The national audit is a constitutional authority of the National Assembly to oversee the executive branch's governance and correct flawed policies and administration. It is the Assembly's duty to hold the government accountable on behalf of the public and address issues in governance. The first national audit under the Yoon Suk Yeol administration began on October 6, but this year has seen a repeat of loud outbursts, harsh language, and political disputes. Tensions over witness selection and document submissions continue. Concerns are growing that, rather than thorough scrutiny, the audit will devolve into another 'empty audit.'
During the audit of the Supreme Court by the Legislative and Judiciary Committee, the ruling party pressed Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae on the issue of rejecting candidates for Supreme Court justices, while the opposition shouted over the responses. Questions included personal attacks, such as, "Are you dreaming of becoming the second Yoon Seok-yeol?" and even raised the possibility of impeachment. Disagreements over the exercise of judicial authority, guaranteed by the constitution, have turned into political disputes.
The People Power Party is not free from inciting political conflict either. They have persistently demanded the testimony of Kim Hyun-ji, the chief of the presidential office's first secretariat, alleging personnel abuses by close aides to the president. Using the audit as a political weapon does not demonstrate the capabilities of a governing party. They should avoid politically charged witness demands and instead focus on rigorous policy scrutiny to effectively oversee the executive branch and prove their clarity of purpose.
There are pressing livelihood issues that both parties should focus on. They need to examine tariff negotiations with the United States, which could deliver a severe blow to the Korean economy, and prepare countermeasures. It is also urgent to identify the causes of the unprecedented series of hacking incidents in the financial sector and prevent their recurrence. However, one-third of the general witnesses and reference witnesses in this audit are businesspeople. While many are related to the government's three major mega-projects, it raises questions about the appropriateness of summoning so many businesspeople amid challenging economic conditions.
Since its revival in 1987, the national audit has repeatedly faced criticism for its ineffectiveness for 39 years. Beyond the individual qualities and will of lawmakers, there are significant structural limitations in the current system. With the framework of auditing over 800 institutions in 18 days, it is difficult to expect substantive verification. The repeated disruptions, where institutions and witnesses wait for hours without proper questioning and answers, have led to dissatisfaction among civil servants and businesses, as well as a peak in public distrust.
A comprehensive overhaul of the national audit system, which has devolved into a one-off promotional event, is urgently needed. Consideration should be given to making it a permanent fixture by committee or dividing it into upper and lower halves of the year. A system for objectively analyzing and evaluating lawmakers' audit activities should also be institutionalized. By publicly assessing the appropriateness of raised suspicions and the presentation of policy alternatives, accountability can be enhanced.
The national audit should not be a stage for political disputes but a venue for overseeing the executive branch and scrutinizing governance. As long as loud outbursts, harsh language, and baseless allegations continue, restoring trust in the National Assembly will be impossible. The system must be fundamentally improved to revive its original purpose. Only when lawmakers are subject to evaluation can the national audit truly serve the public interest.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.