[Interview] Kim Byung-joon "Moon Administration is Welfare Destructionism... Turning History Backwards"

"Current Government Undermines Foundation of Sustainable Welfare"
"Yoon Seok-yeol Can Steadily Push National Reform"

[Asia Economy Reporters Naju-seok and Lee Hyun-joo] Kim Byung-joon, Standing Election Committee Chairman of the People Power Party, criticized the Moon Jae-in administration as 'welfare destructionism.'

In an interview with Asia Economy on the 15th, Chairman Kim said, "Welfare must be sustainable, and for it to be sustainable, the finances must be sound," and criticized, "(The current administration) recklessly spent (the finances)." He also pointed out that increasing taxpayers' resistance to tax burdens is another threat to sustainable welfare. Chairman Kim criticized, "For welfare to be sustainable, taxpayers must feel there is a reason to pay taxes, but they were treated like traitors."

Chairman Kim pointed out that the Moon Jae-in administration "did not just fail but reversed history," saying, "They killed freedom in the name of freedom and killed democracy in the name of democracy." He served as Deputy Prime Minister for Education and Chief of the Blue House Policy Office during the Participatory Government, which the Moon administration claimed to inherit.

Having announced that he will not take elected or appointed positions after the presidential election, Chairman Kim said, "I feel a certain limit regarding politics and administration," and expressed his desire to engage in impact projects and work on summarizing this era.

Kim Byung-jun, Standing Election Committee Chairman of the People Power Party. / Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

This interview includes content that could not be included in the print edition due to space constraints in the interview published on the 16th.

- I heard you originally did not want to join the presidential election campaign committee?

▲ I strongly wished not to join the campaign committee. It’s not that I wouldn’t help the election, but I thought that to help properly, I should stay away from the campaign committee to be able to contribute to the overall strategic and policy flow. I was worried that focusing on organizing the structure might cause us to miss really important matters. Because human ability has limits. When we say to implement a responsible prime minister system, it’s wrong to think that after electing a president, all authority should be given to the prime minister. For the president to truly do what only the president can do, in English, the presidential agenda, the daily tasks must be delegated to someone else. The president must be completely free from daily affairs and devote all their energy to things that only the president can do. People mistakenly think that simply increasing the prime minister’s authority is the goal, but it is not.

- When will candidate Yoon’s spouse Kim Geon-hee make an appearance?

▲ Even if you change your position, it’s difficult for the candidate to unilaterally dictate the schedule to the spouse. The spouse has rights as a spouse and as a wife and may have their own position. She will definitely appear someday, choosing an appropriate method and time. However, this is ultimately a matter of the candidate’s spouse’s rights, not just the candidate. This is a general issue, not only for Yoon Seok-youl’s wife. The First Lady should have her own work and may have a professional career. The impression that the First Lady is automatically 100% subordinate to the president needs to be erased now.

- Your role seems less visible than during the controversy over the campaign committee formation.

▲ There is no reason for me to be in the spotlight. If there is an important message, it should naturally come through the candidate’s mouth, and the candidate should be in the spotlight. During the presidential election period, the spotlight should be on the candidate. Otherwise, the candidate’s leadership could be shaken on the campaign trail.

- Why did you say you had confidence in candidate Yoon?

▲ I had several long conversations with the candidate, and we generally shared the same vision for the country’s future. It was about respecting freedom and creativity centered on market liberalism, maintaining the market’s dynamism, and growing through it. At the same time, the government should play a significant role in adjusting income inequality and social inequality inherent in the free market economy. Unlike the current administration that recklessly spends money to adjust, it is also possible to correct distorted structures in the market first. Through these discussions, I saw that candidate Yoon could steadfastly push reforms. Even if public support is low, a person who can firmly express their views and endure is needed to build a new country.

Kim Byung-joon, Standing Election Committee Chairman of the People Power Party. / Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

- How should the national governance system change?

