Online backlash grows over central government official tapped to lead Incheon Free Economic Zone Authority
13 groups that demanded 'qualified candidate' and 'resident vetting' have yet to issue a formal statement
Other civic organizations also remain silent
Since news broke that a central government official has been tapped as the ninth commissioner of the Incheon Free Economic Zone Authority, backlash and concern over the nominee's past involvement in what is known as the "Shanghai scandal" have been spreading through local online communities.
Yet the 13 resident and civic groups in Incheon that had been vocal about the commissioner selection process as recently as a month ago have not issued a single joint statement since the nomination became known — a striking contrast to their earlier activism.
The so-called Shanghai scandal — allegations stemming from the official's time at the South Korean consulate general in Shanghai, China — resurfaced as a local flashpoint almost immediately after the nomination was reported.
What makes the silence particularly notable is that Incheon's civic community had been among the most assertive voices on the commissioner appointment until very recently.
The Incheon Metropolitan General Federation, an umbrella body of 13 resident groups including All That Songdo, the Yeongjong International City General Federation and the Cheongna Future Alliance, urged in July that the selection process produce someone who genuinely understands the development realities of Songdo, Yeongjong and Cheongna and can effectively lead investment attraction and development projects in the free economic zone.
The groups said at the time that the commissioner should not be merely a career civil servant but an "action-oriented leader" who fully grasps the development challenges facing the Incheon Free Economic Zone and can accelerate stalled projects through domestic and international investment.
But their demands did not stop there.
On Aug. 7, the groups issued another joint statement, this time urging Incheon Mayor Park Chan-dae to introduce a resident-led vetting process as part of the commissioner selection. The 13 groups said it was contradictory that the job posting listed "ability to build public consensus" and "effective communication skills" as requirements while giving citizens — the very people the commissioner would need to communicate with — no opportunity to evaluate the candidates. They also called for candidates' career histories and job performance plans to be disclosed to the public to the extent possible, and for a mechanism to gather resident input. In short, the groups had two core principles: the appointee must genuinely understand the authority's work and its development and investment mandate, and residents must be able to verify directly whether any given candidate meets that standard.
The situation has since shifted. The nominee is reported to have a long career in industry and trade policy, which means he could be seen as meeting the groups' stated criterion of someone who "understands the economy and investment attraction."
At the same time, the resurfacing of past controversies from his public service career has, if anything, made the case for the resident vetting the 13 groups demanded even stronger, some observers say.
The argument is that an open vetting process — one where residents could examine a candidate's career, competence, professional ethics and past controversies — would have allowed much of the current dispute to be aired and assessed in advance.
That has prompted another question directed at the 13 groups from within the community.
Why, people are asking, are the very organizations that demanded resident vetting of the commissioner candidate now staying silent at the moment when the most serious vetting controversy has actually materialized?
Observers note that this goes beyond simply questioning the nominee's past. The real issue is whether the resident-vetting principle the 13 groups themselves championed can be applied consistently — even after a candidate has effectively been chosen.
The groups issued statements before the recruitment process began, stressing the importance of the appointment, and called for citizen vetting rights during the candidate selection phase. Yet now that a nominee has in effect been decided and past controversies have emerged around that person, no formal position has been forthcoming.
Some have begun to ask whether this amounts to "selective silence" on the part of the civic organizations.
To be fair, silence does not necessarily signal support for or opposition to the central government official's nomination. It is also possible that the 13 groups have not yet reached internal consensus on a joint position.
Even so, having twice issued joint statements and actively spoken out on the commissioner selection, the groups will find it hard to avoid calls to state clearly — by their own stated criteria — where they stand on this appointment.
Particularly because the "vetting" the resident groups demanded was not designed to block any specific candidate, but to apply a consistent standard to whoever the candidate might be.
If the groups believe the nominee has the expertise to lead investment attraction and free economic zone policy, they can explain that reasoning to the public.
Other civic organizations have likewise adopted a wait-and-see posture, offering no public comment on the appointment. The problem is that the groups that twice called for a clear direction and process in the commissioner selection are now offering no explanation at the very moment the most sensitive controversy has erupted.
Ultimately, the commissioner appointment raises two questions beyond the individual nominee's past: how thoroughly Mayor Park vetted the candidate, and what role civic society is prepared to play.
Online communities continue to debate and criticize the nominee, but the 13 groups that demanded resident vetting during the selection process have yet to speak.
Whether the principle that residents should vet the commissioner was valid only before a candidate was chosen — or whether it must apply equally regardless of who the nominee turns out to be — is now a question the 13 resident groups must answer themselves.
"Local communities are pushing back. Why are the civic groups silent?" That question has become the other defining issue of this commissioner appointment.
Other civic organizations are in the same position — watching and waiting, without raising their voices at all.
gilbert@heraldcorp.com
