Since its introduction in 2000, parliamentary confirmation hearings have become a key means of screening candidates for senior government posts. Their importance cannot be overemphasized, especially given the still-prevalent spoils system, cronyism and low ethical standards of the elite in society.

There have been some downsides as well, however. One of the common problems has been that the usually harsh parliamentary vetting process, coupled with the equally relentless media scrutiny, often delves too much into candidates’ private lives.

This has frustrated not only candidates but also the incumbent president and the ruling party. Most recently, President Park Geun-hye’s two successive nominees for prime minister had to bow out over personal problems, dealing a severe political blow to her plan to resuscitate her government after the Sewol ferry disaster.

So the Saenuri Party may well have been tempted to seek some changes to the way the parliament screens presidential nominees. In fact, Park asked the ruling party to reform the parliamentary vetting process after her appointment of Ahn Dae-hee and Moon Chang-keuk fell through.

Last week, the ruling party’s proposals were announced by a task force that had been operating since July.

They include some positive ones ― like the extension of the parliamentary vetting process to 30 days from the current 20 days. The National Assembly will also ask the Blue House to provide the results of its background checks of candidates.

The problem is that some proposals stand to weaken the core function of the parliament vetting of presidential nominees ― to determine whether or not they are ethically fit for undertaking public duties.

First of all, the party wants the National Assembly to have a two-track hearing ― a closed-door session on candidates’ ethical and moral standards and a separate public session on their professional competence.

This is impractical. Few would believe that what lawmakers discussed in such a session, whether closed to the press and the public or not, would be kept in the dark. Moreover, the public has the right to know what questions its representatives asked and what answers were provided by people who are going to affect their lives.

Another problem is that the Saenuri proposals call for the Assembly to establish a checklist and “passing guidelines” in vetting the moral and ethical standards of candidates.

This is a dangerous idea too. Although there could be a “general checklist” that applies to all candidates, each nominee should be required to have a different set of ethical standards according to his or her job. For instance, we can never allow someone to become the defense minister if his son dodged the compulsory military service in a dishonest way.

All in all, one may suspect that the ruling party is seeking to lower the ethical bar for screening candidates for top government posts. This is wrong, given that many of Korea’s public offices, elected or appointed, are still occupied by people who have ethical problems.

It should be kept in mind that what happened in the cases of Ahn and Moon had more to do with Park and her aides failing to find the right men, and making sure their qualifications and backgrounds were thoroughly vetted, than with serious flaws in the current parliamentary screening process.