Leader`s farewell speech

The farewell speech of Samuel in the Bible is impressive. When Samuel leaves the throne to the leader whom the Israel people have chosen, he says to all Israel, `Whose ox have I taken? Or whose ass have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? or of whose hand have I received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? And I will restore it you`. All Israel people rejoice greatly saying that Samuel has never committed any of these during his reign and send him off.

The historical situation of Israel must have been different. However, when we look at this text alone, this is an example that illustrates how gracefully the leader can exit.

How many of our leaders, who had resigned their positions, can leave their post asking confidently about what they have done? The fact that those former presidents could not feel at ease after they resigned must be due to what they have done unfairly during their terms of office.

Despite the fact that the government has one more term in office, the dispute over `transferring the burden of national debt to the next government` has prematurely taken the stage. Of course, the Grand National Party (GNP) initiated. GNP argued that the nation`s debt totaled 638 trillion (W) as of the end of last year and the debt exploded since the current regime. After all, GNP said that the burden would be imposed onto the next government.

As GNP began to attack the government by submitting a detailed report on 16 items, the government organization, like Ministry of Planning and Budget, also began to defend the ruling party. However, the situation is already passed to the point in which a reasonable discussion is out of the grasp.

What demands our attention is not the content of the dispute, but a contrasting attitude on the dispute between the ruling the oppositional party. GNP graveled to the ruling party as if GNP has already assumed the power. It is as if saying, `If you hand over the government after muddling over money, how can we manage our economy in spite of our abilities?`

Although their political aspiration is commendable, GNP`s premature apprehension for the next government makes us laugh. If GNP`s intention is to put all the blames into the current government before the next government is blamed for its own mismanagement, their tactic is used as political devices to only complicate the issue.

However, the ruling party`s (New Millennium Democratic Party) attitude is more ludicrous. `Burden to the next government? Don`t worry. We, the NMPD, will take over all the burdens also in the next government. This is not your business, as you, GNP, will remain spectators in the next government`. However, NMDP does not show this sentiment. NMPD acts as if GNP has already taken over the next government. Why does NMDP lack confidence? Is it because GNP`s points are correct?

`The GNP has an unavoidable original sin of increasing the nation`s debt through the close relationship between the politics and the economics for the past 30 years`. This response from NMDP is indicative of NMDP`s attitude. By saying this, does it imply that GNP has to deal with the great amount of nation`s debt when it rule the next government since GNP is responsible for the nation`s debt? This illustrates that NMDP has become humble.

The majority of people have not made up their mind yet. In this situation, it is premature for both ruling party and the opposition party to dispute over transferring the burden to the next government. Nonetheless, the issue of nation`s debt should be critically examined. If the government produced corresponding profit despite the debt, an inevitability of debt can be acknowledged. On the contrary, if the government had only increased the nation`s debt without making any progress, the people should demand its responsibility through the election.

It is curious to know how people will respond when the exiting leader asks in his farewell speech; `If I had increased the nation`s debt because I spent it for my own, then prosecute me`.

Lee Kyu-Min kyumlee@donga.com