Kim Seung-won Hearing: Democratic Party's 'Extreme Remarks' Defense Controversy

Kim Ki-heung, former Deputy Spokesperson for the Presidential Office, analyzed that since the hearing would inevitably revolve around candidate Kim Seung-won's statements, with no references or witnesses, the objective was to set the stage and for them to turn it into a chaotic scene.

When Rep. Kim Seung-won struggled to answer questions, Democratic Party lawmakers shouted loudly or made unnecessary remarks, disrupting the hearing. This is interpreted as a strategy to induce the media to report on the chaotic atmosphere of the hearing rather than the fundamental allegations. Kim Ki-heung, the former Deputy Spokesperson, raised suspicions that the Democratic Party intended to use the hearing as a mere formality to defend the Lee Jae-myung leadership. He claimed they resorted to emotional appeals and anger-inciting tactics to defend against essential allegations.

Criticism is growing that the National Assembly's confirmation hearings are becoming paralyzed as they settle into 'Sanmu Cheongmunhoe' (hearings without witnesses, references, or materials). Kim Ki-heung, the former Deputy Spokesperson, pointed out the problems of Sanmu Cheongmunhoe by citing past cases, saying, "Who was the peak of that? Kim Min-seok called it a Sanmu Cheonghoe, and there were no references, witnesses, or even materials."

Rep. Seo Young-kyo, Chairperson of the Democratic Party of Korea, stating that 'the candidate himself is the witness,' reveals a facet of these inadequate hearings. Lawmakers are criticized for hiding behind parliamentary immunity to unleash extreme remarks and coerce explanations from candidates, focusing on political attacks rather than substantive verification.

Kim Ki-heung, the former Deputy Spokesperson, highlighted the core of the allegations, stating, "First, what is there? There's the cancellation of indictment, right? And in relation to the abolition of security investigation cases, when amending the Criminal Procedure Act, two provisions allowing for the dismissal of indictments were included here." These bills fueled controversy, being interpreted by legal circles as attempts to prevent the indictment or make it difficult to punish specific individuals.

In particular, attempts to delete the legal principles concerning breach of trust related to the Daejang-dong development project sparked suspicions of a connection to defending Chairman Lee Jae-myung against the Daejang-dong allegations. The People Power Party strongly opposed these attempts to the extent of considering a 'request for constitutional court judgment to dissolve an unconstitutional party.'

Rep. Kim Seung-won responded to these public suspicions with emotional appeals instead of concrete explanations. This attitude of avoiding key issues and trying to evoke sympathy is criticized for distorting the essence of the hearing.

Allegations arose that Rep. Kim Seung-won's family cooperative received 880 million won in budget support, and approximately 40% of this was received by family members. Rep. Kim emphasized the public benefit of disability care, stating, "It's not a family cooperative. My son did that so that those children, even when they turn 20 or 30, can continue to receive care from my son. It was never done for profit or money-making."

However, the People Power Party raised questions about the massive budget being concentrated on a specific family and the quality of actual care services. It is pointed out that this might be preferential treatment given to the family under the guise of disability care.

In particular, there were calls for verification of the transparent operation, including attendance and work records of Rep. Kim's son. This was criticized as an attempt to use disability care as a means to defend against political privilege allegations.

There is a growing call for substantive measures to uncover the truth regarding Rep. Kim Seung-won's various allegations. Kim Ki-heung, the former Deputy Spokesperson, emphasized the necessity of adopting relevant references and witnesses, stating, "If it were me, I would call references and witnesses. Then, if they say 'this is not it,' or 'there was no external pressure or special favor,' then we would accept it." He argued that the truth should be determined through objective testimony rather than one-sided explanations from the accused.

The demand is to resolve suspicions through clear and transparent explanations at the hearing itself, rather than relying on complex legal procedures such as constitutional petitions. It is stressed that fact-based explanations are desperately needed, not emotional performances or vague answers.

The public urges the National Assembly to restore its original verification function and for lawmakers to act responsibly without abusing parliamentary immunity. The prevailing opinion is that only transparent information disclosure and honest testimonies from relevant parties can resolve suspicions and restore public trust.