▲ Social change has happened very rapidly, but decision-making speed is getting slower. The decision-making speed cannot keep up with social change, causing all sorts of contradictions in society, including wealth disparity and growth issues. Not only speed but rationality is lacking. Alternatives fail to read the times and produce irrelevant results. So, can the state be fixed? My conclusion is that it is difficult. If it is difficult, what should we do? If the state lacks proper decision-making ability, other entities should be allowed to decide. The entities that can decide quickly and rationally are civil society, businesses, and individuals. We should enable them to decide quickly. If the state creates all sorts of regulations and hinders them, what will happen to the country? It must be rebuilt as if founding a nation.

- Is the state’s authority shifting?

▲ I propose dismantling a significant portion of the state’s regulatory authority to allow the market and businesses to thrive. At least regarding the market, the state has already lost the ability to make good decisions. Instead, the state should focus on areas it can do well, such as addressing wealth and income disparities and unfairness arising in the market. The state should play a more active role in social policy and welfare and a much more passive role in the market. But currently, it is the opposite. The state is absent where it should be and present where it should not be.

- You have argued that the presidential election should be fought over growth and distribution discourses. What do you mean?

▲ Korea’s progressives have a distribution discourse but lack a growth discourse, while conservatives may have led the growth discourse but lack a distribution discourse. To maintain a free market economy, inequality and unfairness must be corrected. Liberalism or the right wing without a distribution discourse is ‘pseudo-conservatism.’ Candidate Yoon’s liberalism is warm capitalism. It is not Adam Smith-style liberalism but liberalism that goes hand in hand with distribution discourse and social safety nets.

- You seem to avoid talking about constitutional amendments despite discussing national reform.

▲ Constitutional amendments are good if possible, but they are like Pandora’s box. Even if you propose a one-point amendment, all sorts of issues arise, pushing the amendment further back. As a result, even things that could be fixed without constitutional amendments cannot be done. There are many things that can be done without amendments. For example, although moving the administrative capital was ruled unconstitutional, placing the Blue House’s second office in Sejong can achieve the effect of moving the administrative capital.

Kim Byung-jun, Standing Election Committee Chairman of the People Power Party. / Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

- What is your evaluation of the Moon Jae-in administration?

▲ It did not just fail but reversed history. Social change is happening extremely fast, but the administration neither understood nor kept up with it. Moreover, it destroyed all the values important to our society. The Democratic Party monopolized values such as democracy, freedom, fairness, environment, unification, and human rights, but later it was shown that it was neither fairness, human rights, democracy, nor justice?nothing at all. Former President Roh Moo-hyun valued decentralization and autonomy greatly and even tried to reform the prosecution through dialogue. But the current administration killed freedom in the name of freedom, democracy in the name of democracy, fairness in the name of fairness, and justice in the name of justice. If we talk about a government that should never have been born, it should be the Moon Jae-in administration, not the Park Geun-hye administration. Growth was abandoned, and only distribution discourse was pursued. Moreover, the distribution discourse was flawed.

- Was welfare not strengthened?

▲ They claim to have expanded welfare, but I do not see it that way. It is welfare destructionism. Why destruction? Welfare must meet two conditions to be proper. One is sound finances. Welfare must be sustainable, and for sustainability, finances must be sound, but they recklessly spent finances. I am not saying not to spend, but spending must consider incoming funds. They ignored this and just spent. That is welfare destructionism. Second, for welfare to be sustainable, taxpayers must feel good about paying taxes. Although paying taxes can hardly feel good, they must feel there is a reason to pay. But these people treated earners like traitors and businesspeople like criminals. They made taxpayers feel robbed when paying taxes. That is why they are welfare destructionists.

- You said, ‘After the election, I will return to my life agenda.’ What do you mean?

▲ I have announced that I will not take elected or appointed positions, but recently I feel a certain limit regarding politics and administration. Much of human history’s change or evolution is driven by new technologies. Microsoft, Google, and Facebook are changing the world. In that sense, policy is busy, and there are limits to social change. So what I really want to do is try ‘impact investment’ (investment that generates financial returns while achieving social and environmental outcomes) that can contribute to society. I want to show success. At the same time, I want to organize social changes in my own way. I do not have much time left in life, so should I keep staying in the public sector? No. I want to return to the life agenda I envisioned. It is not because I lack ambition but because my ambition is so great that I will not take elected or appointed positions.

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