![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
unreal.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
omonatheydidIn what some critics are calling theatrics, Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon has threatened to quit if South Korean voters don't go along with his proposal to curb what he calls 'welfare populism.'
Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, left, greets supporters during a campaign to limit free lunches to poor students
Call it astute politicking or a career-damaging blunder, a case of bad acting and brinkmanship rarely seen even in a nation known for its emotional roundhouse-punch politics.
Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon wants to limit free school lunches to poor children and take students from wealthy families out of the gratis cafeteria line. And he warns that if voters don't back his agenda in a Wednesday referendum, he's going to quit his post.
Or, as critics put it, collect his marbles in a huff and stalk off the playground.
In an emotional news conference Sunday, Oh wiped away tears, calling the issue so important to the nation that if his plan failed, or if too few voters cast ballots to decide the issue, he was prepared to suffer the consequence.
"If my decision today can sow the seeds to bear the fruits of sustainable welfare and true democracy in the country, I have no regret even if I fade into the mists of history."
Then he dropped to his knees and solemnly bowed his head, in what critics term a shameless theatrical appeal to voters. Oh needs a third of Seoul's 8 million voters to cast ballots or the referendum is void.
The 50-year-old Oh, a charismatic second-term mayor tagged as a future presidential hopeful, denied that his gambit was cheap politics: He said he would not run for president in 2012, regardless of the referendum's outcome, and that his challenge to voters was not a publicity stunt to boost his profile.
His opponents aren't buying it. "I've seen children crying, whining that they will not eat, but I've never seen an adult crying to not feed the children," Kim Sung-soon, an opposition party legislator, told South Korean reporters.
Even fellow members of the ruling Grand National Party advised him against the risk, but Oh waved them aside, insisting that there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially for rich kids.
He calls the free-meal plan "welfare populism" that will unduly cost taxpayers while South Korea struggles amid a worldwide financial downturn. This week, President Lee Myung-bak, a fellow party member, said such expensive, populist programs could drag the nation into a fiscal mess similar to those troubling several European nations.
"The Greek financial crisis was sparked by two major rival parties' competition for populism," Lee said during a weekly radio address broadcast nationwide. "Once the government implements a policy, it's difficult to wind it back."
But many voters say they smell a slick political maneuver at play.
"People may know it was a performance," one man told the South Korean media, "but whatever [Oh's] purpose, what he should offer … is sincerity, not a political show."
Souce: latimes
Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, left, greets supporters during a campaign to limit free lunches to poor students
Call it astute politicking or a career-damaging blunder, a case of bad acting and brinkmanship rarely seen even in a nation known for its emotional roundhouse-punch politics.
Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon wants to limit free school lunches to poor children and take students from wealthy families out of the gratis cafeteria line. And he warns that if voters don't back his agenda in a Wednesday referendum, he's going to quit his post.
Or, as critics put it, collect his marbles in a huff and stalk off the playground.
In an emotional news conference Sunday, Oh wiped away tears, calling the issue so important to the nation that if his plan failed, or if too few voters cast ballots to decide the issue, he was prepared to suffer the consequence.
"If my decision today can sow the seeds to bear the fruits of sustainable welfare and true democracy in the country, I have no regret even if I fade into the mists of history."
Then he dropped to his knees and solemnly bowed his head, in what critics term a shameless theatrical appeal to voters. Oh needs a third of Seoul's 8 million voters to cast ballots or the referendum is void.
The 50-year-old Oh, a charismatic second-term mayor tagged as a future presidential hopeful, denied that his gambit was cheap politics: He said he would not run for president in 2012, regardless of the referendum's outcome, and that his challenge to voters was not a publicity stunt to boost his profile.
His opponents aren't buying it. "I've seen children crying, whining that they will not eat, but I've never seen an adult crying to not feed the children," Kim Sung-soon, an opposition party legislator, told South Korean reporters.
Even fellow members of the ruling Grand National Party advised him against the risk, but Oh waved them aside, insisting that there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially for rich kids.
He calls the free-meal plan "welfare populism" that will unduly cost taxpayers while South Korea struggles amid a worldwide financial downturn. This week, President Lee Myung-bak, a fellow party member, said such expensive, populist programs could drag the nation into a fiscal mess similar to those troubling several European nations.
"The Greek financial crisis was sparked by two major rival parties' competition for populism," Lee said during a weekly radio address broadcast nationwide. "Once the government implements a policy, it's difficult to wind it back."
