People President doesnt listen to

By Oh Young-jin

Assistant managing editor

A couple days ago, I had business lunch with an executive of a big conglomerate.

For five years we have known each other. The executive proves to have a firm grasp of the goings-on in domestic politics. Politics run in his family with his late grandfather unsuccessfully betting everything on a political venture.

The executive has also been an avid supporter of President Lee Myung-bak.

He is from Yongnam, the area covering North and South Gyeongsang Provinces that serves as President Lee’s home base and went to Korea University, the President’s alma mater. He is in his mid-50s, belonging to an age bracket that is often politically conservative, and lives in the affluent Gangnam district, south of the Han River.

His profile fits the core demographic segment that played a key role in Lee’s landslide presidential election victory three years ago and believed to be the last line of defense for Lee when his political chips are down.

Thus, I expected him to speak in the President’s defense, when our conservation turned to politics.

I was sorely mistaken. Here is an edited version of our conversation.

Me:

President Lee was elected because the voters supported his pledge to enliven the economy. Now the economy is doing well so, to say the least, he has kept his end of the bargain with the people, although I agree the job of a President is more encompassing. His approval ratings also are quite high for a President at this time of his tenure.

The exec:

Above 50-percent ratings are like a house of cards or a sand castle. We never know when those numbers may collapse. Besides, considering the way polls are taken nowadays, it is prudent not to take the results too seriously. Remember how the polls taken before the previous local elections failed to gauge voters’ sentiment (The polls forecast the ruling party’s lopsided win but the voters gave their strong approval to opposition candidates).

What about the economy? We have weathered the financial crisis better than others. If things didn’t pan out as they did, we may not be having this lunch today. We owe it to Lee’s leadership.

I agree. But the President’s economic achievement is being eclipsed by other boneheaded mistakes. Above all, I strongly disapprove of how and whom he appoints in senior posts. He keeps trying to surround himself only with his people, even though they are causing him such embarrassment. I looked at a 200-point questionnaire Lee’s people drew up in what they said was an effort to better screen important political and bureaucratic appointees in advance but I bet it is so thorough that few will pass it. The funny thing is that, when recalling what recently happened to some of Lee’s appointees, the strict screening process proved to be a sieve that allowed some really rotten apples to be nominated. We know how their dirty laundry was brought out into the open during the National Assembly confirmation hearings and provided fodder for the opposition to attack the President. The new screening process failed because Lee’s aides looked to their boss to see what he would think of their choices rather than the scores the potential appointees got on the questionnaire. We often say that we should leave it to the system in order to improve transparency but more important is that those in power should respect the system, refrain from intervening and allow it time to take over and let it work by itself. I don’t approve much of what the Army general-turned-president Chun Doo-hwan but his style of selecting people was better than Lee’s. Chun knew his limits and was willing to bow his head to persuade bright people to set aside their political differences and work for him. Lee doesn’t have Chun’s magnanimity in terms of using the right people in important positions, irrespective of their political color.

I disagree. It is not right to sweep all Lee’s people in one broad stroke and put them in the same category of incompetence. Some are politically very bright. For instance, President Lee faces criticism for avoiding speaking to reporters, unless it is a “controlled” environment. I think it must be saving the President from a lot of political flak. Lee is well-known for his sharp tongue. I have no doubt that someone is coaching him. In addition, his “fair society” campaign is also timely and well aimed at bringing in disenchanted people, although it didn’t succeed.

Communication is his weak point. Keeping him incommunicado from the public by not holding news conferences may save him from criticism but it is myopic because, by doing so, a leader can run the bigger risk of alienating himself from the governed. Speaking of his fair society, I wonder what is fair about it. He is giving all the plum jobs to his people who are already wealthy and well-positioned. They are people who don’t have such privileges. I had my share of grievances with the late former President Roh Moo-hyun. At least, the people, whom he used for big jobs, were his political comrades who had been out in the cold and without privileges for a long time.

I believe that there are two types of Lee critics: one who has a visceral, irreconcilable dislike to the President and the other who are critical of him but would positively consider voting for him, if he was on the ballot (President Lee may not seek a second term under the current Constitution and even if the basic law was revised during his term, he would still be barred from running).

I am in the second category