[Reporter's Notebook] "Come Out" and "Get Out" Mark the End of the 2026 Parliamentary Audit

"Kim Hyunji, Chief of the Blue House's First Annex Office, should come out." "People Power Party lawmaker Kim Taegyu should leave."

That was the refrain running through the National Assembly's Steering Committee audit of the Blue House (the Presidential Secretariat, the National Security Office and the Presidential Security Service) on October 29. The ruling and opposition parties bickered, forcing the session to be suspended twice. The audit was scheduled to last only half a day, but even half of that time was lost.

This was not limited to the Steering Committee. The National Assembly's Political Affairs Committee also faced a serious dispute over selecting witnesses and submitting documents related to single-stock leveraged ETFs. The opposition requested 39 ordinary witnesses, but not one was selected. The news was no longer about "what had been uncovered" but "who had not been called."

Of course, it is impossible to have every witness and reference witness the opposition wants appear at an audit. But if the matter is left solely to "agreement between the ruling and opposition parties," oversight of the executive branch will depend on goodwill. People Power Party floor leader Jeong Jeomsik remarked, "It is a black comedy that the chief of the Presidential Secretariat, who was appointed just two weeks ago, apologized for the personnel fiasco of the past year, saying, 'As chair of the personnel committee, I feel deeply sorry.'"

The same goes for requests to submit documents. The administration can refuse if disclosure could harm the national interest. The problem, however, is that the refusals go too far. According to the opposition, of the 432 requests for documents submitted to the Presidential Secretariat, 258 were either rejected outright or had key information withheld. If things continue this way, audits will be possible only in name, with the executive branch deciding what can be examined.

The opposition criticizes the ruling party for applying "double standards" on witness selection and document submissions. But that criticism is itself an example of double standards. When power changes hands, the parties simply switch roles and the same situation repeats. In this regard, it may be worth considering the U.S. Congress's "Minority Witness Rule." If a majority of the minority party's members on a hearing committee request it, witnesses selected by the minority party must be invited to testify for at least one day during the hearing schedule. While their attendance cannot be compelled, the rule guarantees the minority party access. Another option would be to review whether the executive branch's refusals or restrictions on document submissions are justified.

Every year, after the parliamentary audit ends, people call for reforms such as "year-round audits" and "separate audits," but broad reform always seems a long way off. The priority should be to ensure that, whoever is in power, the necessary people can be called to answer questions and the necessary documents can be obtained. That is the way to prevent the annual audits from ending in the same old bickering.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.