Go to contents

Unnecessary criticism of science minister nominee

Posted February. 21, 2013 10:01,   

한국어

The nomination of Kim Jong-hoon as future, creation and science minister is arguably the culmination of the personnel management policy of President-elect Park Geun-hye, who has filled most of her Cabinet with her confidants. As a 1.5-generation Korean American, Kim applied for South Korean citizenship soon after his nomination and regained his Korean passport Feb. 14. He is also taking steps to give up his U.S. nationality. Also deciding to pay nearly 100 billion won (93 million U.S. dollars) in taxes in return for giving up his U.S. citizenship to work for his motherland is not something anyone can do. Like other ministers, he must undergo the confirmation hearing process, but if his nationality is a cause for his disqualification regardless of his qualifications and capacity, this would be anachronistic.

The global era means national boundaries mean nothing, as people can circumnavigate the world in a single day and overseas study and marriage-based immigration have grown commonplace. A 1.5-generation Korean American refers to an ethnic Korean who immigrated to the U.S. as a child but unlike their first-generation parents and second-generation children born in America, he or she has been socialized in both South Korean and American cultures and can function in both. Such people are usually bilingual and have a strong capacity to embrace multiple cultures. Most advanced economies allow dual citizenship to take advantage of the potential of such people that spans across both countries.

The left-leaning Unified Progressive Party, which has been pro-North Korea and anti-American, is unfortunately raising issue with Kim`s nationality. By nature, progressives tend to be lenient toward immigrants and dual citizens. Yet party lawmakers Lee Sang-gyu and Lee Seok-ki have demanded the withdrawal of Kim’s nomination by questioning his career, which includes an advisory role for the U.S. CIA. Yet does the party, which has boycotted singing of the Korean national anthem at its own events, have the right to raise issue with Kim’s nationality? Kim is a venture entrepreneur who succeeded in business in a foreign country by overcoming countless hardships, and is fond enough of his motherland to want to use his knowledge and experience for the country. The opposition party, on the other hand, has remained silent despite North Korea’s nuclear tests that pose a grave threat to national security. So who is more patriotic?

In Wednesday’s confirmation hearing for Prime Minister-nominee Chung Hong-won, Rep. Lee Sang-gyu criticized Kim by asking, “Can a person who said serving in the U.S. military is a rite of passage to become a true American become a genuine Korean?” Yet an immigrant serving in the U.S. military to acquire U.S. citizenship is nothing special. Of course, the director of the National Intelligence Service or defense minister in Korea should not have dual citizenship. But as evidenced by the appointment of a Canadian national as the chief of the Bank of England, more countries are hiring people who the most qualified irrespective of their nationality in areas other than national security. Even China has recruited Chinese-American scientists by offering competitive compensation, saying “When it comes to a scientist, no questions on ideology or loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party are asked.” This attitude helped lay the foundation for China`s space development.

The Future Creation and Science Ministry will be a key government body of the president-elect`s new economics of literally breaking down barriers between ministries and technologies to create new growth engines. Kim is most eligible to head the ministry. The Korean-American community is angry at the progressive party for raising issue with his nationality. Yoo Jin-cheol, chairman of the Federation of Korean Associations, said, “It`s absurd that they raise issue with the nationality of an ethnic Korean who is neither white nor black.” Korea cannot prepare itself for future with an outdated and narrow view of government.