Yong Hye-in's Cabinet Nomination Sparks Debate Over Proportional Representation and Political Fairness

How can satellite party lawmaker Yong call herself opposition?

The nominee's plan to retain her Assembly seat raises fresh questions about proportional representation and political fairness.

Yong Hye-in, a Basic Income Party lawmaker nominated as minister of gender equality and family, pushed back Thursday against mounting criticism and said she intends to retain both her Cabinet post and National Assembly seat if confirmed.

Yong argued that the law allows lawmakers to concurrently serve as Cabinet ministers. She also questioned the convention under which proportional representation lawmakers, unlike constituency lawmakers, resign their parliamentary seats upon joining the Cabinet, suggesting that the practice amounts to politicians dividing up positions among themselves.

But that argument distorts the basic principles of representative democracy and the purpose of proportional representation.

Constituency and proportional representation lawmakers derive their mandates differently. Constituency lawmakers are elected directly by local voters who consider individual candidates and their pledges. If one resigns to become a minister, constituents lose their representative and a by-election must be held.

Proportional representation seats, by contrast, are allocated according to the share of votes won by political parties, not individual candidates. Voters consider a party's policies, values and candidate list. If a proportional lawmaker resigns, the next candidate on the list inherits the seat, leaving no vacancy.

Yong's refusal to resign is therefore little more than a calculation aimed at keeping the Basic Income Party represented in the National Assembly. If she steps down, her proportional seat would pass to a Democratic Party (DP) figure.

More troubling is Yong's claim that her nomination represents the appointment of a sitting opposition lawmaker to the Cabinet. That is misleading. Yong was not elected as an opposition candidate.

In 2024, she won a proportional seat on the Democratic Alliance of Korea ticket, a satellite party created by the DP. She then returned to the Basic Income Party after undergoing an expedited expulsion process. That maneuver allowed her party to retain parliamentary representation and receive state subsidies.

Her first election in 2020 followed essentially the same pattern.

With this history widely known, can Yong seriously portray her appointment as an exemplary case of bipartisan cooperation? She even compared the relationship to the coalition between Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-pil in the 1990s. That comparison greatly exaggerates her political standing.

Yong should seriously consider why even figures within the ruling camp are saying she must relinquish her parliamentary seat, with some going further and questioning whether her nomination itself can survive.

In an era when fairness is valued, can a politician who has repeatedly benefited from political expedients and loopholes truly be considered an appropriate choice for a Cabinet post?