The three main presidential candidates held their crucial second face-to-face showdown on Monday night. The topics of the 120-minute TV debate were all related to the economy ― economic growth, economic democracy, job creation and welfare expansion.
The second debate was more informative and livelier than the first one on Dec. 4, which focused on diplomacy and national security. It brought into relief differences in economic policies among the three candidates ― Park Geun-hye of the ruling Saenuri Party, Moon Jae-in of the Democratic United Party and Lee Jung-hee of the United Progressive Party.
The three squared off over economic democracy, especially chaebol reform. Park reiterated her intention to ban business groups from making fresh circular investments but leave existing ones intact.
She opposed the abolition of the existing circular shareholding arrangements for three reasons: First, it would amount to punishing corporations retroactively. Second, the money needed to undo them could be used for job creation. Third, it would distract business groups by destabilizing their governance structures.
Yet Moon argued that economic democracy could not be attained without unraveling all circular investment loops. But he tried to distance himself from Lee, who stressed that chaebol groups should be dissolved to make room for small and medium-sized enterprises to grow.
The DUP candidate said Korea should not go so far as abandoning the chaebol system itself because it would help Korean conglomerates compete in the global markets.
The candidates’ focus on economic democracy prevented them from paying enough attention to a more important and pressing problem ― how to help the economy grow its way out of a prolonged slowdown.
Moon argued that economic growth could be generated by democratizing the economy and creating jobs. He said a shift away from the incumbent administration’s chaebol-centric policies would boost domestic demand, setting in motion a virtuous circle of economic growth and job creation.
Park offered more specific measures. In the short term, she said, the government should tackle the problem of household debt, revitalize the real estate market and support SMEs and the self-employed.
In the long term, she said she would focus on bolstering the nation’s growth potential by cultivating new growth engines, promoting the spread of IT to other industrial sectors and improving the productivity of the service industry.
Yet the two could not discuss the issue further due to the rigid format of the debate. Instead they engaged in mutual accusations by sparring over where the blame for the current economic difficulties should be put.
Moon laid the blame squarely on President Lee Myung-bak, asserting that Park could not avoid responsibility either, because she has been the leader of the ruling party. Park instead argued that most of the current economic problems stemmed from the failed policies of the Roh Moo-hyun government.
On welfare policies, Park warned against welfare populism and stressed the need to expand welfare services without impairing fiscal soundness, while Moon asserted that welfare expansion should be seen as a form of investment that would facilitate job creation.
The two both promised to provide more health insurance benefits to the public. Park pledged to provide free medical treatment to people suffering from four severe diseases ― cancer, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and rare incurable diseases. Patients with these diseases account for 15 percent of the population.
Moon promised to limit the co-payments of inpatients to 1 million won a year. Currently, the co-payment ceiling ranges from 2 million won to 4 million won, depending on the patient’s monthly contribution.
The problem with their promises is that they would push the National Health Insurance Corp. deeper into the red.
Overall, the second debate was better than the first one. But the debate is unlikely to have much impact on the outcome of the Dec. 19 vote.
As was the case with the first debate, the presence of a third candidate prevented the two frontrunners from discussing key issues in more detail. Especially, Park was distracted by Lee’s tenacious and venomous attacks.
The Saenuri candidate, however, managed to keep a level head and emerged unscathed from the contentious debate.
The sharp-tongued UPP candidate should not have been allowed to join the TV showdown in the first place in light of her marginal chance of victory. She is expected to bow out of the presidential race before the third debate, which is slated for Dec. 16.
