[The Editors' Verdict] Let's Spend, Not Refuse

It is very strange that the president is the first to return the emergency disaster relief funds created by the government to stimulate consumption. The ripple effects of his decision, which is unrelated to the purpose of the system, are obvious. Several high-ranking officials have already expressed their intention to return the funds, followed by ruling party lawmakers (and elected officials), local government heads and agency chiefs, and companies that need to be in good standing with the government. They all express goodwill by saying, "Since we are doing well, let's help neighbors who are having a harder time," but if that is the case, it does not make sense why the program was expanded to 100% instead of 70% of the population.

Strictly speaking, this is ambiguous to call a "donation." Where and to whom does the money I did not receive go? It is neither used to pay off national debt nor given to neighbors in need. Whether voluntary or not, the undistributed disaster relief funds go into the Employment Insurance Fund and become resources for employment stabilization projects. Therefore, it is different from the "gold collection campaign" aimed at preventing national bankruptcy. Of course, it has the positive effect of suppressing increases in employment insurance premiums. Still, since I did not designate the use of the funds, it seems better to call it a return or refusal rather than a donation.

There is some criticism that it was inappropriate for the president to take the lead in ordering the return (which he insists on calling a donation). In response, the president said at a staff meeting on the 4th, "It should not be forced." This reminds me of the famous phrase a boss said to employees, "Order as you like, I want jajangmyeon." But that is not the end. The president added, "It is good that the voluntary donation movement is spreading." It sounds like, "Just to be sure, think carefully before ordering."

The ball of returning funds launched by the president will pass through public officials, large corporations, public enterprises, and celebrities, gradually increasing in size and speed. Those who go against this wave should note that they may be excluded from the ranks of model citizens. Eventually, the formula "returning funds is patriotism" may become common sense or belief. A netizen commented on an Asia Economy article about a 65-year-old security guard who donated a month's salary of 2,233,320 won, including night work, annual leave allowance, and meal expenses, for Daegu medical staff fighting the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19): "Please stop this. You are not the one who should be donating."

The president will receive 600,000 won in emergency support funds as a two-person family. I advise him to withdraw the return plan even now and happily go shopping and dining out with the first lady, each spending 300,000 won. It would also be good to set aside some to "really" donate to appropriate places. I receive 1,000,000 won as a four-person family. Although it is an amount that helps the household, I would not be in immediate trouble without it. If my 1,000,000 won were structured to be delivered as 100,000 won to ten households in urgent need, I would actively persuade my family. However, telling children who say, "I am also a citizen, so 250,000 won is mine," about the importance of the Employment Insurance Fund would probably not help much.

Therefore, I have decided not to return or refuse this money. And regardless of age, to claim what is due to me as a citizen of the Republic of Korea. I will also take this opportunity to think about what "good consumption" really means. After spending the full 250,000 won, we plan to sit at the table and discuss where and what we bought and ate, and why we chose those places.

Of course, I want to say that I respect the thoughts of those who decided to return the funds. I just hope it is not a forced jajangmyeon. Therefore, I would like to make a suggestion to the media industry to which I belong. If any ministry, local government, company, or celebrity distributes a press release stating their plan to donate disaster relief funds, let us respect the sincerity of that donation and "not report it." Isn't donation more meaningful when done quietly? Hopefully, there will be no flood of calls to media companies saying, "Why is there no article? Those people need to know we are donating, please make the article big."

Shin Beom-su, Head of Social Affairs Department

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.