Yong Hye-in, Nominee for Minister, Faces Backlash Amid Public Opposition

These results raise fundamental questions about the nominee's ability to perform ministerial duties without public consensus.

Seonwoo Yoon-ho stated, "In our PenN research, opposition to Yong Hye-in is 72.2%, with support not even reaching 20%."

Critics argue that the restriction is far too insufficient to address public suspicions.

Seonwoo Yoon-ho expressed dissatisfaction, saying, "They said they'd only take five questions at the backbriefing."

There were also criticisms that the verification of her capabilities as Minister of Gender Equality and Family was insufficient.

Lee Yoon-gyu commented, "I often felt that she didn't properly understand what people were curious about regarding herself."

Criticism arose that the nominee prioritized holding her position over providing explanations, especially when the number of suspicions outweighed the number of questions. She was also criticized for feigning victimhood while perpetuating the old habits of established politicians.

Heo Ji-hoon criticized, "It seems like the number of suspicions is greater than the number of questions received. So, from the beginning, she wasn't prepared to listen or explain, but rather, she was only focused on holding her ground."

There was also no explanation regarding the controversy over concurrent positions and suspicions of airport preferential treatment.

Lee Jae-neung explained, "The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family has an annual budget of over 2 trillion won. As I recall, it's about 2.01 trillion won."

Contrary to expectations of her resignation before the press conference, Nominee Yong Hye-in expressed her determination to complete her term, signaling a strategy to prolong the controversy. Critics argued that she was attempting to reduce complex controversies to trivial issues, such as her concurrent position.

Lee Yoon-gyu said, "I thought she would resign. So, this morning, I wondered if she would resign, but looking at the press conference, although it was long, the message was that she would go all the way."

When a reporter raised questions about Nominee Yong Hye-in's qualifications as an opposition lawmaker, citing her past as a proportional representative, the nominee defined the reporter's question as a 'debate' and refused to answer. She also consistently used abstract arguments of responsibility regarding public consensus on her ministerial appointment.

Nominee Yong Hye-in said, "This doesn't seem to be a place for me to debate with you. It's also important to give other reporters a chance to ask questions, so I'll move on."

Critics argued that it was inappropriate to interrupt a questioner, who represents the public, and to debate the nature of the interaction in a public setting. Doubts were also raised about the nominee's self-proclaimed identity as an 'opposition party' member.

Lee Jae-neung strongly criticized the nominee's attitude, saying, "Does she treat the public like cattle? I got so angry listening to her. Does she think we're fools?"

She was criticized for an opportunistic attitude, switching between the ruling and opposition parties as needed. She was also criticized for advocating new politics by merely using a 'victim frame' and representing youth and women without real expertise, while in practice repeating old political habits.

Heo Ji-hoon criticized, "They're the opposition when they want to fight, and they're with the ruling party when they want to be advantageous as a satellite party for proportional representation."

Since the 21st century, it has been an unwritten rule for proportional representatives not to hold ministerial positions concurrently. Her attempt to simultaneously hold positions as a National Assembly member and a minister was criticized as excessive power obsession, and her past history of serving as a proportional representative twice through irregular means was also pointed out.

Lee Jae-neung said, "She's basically insisting, 'I will hold all power in both hands. I will be a National Assembly member and a minister.' Isn't that what she's doing?"

After founding the Basic Income Party, she obtained a parliamentary seat through a satellite party nomination, and then rejoined her original party immediately after being elected. This repeated pattern of political irregularities was criticized.

Avoiding questions and answers with reporters was criticized as an act of disrespecting the public.

Lee Jae-neung criticized, "She went to a satellite party to get nominated by a satellite party, got a proportional representative number, became a National Assembly member, and immediately left to return to her original Basic Income Party. Isn't that an irregular method?"

The existing concept of family meant individuals connected by marriage and blood ties. However, the 'Act on Living Partnership Relations' proposed by nominee Yong Hye-in includes content that expands the concept of family beyond marriage and blood ties.

Lee Jae-neung explained, "It meant beings connected by marriage or blood ties. The bill Yong Hye-in proposed, the Act on Living Partnership Relations, makes the concept of family itself have meaning beyond marriage and blood ties," raising concerns about administrative confusion if combined with the Anti-Discrimination Act.

Concerns were raised that recognizing living partnerships could adversely affect current family welfare programs, such as loan interest support for newlyweds. The possibility of administrative confusion on the ground due to the expansion of the family scope was also mentioned.

Lee Jae-neung explained, "If we look at this Anti-Discrimination Act and the Living Partnership Act together, and someone says, 'I'm cohabiting with my partner, so we're a family, and because we're a family, give us the same support as newlyweds,' that could cause significant administrative confusion on the ground."

Critics argued that it was inappropriate to respond arrogantly, especially since the reporters were invited by the nominee, not the other way around.

Lee Jae-neung said, "At a press conference, she asked reporters to come, but did reporters call Yong Hye-in? She called them, and her attitude during the Q&A was very arrogant. These points will be criticized, but I hope that during the personnel hearing, Yong Hye-in's individual perceptions of gender and family values will be highlighted."

Rep. Park Hong-geun and others called for Yong Hye-in's resignation, urging her to consider public opinion. As senior lawmakers, they are advising her to resign, recognizing that the cabinet reshuffle is backfiring, contrary to its original purpose.

Lee Yoon-gyu said, "Recently, even Rep. Park Hong-geun has been telling Rep. Yong Hye-in to consider public opinion. Ultimately, since public opinion is backfiring contrary to the original purpose of the cabinet reshuffle, he is telling her to resign as a senior member, and even Democratic Party lawmakers are now showing signs of pushing Rep. Yong Hye-in out."

Observing the nominee's arrogant attitude at the press conference, it was speculated that she would not resign. An analysis suggested she might hold out until the personnel hearing and appointment, similar to the case of former Minister Cho Kuk.

Heo Ji-hoon commented, "I was there today, and it suddenly occurred to me that she wouldn't resign. How could she show such an attitude? She didn't even bat an eye; it was truly unprecedented. I thought she might even hold out through the hearing and even the ministerial appointment."

This was interpreted as a directive that a nominee causing trouble during a stable cabinet reshuffle timing should resign.

Lee Yoon-gyu said, "The President, upon returning from his overseas trip, spoke about the need for stable state affairs. This was also an implicit criticism of Yong Hye-in. It's like a message or directive was issued that a nominee causing such trouble during a time when a stable cabinet reshuffle should occur must resign, and Democratic Party lawmakers are also joining in to criticize Rep. Yong Hye-in."