The following episode sums up the host of problems in the parliamentary audit of the executive branch, which will be evident enough of why there are so many public criticisms against one of the most important annual undertakings of the legislature.
The National Assembly’s Environment-Labor Committee moved to Sejong City to conduct its audit of the Environment Ministry on Tuesday morning, as 
the parliament kicked off its yearly inspection of the government.
The session opened with Environment Minister Yoon Seong-kyu taking the oath of faithful testimony at 10:40 a.m. But instead of inquiring about matters related with the ministry, lawmakers started squabbling over the opposition’s demand that the committee call a group of tycoons to the witness stand in later sessions.
The corporate leaders mentioned by the opposition included Chung Mong-koo of Hyundai Motor, Lee Jae-yong of Samsung Electronics, Hwang Chang-gyu of KT and Kwon Oh-joon of POSCO.
The reason? The industrialists should appear before the committee to give testimonies about how the companies treat their respective suppliers and contractors and labor-related issues like layoffs. These are things to be dealt with when the committee audits the Labor Ministry, not the Environment Ministry.
Ruling party members dismissed the proposal, insisting that there are no substantial reasons to hear their testimonies. They accused the opposition of seeking only to demean the corporate leaders.
With Minister Yoon and other government officials looking on ― and these are pretty busy guys ― the lawmakers engaged in a seemingly endless war of words. Around noon, the session was adjourned. They needed to eat to prepare for a more productive session in the afternoon.
Indiscriminate demands
So after lunch, the representatives of the rival parties held one-on-one talks to resolve the problem for five hours, but to no avail. Compromise is famously evasive in Korean politics.
Then around 6 p.m., lawmakers from both parties began taking turns at appearing at the press room, blaming the other side for the deadlock. At 10:30 p.m., it was time to go home and the session was closed for the day. Not one question was asked by the committee in the whole day.
You wouldn’t say this is a respectable democratic institution, designed to ensure checks and balances by giving the legislature the power to act as the prime watchdog covering the executive branch.
On the contrary, because of the many silly things about it, as illustrated by the Environment-Labor Committee session, the parliamentary inspection of the government has long been scorned and derided.
For a start, the audit is conducted simultaneously on too many government offices over too short a period. This year, the 16 parliamentary standing committees are to conduct audits on 672 government ministries and public agencies, a record number, in 20 days.
This means each committee has to audit 42 agencies on average during the period, with some committees having to take care of as many as seven agencies a day. Many such audits are therefore inevitably cursory and perfunctory.
Abuse of power
The parliamentary audit often allows some ― not all, for sure ― lawmakers to abuse their power and privilege. The prime example is that lawmakers tend to have no qualms about calling people to the witness stand, especially business executives.
In many cases, lawmakers demand the appearance of tycoons, like those picked by the opposition members of the Environment-Labor Committee, only to show that they have enough power to put powerful industrialists into trouble.
So one of the most important jobs of corporate executives who handle government and legislative affairs is to keep their bosses away from the parliamentary witness stand. They usually maintain close relationships with lawmakers and their aides throughout the year, but they become much busier in the time leading up to the parliamentary audit.
This is good news for lawmakers, who need political funds and often have some personal favors to ask of the powerful conglomerates, like the arrangement of employment of their acquaintances.
It is no coincidence that the number of businesspeople who have been called to testify in parliamentary auditing sessions increased from 80 in 2011, 164 in 2012 and 177 last year. This year, the 16 committees have already decided to call 224 businesspeople as witnesses and want to bring in another 60.
High-handedness
Korean lawmakers are notorious for their high-handed manner, especially during the parliamentary auditing and hearing sessions. This attitude is more evident in the auditing sessions, in which lawmakers are treated with utmost respect by the agencies they audit.
It is not rare to see that lawmakers throw a barrage of questions ― or in many cases only make drawn-out lectures ― and don’t give officials or witnesses enough time or even a chance to respond. A recent report by a civic group shows that the Environment-Labor Committee called 37 people as witnesses last year, and each was given an average of two minutes and 28 seconds to talk.
More broadly, 31 witnesses at eight committees were not even given even chance to talk. Instead they watched while lawmakers yelled at their colleagues and government officials, and reprimanded officials and witnesses in the same way parents or teachers scold children.
There is no doubt that we need an effective and respectable auditing system to check the executive branch. This is important all the more because it is led by a president whose office has so much power as to be called an “imperial presidency.” The time has come to seek a better, more efficient audit system devoid of silly aspects.
By Chon Shi-yong
Chon Shi-yong is the chief editorial writer of The Korea Herald. He can be contacted at sychon@heraldcorp.com ― Ed.
