Editorial: Can Kim Seung-won and Yong Hye-in revive the government’s momentum?

A Cabinet reshuffle intended to revive the government’s momentum is instead becoming a liability, the Hankyoreh editorial argues, as controversies surrounding two nominees continue to grow while presidential approval declines.

Kim Seung-won, the nominee for justice minister, received a deferred-indictment decision from prosecutors over allegations that he asked Yang, a broker, to press Kim Gang-lip, then head of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, to expedite clinical trials for Genexel’s COVID-19 drug in 2021. Kim says he merely passed on a public-interest grievance. But the editorial says the available material makes it difficult to deny that his personal relationship with the broker influenced the request.

The editorial also points to indications that Kim knew approval of the clinical trial could benefit the pharmaceutical company. Sejong Medical, which acquired a stake in Genexel, saw its share price surge after trial approval and then fall sharply, prompting speculation about possible stock manipulation. The editorial acknowledges there is no evidence that Kim took part in manipulation or received benefits in return for the request. It nevertheless says his conduct remains difficult to defend given the sensitivity of drug trials and their potential effect on share prices.

Because Kim already faced conflict-of-interest concerns, the editorial questions whether he can take on the responsibility of stabilising a major transformation of the criminal justice system. It also criticizes Yong Hye-in, the nominee for minister of gender equality and family, for refusing to give up her proportional-representation parliamentary seat while serving as minister. The Basic Income Party’s new leadership has defended her, saying the party is pursuing a particular vision of society.

The editorial says Yong’s background as a satellite-party lawmaker and unusual consecutive proportional representation terms have already drawn criticism. Her insistence on holding both posts, it argues, is intensifying accusations of preferential and unfair appointment. The presidential office says both nominees should in principle undergo parliamentary hearings. The editorial agrees that baseless allegations should not dictate the process, but says the government should monitor public opinion and decide before it is too late if the appointments do not command public understanding or help governance.