[fn Plaza] Watch your words at all times

It was Abraham Lincoln who said, "Politics is ultimately about winning people's hearts." He made this statement during the first joint Senate debate held in Illinois in 1858, remarking, "If you win public opinion, there is nothing you cannot achieve; if you lose public opinion, there is nothing you can achieve." He viewed politics as being closer to "the act of shaping people's thoughts" than "the act of creating laws or institutions." To that extent, for politicians, words are a powerful political tool that goes beyond mere expression of opinion to move people's minds and change public opinion.
Recently, a red light has been flashing on President Lee Jae-myung's approval rating for his handling of state affairs. According to a poll released by Realmeter on the 31st of last month, the President's approval rating has fallen for seven consecutive weeks, dropping into the 30% range for the first time since his inauguration. Opinion poll experts attribute the cause to factors such as housing price instability, the announcement of tax reform plans, the sharp drop in the KOSPI index, and the abolition of supplementary investigative powers. However, I believe the real estate issue is the most significant among these factors. In *The Prince*, Machiavelli stated, "People remember the loss of their property longer than the death of their father." This explains why the issue of housing prices, which constitute a substantial portion of a lifetime's accumulated wealth, inevitably has a significant impact on public sentiment.
However, when it comes to real estate issues, it is not only the content of the policy that stirs public sentiment. A single remark made by politicians explaining and representing these issues can sometimes cause a greater impact than the policy itself. In particular, when politicians make statements that seem detached from reality, public dissatisfaction easily escalates into distrust of the policy. The so-called "abandoned bus" controversy is a prime example. Representative Hwang Hee of the Democratic Party of Korea recently proposed remodeling abandoned buses to be used as housing for young people. This "abandoned bus youth housing" concept immediately sparked controversy within the political sphere and contributed to a sharp drop in his approval ratings.
Of course, there is no need to take Representative Hwang's remarks literally and view them solely as a policy to actually have young people live in abandoned buses. It could be a proposal merely as an idea to identify idle facilities that can be utilized as residential spaces. The issue lies not in "what was said," but in "how it was heard." It is obvious how the suggestion to "let them live in abandoned buses" was received by those who feel that housing prices are skyrocketing and the dream of home ownership has become a distant dream. No matter how noble the intention behind a policy may be, the moment the public perceives it as a story detached from their reality, the remark becomes a political liability rather than policy promotion.
This is why politicians' words are particularly dangerous when it comes to real estate issues. Housing is not merely a commodity. For some, it is a lifetime's worth of savings; for others, it is a sanctuary for their families; and for still others, it is the last line of defense to support their old age. Fluctuations in housing prices are not simply changes in numbers on a statistical table; they are issues that fundamentally alter a household's asset base and future plans. Therefore, when politicians discuss housing issues, they require a level of caution far greater than that used when explaining economic policies.
There have been numerous similar instances in the past. A prime example is the remark made in 2018 by Jang Ha-sung, then Chief of Policy at the Blue House, who said, "I know from experience that there is no need to live in Gangnam." Although Jang explained that it was not necessary to live in Gangnam, the remark actually provoked public resentment. This was due to the paradox of someone who has lived in Gangnam saying that there is no need to live there. To those feeling a sense of relative deprivation over housing prices, it could be perceived as him discussing the issue of housing choice too lightly.
It is also difficult to overlook the remark made by then-Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Kim Hyun-mee in 2020, "If apartments were bread." During a parliamentary inquiry into current issues, in response to criticism regarding the shortage of apartment supply, Minister Kim stated, "If apartments were bread, I would make them even if I had to stay up all night." While the intention was that expanding supply takes time, how the metaphor of "bread" resonated with the public, who were suffering from rising Jeonse and housing prices, is a separate matter.
These three cases, which could well be included in the so-called 'Dictionary of Politician Gaffes,' share a common thread. Although the original intent of the speakers has faded, the phrases that stuck in the public's ears have lingered for a long time. Phrases like "abandoned buses," "no need to live in Gangnam," and "if an apartment were bread" are now consumed as political symbols, detached from the full context of their remarks. This illustrates just how a politician's words can become both a formidable political asset and a liability.
In real estate policy, in particular, numbers and words do not go hand in hand. No matter how sophisticated the government's supply measures may be, trust crumbles the moment the public feels that politicians live in a different world from them. While complex policies must be explained simply to the public, there is a difference between simple language and lighthearted language. The more directly an issue affects the lives and property of the people, the more weight a politician's words must carry. This is why it never hurts to be careful with one's words, day and night.
[email protected] None Reporter