Prime Minister Kim Min-seok is responding to a question from Yoon Hoo-deok, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, at the National Assembly plenary hall where the parliamentary interpellation on politics, diplomacy, unification, and security was held on the 9th. 2026.2.9 [Photo=Yonhap News]

The responses given by Prime Minister Kim Min-seok during the parliamentary interpellation on the 9th cannot be dismissed as mere verbal spars.

The issue is not the intensity of the words, but the repeated evasion of the 'accountability for explanation' that a Prime Minister must uphold, and the filling of that void with the questioner's intent and moral condemnation.

This is not a defense against the National Assembly, but rather perceived as disrespect towards it.

The inquiry from Kang Seon-young, a member of the People Power Party, was about the application of a system.

It questioned whether it was justifiable for lower-ranking soldiers who carried out orders under a state of emergency martial law to be collectively subject to disciplinary action, and what the separation of responsibility and legal standards were.

As Prime Minister, this is a matter that requires explanation of the legal and systemic standards and the government's basis for judgment.

However, Prime Minister Kim did not answer.

Instead, he dismissed the question with the expression "a deranged case" and questioned the questioner's right to ask with the counter-question, "Have you ever said that martial law and rebellion were wrong?" There was only judgment, no explanation.

The same pattern was repeated in the exchange with Park Choong-kwon, a member of the People Power Party.

Regarding concerns raised about the government's response to North Korea and its security perception, Prime Minister Kim countered with the frame of "insult to the armed forces and the government" rather than presenting the logic and rationale of the policy. It was an attitude of misinterpreting the intent of the question in a session meant for policy explanation.

This appears to be a consistent response pattern, not an accidental mistake.

A Prime Minister is not a debater. They are a responsible official who must answer in the National Assembly on behalf of the executive branch with facts, standards, and procedures.

What is required here is not 'eloquence in explaining responsibility,' but the accountability for explanation from one who holds authority. The sharper the question, the calmer and more specific the explanation should be.

The moment questions are defined as 'provocations' and answers are substituted with 'condemnation,' the National Assembly's question-and-answer session devolves from a forum for public discourse into a shield of authority.

If this approach becomes entrenched, three things will collapse.

First, the National Assembly's oversight function. Questions disappear, and only loyalty tests remain.

Second, the executive branch's accountability for explanation. Emotional rhetoric takes precedence over standards and procedures, blurring responsibility.

Third, freedom of criticism. The signal that "you will be attacked if you ask that question" stifles debate.

The Prime Minister is not in a position to fight with the opposition party, but to explain the government in the face of the opposition's questions. If the policy is right, it can be explained with evidence.

If the system is legitimate, the standards can be presented. The attitude of looking down on the questioner and interrogating the motive behind the question is not befitting a Prime Minister.

The conclusion is clear.

Prime Minister Kim Min-seok has not yet moved beyond the language and attitude of opposition lawmakers. The National Assembly is not a stage for applause, but a place for scrutiny.

What Kim Min-seok needs now is not sharp rhetoric, but the language of a Prime Minister who restores accountability for explanation. He must remember that no citizen has granted the Prime Minister the authority to insult the public.