the Lee Jae-myung administration over the past year.
The battleground is already clearly defined. The Democratic Party is emphasizing a 'policy and livelihood audit' to highlight the government's achievements. In contrast, the People Power Party is preparing to scrutinize issues across various sectors, including real estate, finance, security, and personnel, under the banner of 'performance verification.' Key issues include the proposed abolition of the prosecution office, reforms to the criminal justice system, the housing crisis, financial challenges, and investment and trade negotiations with the United States.
This underscores the necessity of the audit. It is not merely a platform for reprimanding the government, nor is it a stage for promoting government policies. The audit serves as a means for the National Assembly to verify whether taxpayer money has been used appropriately, whether policies have functioned as intended, and whether there have been any misjudgments or administrative blind spots.
The opposition should not assume that merely attacking the government fulfills its role. If allegations are raised, they must be substantiated with data and figures. If a policy is flawed, the opposition should identify the issues and propose alternatives. Simply seeking to embarrass the government with provocative questions will not effectively hold it accountable.
Similarly, the ruling party should not be solely focused on defending the government. During the audit, the ruling party is not the government's attorney. Those in power should proactively identify weaknesses in government policies and demand corrections for any missteps. This approach is essential to prevent government failures. If issues are dismissed simply because they are raised by the opposition or attributed to the previous administration, the call for a 'livelihood audit' will lack credibility.
There should also be a reconsideration of the practice of summoning numerous business leaders. If there are public concerns or if the responsibility of a CEO needs to be directly confirmed, it is appropriate for the National Assembly to inquire. However, calling in business leaders only to question them briefly and then keeping them waiting all day diminishes the authority of the audit.
The National Assembly's audit is one of its most powerful tools for overseeing the executive branch. When requested by lawmakers, the government must provide documents, and ministers and agency heads must answer to the public. Therefore, the National Assembly must use this authority responsibly.
What the public wants to see is not which party can shout louder at the other, but rather how rising housing costs will be stabilized, how tax revenues are being utilized, how jobs will be created, and how to respond to trade pressures from the United States.
Conflicts between the ruling and opposition parties are inevitable and should be vigorous. However, the target of these disputes should not be the opposing party but rather flawed policies and administration. There should be competition over data and figures, and a focus on presenting better alternatives.
When the audit concludes in three weeks, it should not leave behind only scenes of shouting and political strife. If one flawed policy is corrected, one wasteful budget is identified, or one inconvenient regulation is amended, that will be a success of the audit.
This is the first comprehensive audit assessing the second year of the Lee Jae-myung administration. It serves as a test for the government to reflect on the past year, a stage for the opposition to demonstrate its oversight capabilities, and a platform for the ruling party to showcase its commitment to responsible governance. Above all, it is a time for the National Assembly to be evaluated on whether it can effectively exercise the oversight authority granted by the public. This time, the audit should be assessed not on 'who won,' but on 'what was fixed.'
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.