[Reporter’s Notebook] The Intent Behind the Question, The Intent of the Government

On the 10th, citizens at a large supermarket in Seoul checked the validity of their quarantine passes to enter, following the addition of large-scale stores such as shopping malls, marts, department stores, agricultural and marine products distribution centers, and bookstores with an area of 3,000㎡ or more to the mandatory quarantine pass application targets. The one-week guidance period will operate until the 16th, and from the 17th, individuals will be fined 100,000 KRW per violation. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

Questions have intentions. Usually, questions are asked to obtain some knowledge. The person being questioned must understand the questioner's intention to respond appropriately. This is what we call a dialogue. What happens if the respondent fails to grasp the question's intention? The conversation goes off track. It can no longer be called a dialogue. Many even declare a break in the middle of questioning because they dislike seeing such a 'scene.' They say, "I've swallowed enough sweet potatoes. I should stop talking."

On the 4th, this kind of 'scene' unfolded in the Supreme Courtroom of the Seoul Administrative Court. It was a hearing for a suspension of enforcement application regarding the quarantine pass (vaccination certificate and negative test confirmation system). The judge asked the government side, "What is the public interest that the quarantine pass aims to achieve?" The intention behind the question was this: "The applicants claim that irreparable harm occurs due to the quarantine pass. The government, arguing for dismissal, must prove that the public interest gained through this measure outweighs the harm. Please explain that part."

The government side seemed completely unaware of this intention. Their answer went off track and ended up in the middle of the South Sea. They kept repeating, "To prevent the collapse of the medical system." Even when the judge repeatedly questioned whether that could be considered a public interest, citing that "even with a 99% vaccination completion rate, the medical system collapse cannot be prevented," it was to no avail. Eventually, the judge sighed and declared a break.

In suspension of enforcement application cases, the key criterion is whether irreparable harm has occurred due to the administrative disposition. However, if the public interest is judged to take precedence over this harm, the effect of the disposition is maintained. The government side needed to appeal through their response that the public interest outweighed the harm claimed by the applicants. Instead, the government simply focused on 'conveying facts.' They wasted the opportunity given by the court on their own. Their courtroom response was far too immature.

Citizens chuckled at this immaturity. Thousands of comments were posted on our article containing the dialogue between the court and the government side. People said it was frustrating. One comment read, "The judge's sigh represents my feelings." Why is it that only citizens have to feel this frustration, whether in daily life or in court? Was this the government's intention in implementing the quarantine pass? I believe it was not.

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