The topic took center stage during the foreign policy and national security portion of the debate, when Lee underscored the importance of dialogue and peaceful coexistence with Pyongyang. Stressing that South Korea’s defense budget is double that of the North’s, he argued for diplomacy.

However, his remarks provided an opening for conservative rival Kim Moon-soo of the People Power Party and centrist Lee Jun-seok of the New Reform Party, who launched coordinated attacks highlighting Lee’s alleged “North Korea risk.”

Kim accused Lee of being at the center of a scandal involving illegal funds sent to North Korea.

“Despite U.N. sanctions, the issue of illegal remittances to the North have surfaced. On May 9, president of the Korean American Association in Washington officially filed a complaint with the U.S. Treasury, State Department, and U.N. Security Council, accusing Lee of secretly transferring 10 billion South Korean won (US$8 million) to North Korea,” said Kim.

South Korean prosecutors allege that between 2019 and 2020, during his tenure as governor of Gyeonggi Province, Lee directed the Ssangbangwool Group to transfer US$8 million to North Korea, including US$5 million intended for a smart farm project and US$3 million to facilitate a prospective visit by Lee to Pyongyang.

Lee’s former deputy governor, Lee Hwa-young, was convicted and sentenced to nine-and-a-half years in prison for his involvement in the scheme, which encompassed bribery and unauthorized fund transfers to North Korea.

Lee denies any wrongdoing and says the charges are politically motivated.

He contends that the prosecution’s case lacks merit and is an attempt to undermine his political career. The case is ongoing.

“That money is now feeding the Kim family and returning to us as nuclear threats. I will pursue a transparent and upright inter-Korean relationship,” Kim said.

(Kim Min-hee/AFP)

Lee Jun-seok followed up by questioning Lee about his campaign pledge to relocate shipping giant HMM’s headquarters to the city of Busan.

When Lee identified HMM’s predecessor as Hyundai Merchant Marine, Lee Jun-seok pointedly noted that the company had once engaged in North Korean projects that cost it some $200 million – an affair that many would consider a major scandal today.

“Regardless of domestic court rulings, the Ssangbangwool remittance case could make Lee subject to U.S. sanctions. Even if he becomes president, U.S. immigration law Section 212 could bar his entry,” said Lee Jun-seok.

Lee pushed back during the debate.

“The cash transfer had nothing to do with me. There are even rumors the funds were used for gambling after stock manipulation investigations began. I believe the truth will be revealed,” he argued.

While the allegations dominated the evening, Lee found some support from Kwon Young-guk of the Democratic Labour Party. Kwon criticized North Korea’s psychological provocations along border areas and highlighted residents’ suffering.

“I completely sympathize. Taking a hardline stance alone isn’t the solution,” Lee said.

Lee previously said he believed the current strategy toward the North has tipped too far toward confrontation.

Relations between the two countries since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War have waxed and waned for decades between unremitting hostility and attempts at rapprochement.

While acknowledging the “hostile” nature of current inter-Korean relations, he argued in multiple media interviews that South Korea’s strong military and alliances – particularly with the U.S. and Japan – already provide sufficient deterrence.

Instead, he insisted on “communication and engagement” with the North, signaling a return to the approach of previous Democratic Party governments.

On broader foreign policy, the candidates diverged. Lee reiterated support for the U.S.-South Korea alliance but warned against unnecessary hostilities with China and Russia.

“We must not overlook the relationship between China and Russia, and there is no need to be unnecessarily hostile as we are now,” said Lee.

Critics of Lee have accused him of adopting a “subservient” stance toward China.

Lee stirred controversy during his 2022 campaign by saying: “Why do we care what happens to the Taiwan Strait? Shouldn’t we just take care of ourselves?”

He later clarified that his point was about diplomatic pragmatism and that South Korea should avoid worsening relations with China.

Kim called for strengthening nuclear deterrence under the U.S. alliance, while Lee Jun-seok proposed merging the Foreign and Unification Ministries and appointing a “Deputy Prime Minister for Security.”

Kwon Young-guk went further, vowing to “engineer the moment the U.S. and North Korea establish diplomatic relations.”

A Wednesday survey from Realmeter, a South Korean polling organization, showed support for Lee at 49.2%, followed by Kim with 36.8%. The margin of error was 3.1% points at a 95% confidence level. Lee Jun-seok was running third with 10.3% support.

The poll serves as the final indicator of voter sentiment because the publication of opinion polls will be banned from Wednesday under election law.

Edited by Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

Departing from a policy from trying to speak with a unique voice and not being derivative, I prefer to publish a view that is similar to my own but has been already published, is highly informative, and is eloquently expressed.

The secret sauce of Chinese industrial success
Smart state planning plus ferocious market competition
Hua Bin, May 23

The planning function is carried out by the China State Planning and Development Commission, which assembles the best minds in the government, academia, think tanks, and industries and goes through multi-year research, studies, and survey to understand and predict key technological trends and future market demand. Then they iterate and socialize the plans until there is broad buy-in.

Once top-line state planning priorities are set, central government empowers local governments to implement the policies. At the implementation level, fierce market competition becomes the norm.

Local governments compete with each other. Each local government is powerfully incentivized to create local tech and industrial champions as career advancements are typically tied in with achievements of national priorities.

