[Gangnam Perspective] Prejudice Society

There is a term, "Yangtanja." It does not refer to the flying carpets from Arabian Nights. It is a funny yet sad nickname for people who worked in the Office of the President of South Korea at the end of both the Park Geun-hye administration and the Yoon Suk Yeol administration, and who went through two impeachment crises, a play on the phrase for "double impeachment."
The Yangtanja belong to a particular cohort, but their attitude encapsulates the mindset of South Korean conservatism. They place great value on "market autonomy" and on "controlling the pace" of change. They believe markets can solve problems on their own, and that if change comes too fast, it can fuel social conflict. However, their strong faith in markets and autonomy has at times led them into prejudice.
Progressive figures do not accept these conservative premises. They tend instead to set clear institutional goals and timelines and then push straight ahead. In their view, only government intervention can create a more equal and just society. Yet if they speed ahead while looking only forward and ignoring other risks, that too can become a form of prejudice.
I believe the current ruling camp also shows traces of prejudice in how it approaches issues with two sides. Prosecution reform has focused almost exclusively on the goal of checking prosecutorial power. The flip side—weakening investigative capacity and undermining the ability to respond to power-related crimes—has barely been considered. The Yellow Envelope Law likewise has raced ahead in the name of protecting the weak, without fully taking into account real-world contracting structures and lines of responsibility. The revised Commercial Act of the Republic of Korea is built on the assumption that companies have long ignored shareholder interests. As a result, there is now less room for companies to exercise strategic autonomy.
The problem is that those who should be putting the brakes on such "speeding policies"—the rapid adoption of sensitive institutional changes—are all staying silent. Take the Third Amendment Bill to the Commercial Act, whose core is the mandatory retirement of treasury shares. This aligns with the aim of returning profits to shareholders and has helped ease the Korea discount. Even so, no one points out that whether a company should retire or hold the treasury shares it buys can legitimately differ depending on its stage of growth and the structure of its industry.
Business lobby groups, which act as corporate agents, are no different. The Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) was sharply rebuked by the President of the Republic of Korea last month for issuing a press release that was labeled as fake news. Since then it has been significantly cowed. Many executives with direct or indirect responsibility have been replaced, leaving the organization in a position where it can only tread carefully on core policy issues.
Civil servants have long been overwhelmed and tamed by presidential directives. The Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs used somewhat ambiguous wording in a report on the temporary suspension of heavier capital gains tax on multiple-homeowners and was then admonished by the President of the Republic of Korea about the importance of policy consistency and predictability. When talk of a supplementary budget emerged, the Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs moved so quickly that the label "guardian of fiscal soundness" rang hollow, producing a government proposal in a record-short 19 days.
The media, too, largely go along with the policy line. One outlet argued that without the governing camp’s statecraft, national vision, and political stability, the recent stock market rally would not have been possible. Of course, criticism for its own sake should be avoided. Even so, it is doubtful whether our media are truly fulfilling their core role of offering "commentary free of prejudice."
Those who lead what might be called a prejudice society—people who see the world with only one eye—believe they see reality as it is, and that the problem lies with others blinded by ideology. They also tend to insist that, because their own experience is everything, their organization must move in that direction. One wonders whether our society has become trapped in what social psychologist Lee Ross called "naive realism."
Anyone can harbor prejudice and fall into naive realism. But when prejudice becomes mainstream and social conflict intensifies, it is hard to expect sound policymaking. In a prejudice society, vibrant entrepreneurship is bound to wither.
Asked what he wanted from the government, one businessperson replied, "Just leave us alone." The government may want to support companies and in return demand something from them, but companies think differently. Entrepreneurship cannot be produced to order.
syhong@fnnews.com