Jang Hye-young accuses Yong Hye-in of sophistry to cling to a seat won through foul play

Former Justice Party lawmaker Jang Hye-young has attacked Yong Hye-in’s nomination as gender equality and family minister, saying the candidate’s political record requires close scrutiny.

Speaking on CBS radio, Jang questioned whether Yong had the will to protect women and other socially vulnerable people. She also raised concerns about Yong’s political ethics and said the nominee’s past conduct should be thoroughly examined.

“

The real ability required of the gender equality and family minister is the ability to stand against the government.

Jang argued that the key ability required of a minister in the Lee Jae Myung government would be the capacity to confront the administration. “The real ability required of the gender equality and family minister is the ability to stand against the government,” she said, adding that the minister must be able to endure tension with the government.

“

The special circumstances of a satellite party.

But Jang said Yong’s political behavior suggested she was too attentive to political advantage. She criticized Yong’s support for abolishing prosecutors’ supplementary investigation powers, saying Yong had welcomed the proposal rather than opposed it. Jang argued that Yong’s positions on issues involving the rights of vulnerable people appeared to change according to her political interests.

Yong, who was nominated as minister the previous day, said she would retain her parliamentary seat even if she took the post. She said resigning could leave the Basic Income Party without a parliamentary presence and asked for understanding of the difficulties faced by a small party whose future could depend on one lawmaker’s decision. Jang rejected that explanation, saying it reflected the “special circumstances of a satellite party,” not a normal small party. She noted that, under ordinary circumstances, the next proportional-representation candidate would succeed to the seat. The Justice Party previously refused to join a satellite-party arrangement.

“

What kind of sophistry is this?