Local governments unleash suites of policy support measures to attract and help businesses succeed, including

• Preferential tax
• Land use priority
• Preferential bank loans, even venture capital financing from government agencies (e.g. Shanghai and Shenzhen each has multi-billion dollar semiconductor funds)

Other policy support even extends to

• Establishing educational programs at universities to train and develop scientific and technical talents specifically for identified industries and technologies (e.g. AI, robotics, hypersonics, rare earth mining and refining, rail, ship building, etc.)
• Rolling out talent acquisition programs to provide housing, allowances, and compensation equalization schemes to attract talents to move to their cities. Some governments even provide WeWork type of office facilities to startups for free.
• investing in infrastructure upgrades including 5G coverage, EV charging stations, high speed rail, ports, bridges, etc. to enable smooth operation of large industrial enterprises.
• Investing in local parts and components supply chains that can be plugged into specific manufacturing sectors.
• Promoting successful technical leaders and executives in critical industries into senior government positions (e.g. the head of AVIC, the leading aeronautic business in China, was promoted to become a provincial governor)

The central government went so far as to crack down on monopolistic consumer tech companies such as Alibaba and Tencent in 2019 as these companies were consuming too much financial and talent resources and preventing startups from emerging. The main goal of the crackdown was to redirect resources (funding, talent) to more productive directions such as AI and hard tech.

As a result, in the key technological and industrial hubs across China, from Shanghai, Shenzhen, Wuhan, Chengdu to Hefei and Changsa, you will find hundreds of EV companies, solar energy companies, AI and robotics startups, ship builders, and drone companies that are developing innovative technologies, building production capacity, and engage in intense competition for consumers.

In the competition, there are private businesses, state owned enterprises, and foreign companies as well. All have to compete for customers on price and quality and operate with razor thin margin. Innovation and cost efficiency are prized in the never-ending loop of hyper competition.

The Chinese industrial and technological ecosystem is often described by insiders as “arena for gladiators”. In a survival of the fittest environment, the winners of such competitions emerge as world class champions.

The same model is replicated in industry after industry from EV, smart phones, solar energy, robotics, ship building, AI large language models, drones, chip making, and biopharmaceuticals.

Many people mistakenly assume the Chinese state planning model means the government picks the winners and losers. That cannot be further from the truth. State planners pick the priority industries, define the swim lane, provide policy incentives, and then market takes over to decide the winner.

In contrast, the US industrial policy is more guilty of government picking winners – just witness how both Biden and Trump surround themselves with senior executives of incumbent tech giants when they announce policies such as the Chips Act, Inflation Reduction Act, or the Stargate program. Almost by definition, the main beneficiaries of these industrial policies will be the companies in the room. Market competition doesn’t seem to play the same decisive rule as in China.

As China accelerates the third mixed-economy phase of its industrial development, we can expect to see more Chinese companies will innovate faster, scale in the largest single market in the world, and become world-class competitors in their industries. Profit margins will be kept low as competition will never rest. However, more consumer surplus will accrue to customers, leading to improvement of living standards for all.

Hua Bin details the advances in China’s economy and describes why those advances will continue and cannot stall ─ the government apparatus plans ahead, outlines alternative directions to roadblocks, and facilitates shifts in production, enabling government industry to step in when private initiative falters. No matter how the U.S. contends China, the PRC will find a way to deter the contention and, in the end, the U.S. will lose, and lose until, as a last resort….

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dan Lieberman.

This spring, a historic St. Louis farm built by former President Ulysses S. Grant was the site of major fundraisers for two front-runners in Missouri’s Republican Senate primary. The estate is jointly owned and operated by five members of the Anheuser-Busch family, including Trudy Busch Valentine, a Democratic candidate for Senate in Missouri. The fundraisers were hosted by two other co-owners — Busch Valentine’s siblings.

In 2017, Busch Valentine, an heir to the Anheuser-Busch fortune, and four other relatives purchased the farm from their family trust for $51 million. In March, her brother Peter Busch, a co-owner of the estate, hosted a high-dollar fundraiser there for former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, whose ex-wife accused him of physically abusing her and one of their children in an affidavit reported publicly the day before the event. (He resigned as governor in 2018 amid several criminal investigations, including one that involved sexual misconduct.) An event flyer advertised tickets starting at $1,000, an upper “co-host” rate of $10,800, and a “special appearance from the Budweiser Clydesdale.” Busch Valentine entered the race the following week.

Visitors attend an event at Grant’s Farm, the estate owned by members of the Anheuser-Busch family, in Missouri in 2012.

Photo: Tom Borgman/St. Louis Post-Dispatch via AP

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Akela Lacy.

This spring, a historic St. Louis farm built by former President Ulysses S. Grant was the site of major fundraisers for two front-runners in Missouri’s Republican Senate primary. The estate is jointly owned and operated by five members of the Anheuser-Busch family, including Trudy Busch Valentine, a Democratic candidate for Senate in Missouri. The fundraisers were hosted by two other co-owners — Busch Valentine’s siblings.

In 2017, Busch Valentine, an heir to the Anheuser-Busch fortune, and four other relatives purchased the farm from their family trust for $51 million. In March, her brother Peter Busch, a co-owner of the estate, hosted a high-dollar fundraiser there for former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, whose ex-wife accused him of physically abusing her and one of their children in an affidavit reported publicly the day before the event. (He resigned as governor in 2018 amid several criminal investigations, including one that involved sexual misconduct.) An event flyer advertised tickets starting at $1,000, an upper “co-host” rate of $10,800, and a “special appearance from the Budweiser Clydesdale.” Busch Valentine entered the race the following week.

Visitors attend an event at Grant’s Farm, the estate owned by members of the Anheuser-Busch family, in Missouri in 2012.

Photo: Tom Borgman/St. Louis Post-Dispatch via AP

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Akela Lacy.