But many voters say they smell a slick political maneuver at play.
"People may know it was a performance," one man told the South Korean media, "but whatever [Oh's] purpose, what he should offer … is sincerity, not a political show."
Souce: latimes
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 12:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 01:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 01:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 02:45 pm (UTC)then i will collect firewood to build a stake with, does anyone have matches and gas?
"I've seen children crying, whining that they will not eat, but I've never seen an adult crying to not feed the children"
IKR?
"Oh waved them aside, insisting that there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially for rich kids"
does he know that there are families out there who are barely surviving right now and that a free meal helps their children so much?
"People may know it was a performance," one man told the South Korean media, "but whatever [Oh's] purpose, what he should offer … is sincerity, not a political show."
PREACH!!!
HELLS YEAH WE NEED A BIT OF WELFARISM!!! SK is not a country full of rich people you know, there are many not so well off people who could use all the help they can get.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 03:37 pm (UTC)just because you earn a certain amount does not mean that you are rich or can afford certain things. it does not look at the responsibilities that a person may have with what they earn
they will probably suggest some criteria that people have to meet in order to get free lunch but what about those who fall short
if you want to see what a big failure this is going to be just look at stuff like govt housing plans since it stands on the same premises on providing for those too poor to provide for themselves but also has crippling effects on govt spending, it is something that you can compare this case to where govt provides for some but not others based on some criteria that they have come up with. end of the day, there will still be those who are too poor to be able to afford their own but not poor enogh by govt standards therefore they are left to suffer. sorry but i am a politics student and have seen enough of similar nonsense go on
who is poor? by what criteria is someone poor?
to deprive lunch of all things... is food that expensive? just serve the basics.
a better suggesteion is that if you can afford to buy your own then do so, otherwise free lunch is always available
no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 04:25 pm (UTC)It's not political nonsense. This is important considering it affects things like spending allocation and how much money taxpayers will be paying. This is also about trying to ease the burden of said taxpayers who are paying for parents' children to get lunch when they can afford to buy it themselves. One way to sort this that is used in the United States is income based. It actually has more children on it then who should be technically. So depending on a family/person's income would decide on whether their child(ren) would be put on the free lunch program. Another could be based on taxes. I'm sure there are other, reasonable options. What certain amount are you talking about? Because it sounds like you think they'd set the bar so high only the rich or upper-middle class could be on the program, which is redundant since those are the people they want off the lunch program in this bill.
First off, government spending is different than paying taxes. No, the two can't be compared because the government housing project is already in place for those with poor income while this bill is trying to get those who can afford lunch off the bill. There are no rich/upper-middle class people trying to get in on government housing. This bill is all about trimming the fat (those who can obviously afford to buy their child lunch) since that's an unneeded burden on the taxpayers. Not to mention unnecessary spending. Also a housing project would have a larger and more selective criteria compared to a lunch program. Your use of crippling is inaccurate. If it was a complete failure, why would it still be running if it was "crippling" their spending? Since the housing program is ongoing that means there are enough positive results to continue it. Would you prefer they just provide housing for everyone?
Again, this bill is about reducing the burden of taxpayers by having those that can afford to buy their children lunches (or heaven forbid they could bring their lunch!), buy them. By taking off those who would constitute as rich, they are removing people who don't need the program to instead focus on those that do need it. You're advocating an unneeded burden on the taxpayers, which also is a burden on those with low incomes.
Who is poor or rich can be decided by things like income and taxes. Yes, food can be VERY expensive. Especially for a place like South Korea when it comes to importing food. Also "just serve the basics" doesn't work. By suggesting that you're also suggesting lower grade food quality, lack of variety in meals, and pretty much hurting a child's want to learn. Food really does make a difference in how a child will react in a classroom.
No, it's not a better suggestion because that would not change the system. No one would buy lunch, but instead take advantage of the free lunch option. So the same issue would still be around, but instead it's allowed a loophole.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 04:53 pm (UTC)i know very well how inmportant this is dear. that is why i am ciommenting, but it does not take away the fact that i think that the idea is nonsensical
"So depending on a family/person's income would decide on whether their child(ren) would be put on the free lunch program. Another could be based on taxes. I'm sure there are other, reasonable options. What certain amount are you talking about? Because it sounds like you think they'd set the bar so high only the rich or upper-middle class could be on the program, which is redundant since those are the people they want off the lunch program in this bill."
i think i already answered this in the previous reply
"Your use of crippling is inaccurate. If it was a complete failure, why would it still be running if it was "crippling" their spending? Since the housing program is ongoing that means there are enough positive results to continue it."
actually, if you actually look at how the countries implementing it are doing it, read Handelman (1996) Challenge of THird World Development ch6, it will be a good start and then look at countries that are still implementing it and their policies on it as well. it is crippling.
