These are the times I’m reminded why the Uri Party — clueless as its lawmakers may be — dominated the April general election.
Firstly, let’s grant that it’s probably not a good thing for the prime minister to get pissed on boilermakers during an overseas trip and launch a tirade before the press against two of Korea’s largest newspapers. Let’s further grant that it’s probably not a good thing for said prime minister, upon returning to Korea, to go before the National Assembly and launch another tirade against the opposition Grand National Party (GNP) — even if most of what Lee said was true (which it was), he’s not supposed to say things like that as prime minister. Let’s also grant that Pete over at Oranckay.net warned us when Lee Hae-chan was first appointed prime minister that things like this were going to happen.
But for the love of Christ, the GNP has been boycotting parliamentary proceeding for a week now, and today, they voted to extend their boycott until the government deals with the prime minister, whom they demanded be sacked. How much do these guys make? More than me, I know that. You’d think the least they could do is show up for their jobs.
And let’s be completely honest here. Yes, Prime Minister Lee was out of line, and if he would like to speak his mind thusly, the place to do it would be in the National Assembly, which seems to specialize in such nonsense. But how, exactly, does a party that put on a play in which it said President Roh “didn’t deserve to walk around with a dick” find the moral authority to get huffy and puffy just because the prime minister spoke the truth a little too bluntly? I mean, come on, how can one read something like this and not die laughing?
“Prime Minister Lee is insolent and impudent, disrupting the interpellation session on purpose,” charged GNP Rep. Kim Yong-kap.
Kim Yong-kap said that. Kim Yong-kap!
What gets me about this all is that while the GNP takes their paid holiday, the government is actually preparing to crack down on civil servants preparing to strike. Yes, I understand there’s a difference, and no, I don’t think civil servants should be allowed to strike, but for Christ’s sake, at least civil servants eat tax money doing something that approximates work. GNP lawmakers, on the other hand, eat tax money spending their days calling the administration and ruling party nasty names. You’d think if anyone should have no-strike clauses in their contracts, it would be them.
4 Comments
Yes, tax money-eating public servants are definitely the scourge of our era. I should know-my dad’s a public school teacher in the states and he’s WAY, WAY overpaid for the works he does and the amount of education he has(!) All other factors being equal, his friends in the private sector earn twice or three times as much. The Ken Lays of this world and the CEOs of Ford Motor Company ($93 mil. in pay a year and $125 mil. in stock options) eat much more of our society’s wealth. But hey: people like that shouldn’t have to sacrifice!
Don’t know hardly anything about SK politics but I found the comment “even if most of what Lee said is true (which it was)he’s not supposed to say things like that as prime minister” very interesting.
Ralph — just to explain what that means, in the ROK, the prime minister has a duty to maintain “political neutrality.” Like the rest of the administration, he’s is not viewed as a politician — despite the fact that he, in fact, a serving lawmaker — but a high-ranking civil servant. One might argue that this is completely retarded, and in fact, President Roh argued as much before the April general election (I think the exact quote is, “Let’s be honest — the president is a politician”). But that’s the way it works here, so that’s that.
Mark — I didn’t say civil servants were underpaid and/or underworked. I did say, however, that in the ROK, they shouldn’t be allowed to strike. Civil servants know before they take their jobs that in return for secure employment and guaranteed pensions, they give up their “three labor rights,” including the right to engage in collective action.
And while the CEOs of the world may, in fact, “eat much more of our society’s wealth,” they also generate much of our society’s wealth. What they chose to do with their own money is none of my concern, unless that money is being paid to them out of the public coffer (as is the case in military-related industries and public bailouts), in which case what they do with that money is very much my concern.
Marmot-About civil servants in Korea: Understood.
About CEO pay: I hardly think that CEOs sit on a golden throne and poop out the world’s wealth. I think they have just a little help from the people that work in that industry(!) I guess my question really is: what is the value system that allows CEO pay (”their own money”) to go to such heights, esp. in the USA; European CEOs running companies of similar scales don’t get paid as much…why?. If you or I can be happy with 20 or 30 million dollars, then why can’t a CEO? Why does it necessarily have to be upwards of a $100 million? (Especially when they are getting pay rises while their company loses money?) I’m not saying that they shouldn’t get millions of bucks, but why $200 million or more? I think this is not an issue of some bogus “free market”, but a one of values. Just what are the values involved, and who are making these decisions?