[Column] Can any of the three reforms really succeed?

Koh Hyun-kohn

The author is the executive editor of the JoongAng Ilbo.

President Yoon Suk Yeol spelled out three key reform agendas of his government — pension, labor and education — on May 16 last year in his first address to the National Assembly upon inauguration. “If we don’t start now, the sustainability of our society could be threatened,” he said. The show of will and direction has raised big expectations. He was out to correct what had been fouled up by the previous government. A year has passed with hardly any progress on the reform front. The president would be ashamed to have called the agenda his “historical mission.”

No one in political circles mentioned pension reform. The National Assembly reluctantly launched a special committee on pension reform in July last year and the committee held its first meeting three months later. The inaugural meeting ended after some casual comments. A private advisory board under the committee last month issued an unimpressive report with little insights and plausible ideas. The committee has not gotten around to formulating an outline, let alone seeking social consensus on it. It had meant to move onto other money-losing public pensions for government employees, soldiers and teachers after addressing the national pension. The special committee’s life expires by the end of this month.

The labor reform front is hardly any better. Apart from the strong response to illegitimate strikes by cargo truckers, the government has made little difference. It has only caused confusion with its proposal of changes to the rigid 52-hour workweek. The government intended to change the regulations to extend the workweek up to 69 hours during peak season and allow workers to take a lengthy leave during the slow season upon agreement between the management and union. But its proposal was misunderstood as lengthening the 52-hour workweek to 69 hours due to ill-intended campaigning from the opposition. The labor reform went astray after the president disagreed with the idea of working over 60 hours per week. It sounded as if Yoon was not pleased with the government outline, either.

The government’s plan to flexibly implement the rigid workweek rule failed even before it faced a test in the opposition-dominated National Assembly. The misfortune was self-brought because the government announced the measure without tapping public opinion first. The government belatedly proposed to canvass public views, but the harm appears irrevocable. Due to the poor start, the government lost confidence to push with more sensitive reforms in the labor sector — such as breaking the cocoon of mighty unions for permanent jobs at large companies and correcting the inequalities of irregular workers, as well as tackling the longstanding seniority-based pay system and the extension of retirement age.

Education reform has already lost steam. The deputy prime ministerial-level education minister had been vacant until November due to problems with nominees. The Ministry of Education finally set its top 10 agendas, including proposals of education superintendent candidates racing as running mates to the candidates for mayoral and gubernatorial positions, customized after-school care services and digital education. But many of them call for revisions of related laws. The most important of all education reforms is to address expensive private education. Without solving this problem, any education reforms lose meaning. The government must start the reform with the awareness that our education system helps worsen social inequalities.

The outlook on the reform drive is not promising either. The time for the government to make reforms has already passed. The first half of this year would be the best time for the government to drive reforms in full force, as the calendar is free of elections. The Roh Moo-hyun administration attempted national pension reform early and yet it only got around to make small tweaks in the final year of Roh’s term. The Park Geun-hye administration started the civil servants pension reform in the second year of Park’s term in 2014, but it could finalize the reform even 17 months later. The Moon Jae-in administration shunned any reforms for fear of losing votes.

Campaigning for the April 10 parliamentary elections next year will start from the latter half. The Yoon administration will finalize the national pension reform and a flexible application of the uniform 52-hour workweek in the fall — a sensitive period for political circles. Rivalling parties would hardly want to join the unpopular move.

Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder who caused a defeat for his party with radical labor reforms had said that reform could only work when national interests come before the party’s. But that may not be possible in this country.

President Yoon Suk Yeol speaks about his reform plans for the labor, education and pension sectors before 200 young guests in the Blue House, Dec. 20, 2022. [PRRESIDENTIAL OFFICE]

Whether the government has the political ability to push ahead with reform is doubtful. The government argues for the cause of reforms, but it does not present a vision or a roadmap that can win public support. It does not seek discussions with the People Power Party nor the opposition Democratic Party. Public hearings on public policies are rare. The three reforms require consensus with the concerned parties. Reforms would be strongly resisted if the parties fight to defend their interests. The government must persistently persuade the people and political parties to go forward.

President Yoon’s low approval rating is a stumbling block to the reform drive. President Lee Myung-bak’s approval rating sank to 21 percent after the mad cow disease scare scandal broke out in his first year in 2008. His government suffered throughout the five-year term. Yoon’s approval rating remains around 30 percent even without major mishaps like the mad cow scare. The PPP are even losing favor with the traditional voting base of conservatives. Nevertheless, the presidential office and the PPP raise suspicion about the poll results or put up a strong face. But such nonchalance cannot win back public trust. Yoon’s government would have wasted half of the five-year term once parliamentary elections are over. It may have to settle with making progress with only one of the three reforms.