[Politics, That Day...] 8-Hour Live TV Candidate Verification, MB-Park Suspicions Thoroughly Examined by Hannara Party

2007 Grand National Party Presidential Candidate Verification Hearing: Unprecedented Scale, Intensity, and Content
MB Investigated for Dogok-dong DAS and Erika Kim Suspicions... Park Scrutinized for Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation and Choi Tae-min's Private Life Allegations

[Asia Economy Reporter Ryu Jeong-min]

Editor's Note‘Politics, That Day…’ is a series planning corner that looks back on Korean politics through the ‘recollection of memories’ related to scenes, events, and figures that deserve attention.

In 2007, the Hannara Party changed the history of party presidential candidate verification. The presidential election candidate selection process at that time produced several scenes that will be recorded in political history. In particular, both the scale and intensity of candidate verification were unprecedented.

The Hannara Party rigorously applied internal verification standards, and the public watched this process with great interest. It was a case showing how a party’s presidential candidate verification process can enhance the chances of winning the general election.

The reason why the Hannara Party’s candidate verification attracted so much attention was because it was widely believed that winning the preliminary (intra-party primary) meant winning the general election (presidential election). This was why the Hannara Party was harsher on internal competitors than the opposing party at the time, the Grand Unified Democratic New Party, or various media verifications.

The climax of the Hannara Party’s presidential candidate verification was the Hannara Party primary candidate verification hearing held on July 19, 2007, at the Baekbeom Memorial Hall in Seoul. Five broadcasting stations aired it live, and the candidate verification lasted a full eight hours.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

It was a time when candidates Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye were thoroughly scrutinized. Although the candidates adjusted the intensity of their remarks according to political considerations, they had to explain sensitive issues that were usually uncomfortable in front of the public watching on TV. Every statement could serve as a basis for public judgment, so it was a burdensome time for the candidates.

Candidate Lee Myung-bak had to answer one by one on sensitive issues such as the controversial land in Dogok-dong, Seoul, the DAS allegations, and his relationship with Erika Kim.

First, when asked whether his brother-in-law Kim Jae-jung was the actual owner of the Dogok-dong land sold to POSCO, Lee Myung-bak replied, “How great it would be if it were my land. I have no nominal assets.”

When asked whether he was the actual owner of DAS Co., Ltd., Lee Myung-bak responded, “That is really negative campaigning.”

Regarding the personal life allegations with Erika Kim, he explained, “There is absolutely no such relationship.”

Candidate Park Geun-hye, when asked about her relationship with Pastor Choi Tae-min, father of Choi Soon-sil, counterattacked by saying, “There are even rumors that I have a child. If so, bring the child here. I will even take a DNA test.”

Regarding the question of whether she forcibly took over the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation, Park Geun-hye explained, “There is evidence in the scholarship foundation that it was not a forced takeover.”

When asked whether she received 900 million won from Chun Doo-hwan, the head of the joint investigation headquarters, right after October 26, Park Geun-hye answered, “I received 600 million won as living expenses for the bereaved family.”

Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye strategically responded by sometimes brushing off unfavorable questions and directly refuting absurd allegations. Some of their answers were later proven false through court rulings and other means.

Although there were evaluations that they avoided core questions during the verification hearing, the event itself was a fresh attempt from the public’s perspective. Especially, the act of openly confronting political risks rather than hiding them is a scene worth evaluating from the perspective of ‘risk management.’

The public wants to know whether presidential candidates have the ability and qualifications to govern the country. They are curious whether the candidates have a vision to lead the future of the Republic of Korea, the capability to realize it, and the morality to be entrusted with the country.

It remains to be seen whether the ruling and opposition parties preparing for the 2022 presidential election can recreate the stage of internal verification that the Hannara Party showed in 2007.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.