My Insight on Korean Politics

     So last time I wrote something about the things that happened in South Korea recently. I'm going to proceed such writing and talk about my overall insight on the status quo Korean politics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     About three days ago, I scribbled about the controversy over free lunch service that dominated South Korea (especially Seoul) for about three months. (From June to August) And one thing that Mr. Garrioch had asked me was: Why is free lunch service being such an issue in Korea?

     And I tried to come up with a reason why. Why do the South Korean politicians had to be obsessed with free lunch service out of a sudden? Weren't there other more important issues that could have been more closely dealt by the DP (Democratic Party, the most influential left-wing party in South Korea) and the GNP (Grand National Party, the largest right-wing party in the National Assembly), such as the low quality of public education in South Korea or the poor treatments toward those with a distressful job? Why did the free lunch service suddenly have to be a subject of extreme quarrel?

The mark of the Democratic Party (DP)

The mark of the Grand National Party (GNP)

     Honestly,  I didn't know. And when I asked the same question (why the "free lunch service" had to be an issue rather than other urgent welfare issues like the minimum wage) to my peers, the answer was also the same.
     Coming to think about it, I think the mere reason that made the politicians to be extremely enthusiastic about the free lunch service was the fact that it was something dealt importantly during the Seoul mayor election in 2010. Out of a sudden, Myung-sook Han, the official candidate of DP as a Seoul mayor, happened to bring up the issue (which almost nobody in the society, even the students, cared about) and since then the free meal idea has been a matter of severe altercation.

     And this, is the type of problem that I find in South Korean politics. The politicians are too busy fighting about the things that people don't even know why they should care about. Even to me, a person who was one of those attending public middle schools in Seoul, the free lunch service simply seemed simply out of place, out of time.

     Another good example of South Korean politicians' foci being deviated from the public's wants could be the Four River Project. The Four River Project basically aims to promote the quality of the four major rivers in South Korea (The Han River, Kum River, Yong-San River, and Nak-Dong River). This project was put onto open dispute after its proposal as one of the promises that the current president of South Korea (Myeong-bak Lee) made.

The mark of Four River Project

     Many people in South Korea simply assume that 'promoting the four rivers in South Korea' is something worth being done, for it is an issue passionately dealt with in the National Assembly. But if we stop and think about it for a moment, it is not hard to realize that the project referred to as "Four River whatever" by South Koreans is not something to be so crazily fighting over about. Before being proposed as part of the presidential election promise, there was basically no noteworthy public appeal neither a renown survey on the public asking for an improvement on the quality of the four rivers. In other words, the politicians have been being frenzy about something that nobody in the public really cares (or should care) about.

     In this piece of writing, it is not of my intention to censure a specific party for making foolish proposals. Rather, my intention is to criticize the overall South Korean politicians for being so uncommunicative with the public. Every now and then in "election seasons", we find Congress member candidates babbling about "being a good listener to public's needs," and then find them on the news for being involved in a corruption after a few months.

     One of the cardinal premises of a representative democracy (a form of democracy in which politicians "represent" the public) is that the politicians are able to correctly analyze the public's desires and reflect them in upcoming policies. And if that's not something being done in South Korea, I have to say, it is time for a reformation to be made inside the National Assembly Hall, not on the Four Rivers of South Korea that nobody even "gives a damn."

A scribbling about Seoul mayor Oh's resignation

     It all started with the Seoul Mayor and city council member election about a year ago. At the regional election, though the mayor seat was taken by the right-wing (conservative) Grand National Party's candidate Sehoon Oh, the majority of city council member was given to the left-wing (liberal) Democratic Party. 

