Yong Hye-in’s Resignation: The Question That Really Needs Asking
Yong Hye-in, a lawmaker from the Basic Income Party, has voluntarily withdrawn from consideration as a candidate for minister of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.
It was the only reasonable outcome.
She was someone who had not won a single vote from the public, yet used the people’s name to insist, in effect, “I’m taking everything, so don’t touch me,” in the name of political opportunism.
She endured the public backlash for far too long, sullying both the ruling party and the Blue House in the process. Even if the timing was late, it was very late indeed.
Her resignation came exactly 14 days after she was nominated on August 30.
She ultimately chose to step aside after controversy over holding multiple positions, allegations surrounding her spouse’s salary and state subsidies, and the prospect of a breakdown in the confirmation hearing. But a review of the process shows that the most important question—one that should have been asked first—was addressed only belatedly, and only through the candidate’s own decision to withdraw.
The Answer Was Already Clear
After the nomination, more than half of respondents in opinion polls said she was “unqualified.”
Some analyses even found that opposition to the nomination was stronger than support among ruling-party voters.
Political consultants had already concluded, immediately after the nomination was announced, that “withdrawing the nomination would win more public support than forcing the appointment through.”
In short, the polling numbers had already made clear that the appointment lacked the support of a majority of the public; the Blue House did not need to drag the matter all the way to a confirmation hearing to find that out.
And yet the Blue House did nothing.
Even the ruling party leadership took pains to say that it had not asked for the nomination to be withdrawn or for her resignation.
As a result, the responsibility remained with the candidate, who held firm to her position on dual officeholding and maintained that she would confront the confirmation hearing head-on.
What finally changed the course of events was not a decision by the Blue House, but the Democratic Party’s belated request that the candidate “make a decision in light of the fact that she lacks broad public support.”
Three days after receiving that request, the candidate announced her voluntary resignation.
Why Was the Order Reversed?
This is where the central issue emerges.
Why, after confirming the overwhelming signal from public opinion, did the appointing authority choose not to withdraw the nomination itself and instead wait for the candidate to step aside?
The order of events was not a minor procedural matter.
If the nominating authority withdraws the nomination first, it appears to be acknowledging its own error in judgment.
But if the candidate resigns voluntarily, the appointing authority can claim the justification that it was trying to respect the public’s wishes by giving her every opportunity to appear at a confirmation hearing—while avoiding responsibility for its own decision to nominate her.
In the end, the government accepted a signal the public had already sent only at the latest possible moment and in the most passive form. Given that this was the first case of a nominee falling from Lee Jae-myung’s government during this round of Cabinet appointments, the delay should be viewed not simply as an isolated error in judgment but as evidence of a structural problem in the way appointment power itself is exercised.
When those in power place the authority of a decision already made above public opinion, the result is decision-making that protects the political establishment’s pride before it protects the public interest.
That was precisely the pattern displayed by the Blue House and the ruling party in this case.
There Is, However, Another View
Of course, there is another way to view the matter.
Some analysts say that President Lee’s decision to select a sitting lawmaker from the minor Basic Income Party as a Cabinet nominee was driven by the political calculation of building solidarity across the broader progressive camp.
From that perspective, the Blue House’s decision not to withdraw the nomination immediately and to allow the confirmation process to run its course could be interpreted as caution: giving the candidate sufficient opportunity to explain herself while avoiding damage to its alliance with a minor party.
In fact, the candidate’s side argued that holding multiple positions was legally permissible. And because the governing and opposition parties continued to clash over the selection of witnesses, with each side blaming the other for the breakdown of the hearing, it is also fair to say that the delayed resignation cannot be attributed solely to the Blue House’s passivity.
Is the Blue House’s Appointment Process Really Acceptable?
Whatever the counterargument, we need to take another look at the situation now.
We need to remember what Yoon Suk Yeol, who treated the public with contempt and sought to rule like a king, looks like today as he tries to prolong his survival with servile excuses before the court.
Did this government really impeach Yoon Suk Yeol? I ask again.
Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment was achieved because the public demanded it in the bitter cold—not because President Lee Jae-myung was especially capable.
It is difficult enough to understand why the government tried to install a politically opportunistic lawmaker as a Cabinet minister. But those in power who said they wanted to hear her explanation, as well as the appointing officials who continued to ignore the overwhelming public rejection, should take a moment to recall Yoon Suk Yeol’s current predicament.
All power comes from the people; it does not rest on the stubbornness of those in power.
Respect for minor parties?
One has to ask whether someone who has not even been chosen by the public deserves such respect.
It is also worth asking whether the government understands why its approval rating is now hitting rock bottom—and where the cause lies.
The Direction the National Assembly Must Take
Ultimately, this is the question the episode leaves us with.
If confirmation hearings are meant to determine whether a nominee has the public’s consent, why has the practice of responding swiftly failed to take hold when public opinion has already made the answer unmistakable?
The more an issue lies in the gray area between law and political convention, as the dual-officeholding controversy did, the more important it is for politicians to establish standards that safeguard public trust and make prompt decisions according to those standards.
Otherwise, the same pattern will continue: waiting until public anger reaches a breaking point, then belatedly papering over the crisis under the guise of the candidate’s “decision.”
