Discussion

(Disc)

Article: MP

Article name: "South Korean Capital Keeps Free School Lunch Policy" by Choe Sang-hun Date: 8/24/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/world/asia/25korea.html?_r=2 Comprehension 1. 2. 3. 4. How many students benefit from the free school lunch program? What percentage of Seoul's eligible voters participated in the vote? What are the two most important political issues for South Koreans? Where does the phrase "eating rice in humiliation" originate from?

Discussion 1. What is your opinion on Seoul's free school lunch issue? Is it better to limit free lunches to the needy, or provide lunches to everyone to avoid dividing the students into rich and poor groups? What did you eat for lunch when you were a student? Who prepared your food for you? Do you still eat the same things, or have your preferences changed? Do Japanese schools have a free lunch program? If yes, who is eligible to get free lunches? What are the most important issues in Japanese politics? What are the most important social issues? Have you ever participated in a boycott? If yes, what were you boycotting? Was the boycott successful? How much social welfare is there in Japan? Have you ever used, or are you currently using, a welfare program? Do you expect to use one after you retire? What do you think was the most important cause of the European financial crisis? Was it overly-generous social welfare programs, an out-of-control financial services industry, or something else?

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

South Korean Capital Keeps Free School Lunch Policy By: Choe Sang-hun Date: 8/24/2011 Low turnout in South Korea's first vote on a social policy on Wednesday left in place a program in Seoul providing free lunches for 810,000 elementary and middle school students, a victory for the liberal opposition, which had urged a boycott. Though the voting, like the lunch program, was confined to Seoul, the capital, it took on national proportions with all political parties joining the debate in a sign that, after decades of bickering over civil liberties, the economy and North Korea, they were now entering the unfamiliar field of social welfare. Mayor Oh Se-hoon, urging more restraint in welfare spending, had asked voters to limit free lunches to only lower-income children, at an estimated savings of $100 million a year. His conservative ally, President Lee Myung-bak, supported him by joining in his denouncement of "populist welfare." The liberal opposition urged supporters of universal free lunches not to vote, so the result would not be valid. When the polls closed, only 25.7 percent of the city's 9.4 million eligible voters had voted, lower than the 33.3 percent minimum for a valid result, leaving in place the broad lunch program set up in January by the opposition-dominated City Council. By law, the votes of an invalidated referendum are not counted. "I humbly accept the voting result," Mr. Oh said. Earlier he had vowed to resign if the proposal he backed lost. On Wednesday night, his office said he would make an announcement in a day or so concerning that promise. The opposition called on Mr. Oh to immediately step down. "Because of one politician's selfish decision," said Lee Yong-seop, spokesman for the opposition Democratic Party, "our society had to suffer a terrible ideological conflict and social unrest." South Koreans have grown increasingly distressed over the widening gap between rich and poor, while also worrying about the world's financial crises, which many officials here attribute in part to profligate welfare spending. Mr. Oh, a member of the governing party, the conservative Grand National Party, had played

on the economic anxiety, contending that supplying free meals to all of Seoul's schoolchildren would break the city's $19.1 billion budget. "We must fight welfare populism; it will ruin the country," he said Sunday during a televised news conference, kneeling down tearfully to implore citizens to turn out for the vote. Kwak No-hyun, the superintendent of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, who was elected on the liberal opposition ticket with a promise to provide all children with free lunches, argued that Mr. Oh's approach would "divide our children into rich and poor." "It's a crime to ask poor children to eat rice in humiliation," he said. In the short history of South Korea's vibrant democracy, voters have elected presidents and legislators more by which province or political party they represented than by their stands on jobs, welfare or North Korea. Until Wednesday, a specific policy had never loomed large enough to call a referendum. "This is the first time welfare has become a real issue," said Jaung Hoon, a political scientist at Chung-Ang University in Seoul. "It's a sign that South Korean politics are finally moving toward policy debates." With increasing social mobility, regional affiliation has lost some of its potency as a vote-gathering tool. Politicians have sought other means to galvanize voters. After 10 years in power, the liberals lost the 2007 presidential election to Lee Myung-bak, who attracted voters with the traditionally conservative values of economic growth, pro-business measures and a harder line toward North Korea. Then, in June last year, the liberal opposition made a surprising comeback in local elections by highlighting the need for a more comprehensive state welfare. South Koreans used to depend on personal savings and family members for help in their old age or when jobless. But that tradition was shaken when the financial crisis of the late 1990s effectively ended guaranteed lifetime employment. Today, South Korea has one of the fastest-growing rates of income inequality among the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In a July survey by the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, South Koreans cited income redistribution as the second most important political issue, after job creation.

The expression "eating rice in humiliation," which supporters of free lunches often use, reminds Koreans of the deprivation after the 1950-53 Korean War, when many had to beg to survive. In what is now Asia's fourth-largest economy, the expression still packs force among parents noted for their zeal to provide their children with any advantage. The once-widespread practice of giving cash bribes to teachers and the proliferation of smartphones in middle school classrooms today are partly explained by parents' determination to ensure that their children are not mistreated by teachers or do not feel inferior to their classmates. President Lee, himself a rags-to-riches story, has not said how he voted, but he signaled his support for Mr. Oh. "We must learn lessons from countries in southern Europe where populist welfare pushed the governments to the brink of bankruptcy," he warned during a radio speech on Monday.

a victory for the liberal opposition, which had urged not participating to protest.

A boycott

which many officials here attribute in part to recklessly extravagant welfare spending.

Profligate

pro-business measures and a more aggressive stance toward North Korea.

Harder line

President Lee, himself rising from poverty to wealth, has not said how he voted, but he

A rags-to-riches story

Bickering Populist Galvanize Comeback Zeal Proliferation