"Yes, food can be VERY expensive. Especially for a place like South Korea when it comes to importing food."
that point i get. i come from two different countries where one, you pay for food and it is dirt cheap at school and another where it would be too expensive to do something like this and in fact a cafeteria is only found at boarding schools. so i get that comment.
"What certain amount are you talking about? Because it sounds like you think they'd set the bar so high only the rich or upper-middle class could be on the program"
i was actually thinking that they would set the restrictions so high that other people who would need it would not be on it.
"Again, this bill is about reducing the burden of taxpayers"
i get that. what i am saying is that it would be exchanging one problem for another. unless you think that a few hungry students is alright if the majority get a tax break. not saying anything against you there, just that there are people who would think that.
"You're advocating an unneeded burden on the taxpayers, which also is a burden on those with low incomes"
no i am not advocating it. i am saying that how is the line of those who do pay and those who don't pay to be decided. that is the real problem that i have with this. it is why i used the housing example: the criteria meant that there were many people who were too poor to afford their own but by the standards of the bill, they were earning too much to be on the programme
no subject
Date: 2011-08-25 02:50 am (UTC)I'd avoid using you then since that's more towards a person within a conversation instead of being used for a third, unknown person. Or is this be more of non-American English versus American English?
"i think i already answered this in the previous reply"
You're considering income though as paycheck only. Income based considers things beyond the paycheck like how many kids a family has, housing, expenditures, etc. Taxes also would show more than just the paycheck. I agree if it was only based on that it would be absurd.
"actually, if you actually look at how the countries implementing it are doing it, read Handelman (1996) Challenge of THird World Development ch6, it will be a good start and then look at countries that are still implementing it and their policies on it as well. it is crippling."
Thanks for the rec, I'll add it to my list. Quite surprising though that a government would keep something the same if it was disabling or incapacitating it.
"...a cafeteria is only found at boarding schools."
Yikes! Where, if you don't mind, did you live where that was common?
"i was actually thinking that they would set the restrictions so high that other people who would need it would not be on it."
That's what I was saying. However, I'd say compared to other programs this has the advantage of the program being in the public eye. If they were to be misers on such a program there would be more of a negative lash back compared to something that is tucked away like the housing. United States as example again usually has more on the program than should actually be. This could be a good thing more likely than a disaster.
"i get that. what i am saying is that it would be exchanging one problem for another. unless you think that a few hungry students is alright if the majority get a tax break. not saying anything against you there, just that there are people who would think that."
It'd be a smaller issue though that can be evaluated and changed instead of the current issue that has no change besides taking the rich and upper class off the program. Yes, people will fall through the crack. That will always happen and probably does with the current plan right now. However, as I said above this would be under more public scrutiny (not to mention children orientated, seems everything that revolves around children and money gets a magnifying glass) so it can't be swept under so easily.
"no i am not advocating it. i am saying that how is the line of those who do pay and those who don't pay to be decided. that is the real problem that i have with this. it is why i used the housing example: the criteria meant that there were many people who were too poor to afford their own but by the standards of the bill, they were earning too much to be on the programme"
You're arguing in favor of keeping the free lunches even though not everyone on the program needs their lunches for free. That's arguing in favor of keeping said burden because unless there are cuts it won't change. We don't know what criteria is being used and this is not helping the general populace by letting plenty of people get a free pass on something they can easily provide themselves. I pointed out the benefit of less taxing. There's also the benefit of less wasted food, less pollution by general waste, and also the chance children could start bringing lunches instead of eating cafeteria food, which has a chance of being healthier or promoting healthy choices.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-25 12:24 pm (UTC)In SA standards, that is is dirt cheap, it is unimaginable (i can't imagine the govt subsidizing involved)
i guess you grade income differently than where i am from....
