At the outset of the ongoing violent protests in South Korea over imported beef from the US, the entire Cabinet of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak offered to resign. Last week, Lee fired three of them. But beef, it turns out, represents just the tip of the iceberg of grievances against Lee. Only four months in office, his approval rating is down to single digits.
Lee won the election last December with 48.7 percent of the vote, having run on the “747” platform, promising 7 percent annual GDP growth, per capita income of US$40,000, and to make South Korea the world’s seventh-largest economy (up from 13th currently). During his inauguration speech, he vowed to revive the economy, strengthen relations with the US, and deal with North Korea.
So what went wrong?
The economy is slowing — the Bank of Korea cut its growth forecast for this year to 4.7 percent, while the Organization for Economic Community Development expects only 4.3 percent growth — inflation is rising, and some are concerned that Lee’s policies are too geared toward foreign investors and big business. Lee also must confront factors beyond his control, such as soaring oil prices and the global credit crunch.
Beyond the economy, Lee has been faced with charges of appointing officials with questionable ethics and of heavy-handed leadership (his nickname is “Bulldozer”), which is reflected in efforts to push through a controversial cross-country canal system and an unpopular proposal to privatize the healthcare system. Furthermore, Lee’s hardline approach to North Korea — very different from that of his predecessors — has resulted in a popular backlash.
To be sure, as North Korea seemingly snubbed the international community in recent years, there was considerable popular discontent with the previous two administrations’ “sunshine” policy, which emphasized peaceful cooperation prior to eventual Korean unification.
But now, with the North’s destruction of key elements of its nuclear program, international negotiations appear to be bearing fruit and Lee’s tougher stance has gained less approval than might have been anticipated when he came to office.
The combined effect of these developments has been to erode Lee’s reputation precipitously. Now, on top of everything, comes the beef controversy. In April, on his first foreign trip following his inauguration, Lee traveled to the US. On the eve of the visit, his government agreed to lift the five-year-old ban on US beef imports as part of efforts to improve bilateral ties following years of up-and-down relations during former South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun’s administration. While most in the West applauded Lee’s visit, the reaction in South Korea was significantly more negative.
Many in South Korea viewed the beef decision as having been hastily taken, and without appropriate consultation. In addition, significant segments of the population saw the agreement as Lee selling out or kowtowing to the US. The public reaction began with a demonstration in Seoul on May 2 in which hundreds of teenagers held a candlelight vigil. Soon, tens of thousands of South Koreans joined the protests.
Lee seems to have misjudged the strength of his election victory and the currents of opinion in several important ways. Given the nationalist sentiments motivating the beef protesters, the strength of opposition forces and widespread hostility to opening and privatizing the South Korean economy further, Lee, whose authoritarian style of management reminds many of the era of military rule, will now need to move forward carefully.
Lee must reach out to the opposition, both within his party and outside it, to build agreement or negotiate compromise on the contentious issues that his administration faces. He must reach out to the people of South Korea and demonstrate that he is willing to listen to their concerns. Finally, he must act on his campaign promises to build a more prosperous and confident South Korea.
The upside of all this political turmoil is that it demonstrates the vigor of Korean democracy. Lee’s task now is to discover how best to take advantage of this new political activism. He has faced political adversity before, and he will again. And, with approval ratings in the single digits, there’s nowhere to go but up.
Michael Kulma is director of policy programs at the Asia Society.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE/ASIA SOCIETY
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS