South Korea is home to a diverse population that includes both older generations who experienced the Japanese colonial period, the Korean War, and rapid economic growth, as well as younger individuals who may not be familiar with significant historical events like the May 18 Gwangju Uprising. This demographic mix has contributed to severe economic polarization.
The historical and economic backgrounds create a fertile ground for various perspectives. The role of politicians is to unite the diverse thoughts of the populace and to design a better future.
The essence of politics lies in benefiting the people. It is the duty of politicians to act in the interest of the public. When politicians prioritize their own interests over those of the citizens, it leads to public discontent.
Recently, the president faced criticism for selling a house while establishing a mortgage. While the president is entitled to invest and engage in real estate transactions, officials who are knowledgeable about policies should refrain from such dealings to avoid the appearance of impropriety, as it could be seen as insider trading.
In the stock market, insider trading is considered unfair. Those who trade based on prior knowledge have an advantage over investors who are unaware of such information.
Policy design should focus on enhancing the happiness of the citizens, yet the current direction of stock and real estate policies raises concerns. The introduction of single-stock leveraged ETFs has led to significant losses for many investors due to increased market volatility.
By using a mortgage to sell an apartment and blocking bank loans, the president has made it more difficult for ordinary citizens to buy or sell properties. With increased property taxes, selling becomes challenging, leaving retirees with a single home and no cash income anxious about tax burdens.
The complex tax reforms seem more focused on punitive taxation and increased revenue rather than stabilizing the real estate market. This approach is not significantly different from those taken during the Roh Moo-hyun and Moon Jae-in administrations.
Attempts to suppress demand through punitive taxation have been tried before and did not yield the intended results. This is the background behind the president's campaign promise not to control housing prices through taxes. Why revert to the same methods now? Is there a compelling reason this time?
The government should not wield the power of real estate taxation against its citizens recklessly. The freedom to relocate is guaranteed by the constitution; should this right be restricted by taxation?
The abolition of the prosecution has severely undermined the public's right to protection from crime. It raises questions about what benefits the general public gains from exempting corrupt politicians and criminals from prosecution. Is the capability and morality of the police, who have taken on these responsibilities, superior to that of the prosecution?
Policies that directly affect the daily lives of citizens, such as those related to real estate, stock markets, and the abolition of the prosecution, must be approached with caution.
According to a survey by Gallup Korea, 61% of the public supports maintaining the prosecution's supplementary investigative powers, while 23% favor abolition. Among supporters of the Democratic Party, 46% support maintenance, and 39% support abolition.
It is puzzling that the Democratic Party is pushing for an abolition that is opposed by both the general public and its own supporters, and reports suggest the president approved the measure without fully reading it.
Political parties must reflect on whether they are blindly following the demands of extreme factions. When significant legislation passes through the National Assembly, it is the president's responsibility to carefully consider its potential impact on the public and take necessary actions.
Policy design and implementation should not be treated like tools in a scientific laboratory. There must be thorough simulations of the outcomes of policy implementation and consultations on potential negative impacts to minimize side effects.
It seems there is an underlying assumption that the recent amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act, which abolished prosecutorial investigative powers, can be implemented and revised later if issues arise. This approach may face numerous challenges. Convincing workers who benefited from the Yellow Envelope Law that their gains will be taken away is no easy task. Even claims that semiconductor investments in Honam are a subject of labor negotiations leave the Democratic Party with little ground to stand on due to the ambiguity they have created in the law.
Arrogance that disregards the market and public sentiment is evident in the ruling party's aggressive legislative push. There is a need to recognize the pitfalls of a system where the number of lawmakers does not reflect public sentiment.
The direction of stock and real estate markets, the impact of the Criminal Procedure Act amendments on the public, and the controversies surrounding the president's indictment and potential re-election will serve as tests of the administration's policy competence and morality.
The government must implement sound policies for the comfort of its citizens and the nation's development. What good is a cabinet reshuffle to prevent a decline in approval ratings if the policy direction remains unchanged? Concerns are mounting.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.