"Thanks for the rec, I'll add it to my list. Quite surprising though that a government would keep something the same if it was disabling or incapacitating it."
they are politicians. they hate being wrong. and most of the time, they are trying to win favours or are trying to reform the previous system by doing to total opposite or do a whole lot more e.g. govt housing was available here during apartheid but the current govt is taking it on an even larger scale. funny thing is the apartheid housing, at least the one i grew up in in the townships, was mostly a Titanic load better than what we have now...
i get that food there is expensive, but i don't think that there is no other alternative. is there nothing else that they can cut back on that is also impacting on finances? for me it is just too difficult to accept that there will be people missing out on such a basic need as food. when it comes to basics, no-one should fall through the cracks.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-25 02:29 pm (UTC)In SA standards, that is is dirt cheap, it is unimaginable (i can't imagine the govt subsidizing involved)"
Wow, that'd be amazing in the States too. I'd say by now the average for us is around $6.00 or $7.00 dollars, depending on what state.
"i guess you grade income differently than where i am from...."
Eh, it's the government deciding they'd take income and tack on another word on the end to say, "Voila! A title for our means test!" Quick google search shows your country has income based tests (though it's old, '06) for grants. Just a matter of what exactly they are using for defining parameters.
"they are politicians. they hate being wrong. and most of the time, they are trying to win favours or are trying to reform the previous system by doing to total opposite or do a whole lot more e.g. govt housing was available here during apartheid but the current govt is taking it on an even larger scale. funny thing is the apartheid housing, at least the one i grew up in in the townships, was mostly a Titanic load better than what we have now..."
Politicians do hate being wrong, but we all do. It's just their job matters more on whether they're right or wrong since it could make them lose public favor. We're seeing it in this article right now, along with how the opposition trying to gain favor with a lovely, "Oh noes, think of the CHILDREN!" So many things came to be from the root of that, even if it is overdramatizing.
"i get that food there is expensive, but i don't think that there is no other alternative. is there nothing else that they can cut back on that is also impacting on finances? for me it is just too difficult to accept that there will be people missing out on such a basic need as food. when it comes to basics, no-one should fall through the cracks."
There will always be people missing out. Even with free lunches for everyone there are children that aren't claiming lunch. It won't change. There are children who refuse to get it for whatever reason, instead of getting the free lunch they eat at one of those snack venues, illegals not attending, or something else. This means waste in the many things I mentioned besides money, which can be avoided by cuts. Why should this program not recieve cuts besides sheer chance of miscategorizing someone? There's no reason not to. Why should it be up to other programs to take those cuts when this is an easy cut-and-dry reason? I'm positive there are other programs and grants that they are looking to cut down since it won't take just one program cutting out waste to ease the finances of taxpayers. This is just one of the easier, logical ones.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-25 12:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 03:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 03:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 03:27 pm (UTC)While not a fan of his "persuasion method" (makes me think of kdramas) I am a fan of the bill. If families can afford to pay for their children's lunches they should. It'll ease up the taxes for the population a little while still providing for those that need the free lunch. Unfortnately quotes like this, "I've seen children crying, whining that they will not eat, but I've never seen an adult crying to not feed the children" are the only thing that is going to get the attention so Oh Se-hoon might be eating some crow in the future.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 06:07 pm (UTC)I see nothing wrong with this bill.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 06:58 pm (UTC)or he just wants the free lunches to go to children that have a certain income and under? (which I had at my schools)
no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 11:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 08:18 pm (UTC)It can't possibly cost THAT MUCH.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 11:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 08:19 pm (UTC)of course poor children should get support from the government. however, if the family has money to pay for their lunch, i don't see why the money the government is spending with meals for rich kids should not be better allocated.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 11:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 11:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-24 11:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-25 01:47 am (UTC)My family never qualified for welfare or anything like that, but we still lived in a "poor" neighborhood, and I know for a fact that having to pay for our school meals would have put a strain on our finances.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-25 03:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-25 05:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-25 10:19 am (UTC)but kids in SK (especially high schoolers) LIVE at school. They have lunch and dinner at school on weekdays and most stay at school until well past 8PM (maybe 10 PM), then they go to academies after that... I would never want to be in their shoes.
Yes, tax payer money could be "put to better use," but having kids actually eat meals at schools at least guarantees they are properly fed and have the energy to survive the grueling regiments their school/family imposes, rather than the students saving their lunch money for personal expenses and not eating or something like that (that's what I did in my American high school... never ate lunch and saved my $$$). Besides, their parents ARE tax payers so they are, in effect, paying for the lunches.
I do see the other side of the argument, and i will nod my head in agreement with everyone talking about "pay for what you can afford" but i don't know. I'm not sure that applies 100% to the Korean context.