South Korea Sets Budget Minister Hearing After Party Standoff Over Documents

Updated 2026-01-22 02:57:30+00:00 (18 articles)

Compromise Secures Friday Confirmation Hearing The ruling Democratic Party and the opposition People Power Party reached a deal to hold Lee Hye‑hoon’s confirmation hearing on Friday, provided she submits the documents lawmakers have requested [1][3]. The agreement follows a prior clash in which the Strategy and Finance Committee chair suspended the session after the nominee failed to provide complete paperwork [3]. Both sides framed the compromise as a pause in partisan fighting ahead of the scheduled hearing.

Nominee Faces Broad Scrutiny Over Conduct and Assets Lee, a former three‑term conservative lawmaker, is under fire for her husband’s real‑estate dealings and accusations that she mistreated subordinates and an intern while in parliament [1][2]. Additional allegations include inflating the score on a 3.6 billion‑won apartment application by listing her married son as a cohabiting family member, a scheme linked to a flagged “lottery subscription” system [2]. Polls show up to 68 percent of respondents consider her unfit for the post [2].

Opposition Boycott Stalls Hearing Until Document Submission The People Power Party resumed its boycott on Jan 19, refusing to attend a hearing that proceeded without Lee’s full documentation [3][2]. The committee chair halted the meeting, and the hearing remained unopened on Jan 20, extending a standoff that began with the PPP’s earlier protest [2]. President Lee Jae Myung urged the ruling party to push forward, saying the nominee was “brought in with difficulty” and deserved a hearing [2].

President’s Integration Strategy Undermined by Controversy President Lee nominated Lee Hye‑hoon to signal political integration across party lines, but mounting allegations have weakened that narrative [2]. After the reporting deadline, the president may either appoint her directly or request a resubmission, opening a ten‑day window for a possible hearing [2]. The controversy leaves the purpose of the cross‑camp appointment in doubt.