[Lee Jung-jae Column] Don't Be Mistaken, You Are Not the Mainstream of the Republic of Korea

[Asia Economy Lee Jeong-jae, Director of the Economic Media School and Editorial Advisor] Are banks public goods or not? This seemingly odd question is asking about the coordinates of the Yoon Suk-yeol administration. It is the butterfly effect triggered by the president’s remark on the 13th that "banks are public goods." The left-wing camp, seeing this as a boon, lashes out sharply. They mockingly ask if this is the freedom the Yoon Suk-yeol government talks about, if this is market economy. The right-wing side is no different. Those who claim to be influential have joined the chorus of criticism, calling it "socialism worse than socialism." In such times, what is the use of conservative media that always meddle with trivial disputes?

Why is this happening in a government that has been in office for less than a year? The Yoon Suk-yeol administration must take this series of events seriously. Anyone can see that the president’s remark was made to emphasize the "public nature of banks." Is it so offensive that the president said banks should not make the lives of ordinary people harder through interest profiteering during difficult economic times? A presidential office official expressed frustration, saying, "If you look at the context, there is nothing to misunderstand or argue about, but they deliberately pick on the single character '재' (jae)." Yet, the president is being attacked from all sides. Why is that?

First, it is because of the well-being presidential office. The president’s remark came out during a senior secretaries’ meeting. It was said among insiders. It was not a carefully prepared script being read. No one immediately corrected the president by saying "It’s not a public good but public nature." Someone should have quietly smiled and said, "Public good is an exaggerated expression." That is the role of the president’s secretaries. If the first chance to correct was missed, there was a second. The publicity team should have filtered it. Even if the president says something like 'badam-pung' (a Korean onomatopoeia for wind), the publicity team’s role is to 'purify' it into 'baram-pung' (wind) before releasing it. That is why they are paid with taxpayers’ money. The publicity team’s blunders are not a one-time thing. Last month, during the visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the unfiltered remark that "Iran is an enemy" caused international controversy. A so-called pool reporter accompanies the president on state visits for refined reporting. Videos and articles can be adjusted as needed for national interest. If they failed, it was due to incompetence; if they did not try, it was ignorance. The 'Biden snub' controversy was just a few months ago, yet they repeatedly caused controversies. At this point, it is hard to call it a mistake.

Second, there is a more fundamental reason. The mainstream forces in South Korea have been completely replaced by the left. The Moon Jae-in administration shouted "mainstream force replacement" from the beginning and completed it in five years. Pro-nuclear became anti-nuclear, pro-US became pro-China, market economy became income-led growth; the forces were completely replaced. Not only that, the last safety net, the judiciary, was also seized. Recent rulings on Kwak Sang-do, Yoon Mi-hyang, and Lee Sung-yoon are part of this trend. The most problematic is the Lee Sung-yoon ruling. To summarize roughly, it says, "Kim Hak-eui’s illegal travel ban is a crime, but since it was for a greater cause, he is innocent." Whose cause and whose justification is that? It is the completion of the so-called left-wing vested interest ecosystem that says, "If you hold out and fight (on our side), you will be forgiven."

Adding the existing three pillars of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (Minnocho), the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union (Jeongyojo), and civic groups, they become omnipotent and unstoppable. The Yoon Suk-yeol administration is surrounded and isolated. They are always waiting for the president’s mistakes. For them, the president is the biggest thorn in their side and a target for eradication, so no words can sound pleasant, and no mistakes can be tolerated.

This left-wing ecosystem is united and waging a war of attrition. Chairman Jeon Hyun-hee of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, Chairman Han Sang-hyuk of the Korea Communications Commission, President Na Hee-seung of the Korea Railroad Corporation, and the government and public institutions are no exception. Even former parachute CEOs of POSCO and KT have joined. Some CEOs boast loudly, saying they will "fight to the death with the opposition party." Half of the positions appointed by the president are still occupied by them. Including public enterprises and semi-public sectors, a quarter has not been changed. Unless this ecosystem is broken, the president’s mistakes will inevitably be amplified and reproduced. For them, the president’s downfall is their own interest and survival.

The Moon Jae-in administration changed the presidents of KBS and MBC immediately after taking office. It was the first step to replace the mainstream forces and a strategy to suppress criticism. Minnocho and the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (Unnoryeon) led the charge. They camped in front of the houses of resisting board members and did not hesitate to use violence. Not even moderate centrists or conservatives could hold out. Left-wing media, including Hankyoreh, never criticized such barbarism.

What about the Yoon Suk-yeol administration? Self-proclaimed centrists, conservative intellectuals, and media lead the charge in sharpening criticism. Don’t be mistaken. You are not the mainstream. The Democratic Party, Kim Eo-jun, Jeongyojo, Minnocho, and civic groups are the mainstream. The spearhead of that mainstream is aimed at your heart. The idle well-being intellectuals, the well-being presidential office, and the well-being right-wing media. They want to pierce your heart and recreate a world of Lee Jae-myung’s presidency with anti-nuclear policy, income-led growth, pro-China stance, comprehensive real estate tax, division, and double standards. I know that 70 points is not a very good score. Still, I cannot criticize why it is only 70 points. I am afraid they might bring back a zero-point candidate. What about you? Do you want a zero-point candidate again? Whether banks are public goods or not, what really matters?

Lee Jeong-jae, Director of the Economic Media School and Editorial Advisor