By Oh Young-jin
Assistant managing editor
First, for those who are curious about the title, Ahn would be Ahn Cheol-soo, computer software entrepreneur and professor who is talked about as a presidential candidate in next year’s election; Kang is Kang Yong-seok, a Harvard-educated lawmaker who was “excommunicated” from the ruling Grand National Party (GNP) for belittling women in politics and the television industry. Apple is the U.S. technology firm that has recently lost its co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs to cancer.
These names were subjects of conversation during a recent informal dinner I had with three others ― a journalist, an executive and a bureaucrat. The purpose of today’s column is not to link the subjects together for the purpose of finding one political message but give readers a chance to compare notes and check what others are thinking about the goings-on in our society. I will apply my version of the Chatham House Rule by introducing suggestions by only identifying one as an opinion of a majority, minority or a tossup.
The majority of the four are taking a wait-and-see approach to Ahn.
They are not enthusiastic about him and are greatly concerned about his political inexperience. Their view is that Ahn requires rigorous vetting about his ability and his lack of political credentials is fueling the public’s wishful thinking that he may prove to be a solution to all ills associated with the established politics.
A minority opinion that no longer can a professional politician be trusted and Ahn should be taken as a serious undeclared candidate for the presidency was rejected, with the majority arguing that it is better to bet on someone known than wringing hands in anxiety not knowing what the new kid on the block will do next. “Predictability counts for a leader. Besides, it is an open question whether Ahn, with his background as a businessman, professor and public speaker, will bring into his politics a keen sense of compromise with parties that he loathes,” the majority opinion goes.
The highlight of the dinner conversation turned out to be Rep. Kang, the Pariah.
It was agreed that Kang was a jerk, as the public thinks, on the basis of his remarks disparaging female GNP lawmakers and television announcers. He was sued “for collectively defaming an entire group of people (both male and female announcers) and sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months in prison. But the portion of the lawsuit seeking monetary consolation filed against Kang was recently dismissed.
The consensus was that the 42-year-old was clever for his age, taking advantage of “noise marketing” to pull himself off the political death row.
Kang’s saving-grace scheme started with a lawsuit he filed against a comedian starring in a skit in the “Gag Concert,” a Korean-style comedy show that is comparable with U.S. NBC station’s “Saturday Night Live.”
Kang claimed that the comic, Choi Hyo-jong, insulted all lawmakers with slanderous remarks he made during a skit.
The “Gag Concert” that aired Sunday in the middle of the flare-up had many of its skits significantly devoted to making counterattacks on Kang.
Hwang Hyon-hi, the main character in the “Inconvenient Truth” skit, a satirical version of a television consumer advocacy program, said that Kang deserves the comedian of the year award more than any other comic without naming names.
Choi, the target of Kang’s lawsuit, went on with his political lampooning by observing in his skit “Praying Mantis Kindergarten” that there was no need to be concerned about inflation because as April’s general elections approach, all candidates will talk about fighting inflation and inflation will go down under the weight of their hot-air campaign pledges.
One of the four dinner debate participants posited that the effect of all this brouhaha is that the public is being increasingly distracted from Kang’s troublesome sexist remarks and by April, voters in his constituency will think of Kang as the popular politician who received a one-hour special from “Gag Concert.” Besides, it was all carefully prepared by Kang. His Harvard education, after all, has not entirely been a waste of time (No offense intended to the Boston school!).
The remaining three gave this interpretation their whole-hearted approval.
One cited Kim Sang-hyun, a politician who supported the late President Kim Dae-jung, who once observed to the effect that politicians should take joy in all publicity ― good, bad and ugly ― including writing their own obituaries. Kang seems to be living Kim’s aphorism.
It was not Apple but Samsung that triggered a hot debate.
On Monday, Samsung Electronics unveiled the Galaxy Note, a combination of tablet and smartphone, in a series of new product launches.
The Apple-Samsung debate was mostly conducted between two of the four. One argued that Samsung is already ahead of Apple. The other rejected the idea by pointing out that Samsung doesn’t have Apple’s large, devoted global “fandom” of people who get excited over anything Apple. The first countered that it took 30 years for Apple to build that fan base and Samsung is in the process of securing the same stature in just 10 years. The second didn’t agree but only observed, “Samsung has a peculiar kind of a self-denial culture that boils down to: ‘You are not the best and so you must try harder.’”
It was a tossup that the remaining two didn’t side with either view.
The dinner produced no world-changing ideas but confirmed that a good conversation can sometimes beat a table of delicious food.