     And one of the most important topics that were dealt in the 2010 Seoul Mayor Election was the "free lunch service to public school students" policy. Proposed by the Democratic Party's candidate Myungsook Han as one of the mayor election pledges, the offer received severe criticism of the Grand National Party for its huge costs.
     The public and the media seemed to forget the free lunch issue after the victory of Oh as the Seoul mayor. However, the controversy promulgated its revival about half a year after the election, when the Seoul city council, ruled by the liberal Democratic Party, passed a law promising free lunch for all public students until 2014.
     And such independent act of the city council was, indeed, more than enough to infuriate the conservative mayor Oh. As soon as he heard the news of the law passing the city assembly, he held a press conference and publicly called for a referendum on Seoul citizens upon the issue of free lunch service.
     Mayor Oh's party, Grand National Party (this will be abbreviated as "GNP" from now on), also showed a fervent attitude. The head of GNP, Junpyo Hong, appeared on a press conference with red face and severely censured the Democratic Party for using the majority in the city council to randomly establish a law that "needed some talk over."
Democratic Party(will be shortened to DP from now on), the source of all this louse noise, did not stand still of course. Hakgyu Son, the head of DP, came up with a clever plan: to ask people to NOT vote in the referendum. The election law of South Korea asked for more than 33.3% of Seoul citizens participating in the citizen voting, and it was Son's tactic to make the number to fall below 30%.

The members of the left-wing Democratic Party asking citizens to deny voting for the citizen referendum.

     For the next few weeks, the media was bombarded with the news of the right-wing politicians clashing with left-wing politicians everywhere: from public places like press conferences to informal places such as the streets.
     And two days before the day of the long-expected referendum, mayor Oh, who had (rather obviously) been the most ardent one in asking people to advocate the free lunch service, suddenly made a bold declaration: he would resign immediately if the participation rate falls below 33% or the majority of the referendum asks for a free lunch service.
      The whole Seoul and of course the GNP was suddenly gulped in chaos. Right after Oh's announcement of his gambling, Hong (the head of Grand National Party) opened up a press conference and proclaimed that such actions of the mayor was not something sincerely talked over before.
     Nevertheless, the next day, Oh appeared on his last press conference before the referendum and cried crazily while his speech asking for the Seoul citizens to vote. He even bowed (which is considered as an action containing the highest kind of respect to the receivers in South Korea) three times.
     And finally, the day of the days came. The referendum was held everywhere inside Seoul. Placards asking for citizens to not participate in the public vote still on the streets, the strangest type of election (in which people were asked to NOT participate in the vote, not GO AGAINST it) that I have ever seen in my life had at last commenced.
     For the whole day, "participation rate" was the top search keyword in Naver (a search engine that is like the Google of South Korea), and the GNP and DP silently waited for the results to come out. Both of the parties, respectively representing the conservative and liberal side of South Korea, invested enormous amount of time and support to this referendum. The party that would lose in this election would wreak havoc evidently.
And finally the number came out after the termination of the election at 7 p.m.


25.8%.
The GNP had miserably lost.
     And that day, on his way to home, mayor Oh told the media that he will state his official stance the next day after "arranging his thoughts."
     The next morning, mayor Oh called for a press conference.
     With voice of somewhat indifference and calmness, the mayor formally announced that he would resign from the seat.
     The DP and other liberal media hailed Oh's choice, while the GNP was, of course, extremely incensed by mayor Oh's random actions. Hong openly said that the life of Oh as a politician is over, and he tried diverse measures in effort to buffer the aftermath of referendum (which actually ended up in a failure in fact.)

Former mayor Oh stating his resignation in a conference.

     So what's my whole idea about this referendum?
     My idea about is that I am extremely disappointed at how the GNP and DP both acted to this issue.
     I didn't like the kind of strategy DP used. A true "democratic" party would ask for people to participate in the vote and exert their sovereign party named "election right." But instead, what they did was telling people to not appear on the poll places. They asked for people to stay silent.
     But did I like GNP's attitude? No. Especially the attitude of Mr. Hong, the representative and the head of GNP. He was thoroughly emotional in the matter of this referendum, always appearing on public places with reddened face. He easily made errors in public talks, a typical example being him saying that the GNP has actually won this referendum as 25.8% is a pretty high number. This (obviously) became a figure of extreme mockery by the liberals in the society. Personally, seeing the whole fuss that Hong created over during the referendum season, I started to become skeptical about his suitability as a representative for the biggest conservative party in South Korea.