With so many things to do, why now?

Koh Hyun-kohn

The author is the executive editor of the JoongAng Ilbo.

When I was a high school senior in late July 1980, a classmate of mine burst into the room during a summer makeup class, shouting that separate university admissions tests were being scrapped. Our teacher laughed it off, saying he was talking nonsense due to the heat. But he was not bluffing.

An ad hoc legislative body indeed decided to do away with separate university admissions tests, which were blamed for fueling expensive tutoring because prestigious universities tended to make the tests too hard. But the decision came too sudden. Seniors, parents and teachers were confounded by the abrupt change just three months ahead of the college entrance test season. Teachers were as clueless as students in mapping university application options. No one had guidelines on what scores could get you into which colleges.

The government in June decided to do away with the so-called “killer questions” that are often irrelevant to school curriculum in mock exams as well as on the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT). The move is understandable. Students should not be tested on ridiculously difficult problems that they have not learned at school. If there is a so-called cartel in the education community, it must be eradicated. But the rash decision pleased no one. The CSAT is coming up in November, but few are sure what falls into the so-called “killer” category.

Seniors and college applicants took the last mock test ahead of the official CSAT without tricky questions. Assessment questions arose. Those who got a perfect score in the math section could outnumber the 3,000 quota for medical school admissions. Due to expectations that the CSAT will be easy, the number of re-bidders for the state-administered college entry exam is expected to be a record-high this year, making the competition fiercer than ever. The surge in repeaters means good business for cram schools. Universities are alarmed by the exodus of students who are dropping out to take the entry exam again for better options. The side effects stem from the hasty change in the college entrance system.

The decision to relocate the bust of independence fighter Hong Beom-do (1868-1963) also came out of the blue. The government found fault with Hong’s affiliation with communism. Hong joined the Soviet Communist Party in the Vladimir Lenin days of the 1920s, which should be differentiated with the party under Joseph Stalin, who backed North Korean founder Kim Il-sung when he invaded the South in 1950. Hong died in 1943 before Korea was liberated from Japanese colonial rule. There is no evidence he was responsible for the deaths of independence fighters in a deadly clash with the Soviet Red Army in Svobodny in 1921. The government appears to have pushed with the relocation without thoroughly checking the facts.

There must be a strong reason the people can understand for removing the bust from the military academy after five years of being there. The Defense Ministry explains the move is to restore the military’s identity. If so, the government should not have decided arbitrarily. It should have sought advice from experts and related groups and tapped public opinion. The ministry’s decision to skip time-consuming discussions with outside experts is dangerous. The act cannot gain justification if it ignores the process.

The government has been stoking confusion and conflict due to its frivolous actions. It has done so with the relocation of the presidential office to Yongsan, revisiting the statutory 52-hour workweek, consideration to lower the school starting year to the age of 5, nullification of Seoul-Yangpyeong expressway and reviving conscript police. It suddenly floats an idea and then takes it back when it draws protest, merely causing unnecessary controversy. Why does it have to spark a firestorm when it has so many important tasks to address? The conservative government appears to be simply doing what it thinks is right.

Even with right causes, however, haste makes waste. The people may not agree. The governments in the past had tapped public opinions through the media or hearings. Some had to be boldly pushed like the real-name financial system or eradication of a powerful military clique under president Kim Young-sam. But most public policies demand prudence after building public consensus.

Poll shows more than 5 percent of the public find the government “one-sided and unilateral.” In a poll late last month, that number hit 21 percent. The disapproval arises because government actions often come without sufficient communication. It scores poorly in approval rating despite its hard work. The sudden decisions baffling the public must stop. The government must not lose its energy on petty fights so that it can concentrate on bigger challenges. The economic conditions at home and abroad are worsening. The government has yet to embark on the pledged reforms in labor, education, and pensions.