As Confucius once said, “too much is as bad as too little.” This can be applied to the situation of Seoul, the capital of South Korea. Since the 1950s, our nation has achieved unprecedented economic growth and Seoul soon became one of the most densely-populated cities in the world. Headquarters of almost every domain, including economy, politics, media and culture, are situated in Seoul. As the overcrowded city began to produce side effects and concerns about the exclusion of other parts of the country, discourse about moving the administrative institutions to another city rose to the surface. 

 

Former president Roh Moo Hyun acknowledged the problem and invented the policy of Sejong City to perform the role as the administrative capital of Korea. When he was elected, he pursued the laborious process of lawmaking to make his policy come to fruition. However, the law of installing a new administrative capital was found to be unconstitutional, due to the conventional constitution stating that Seoul is the capital of South Korea. Therefore, the original plan of Sejong City had to be altered and the city could only serve as an administrative city with half of the administrative institutions moved to Sejong City. 

 

Despite its grand appearance and its good intentions, Sejong City is quite indefensible against some criticism. Some of the main problems that have been repetitively mentioned are the inefficiency in administrative practices and the incompetence of newly appointed public servants. It is undeniable that Sejong City is physically a faraway island, remote from Seoul where the congress and the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs are located. 

There are numerous articles featuring how officials are always on the road rather than in offices or conference rooms. The media also continuously points out how government officials working in Sejong City are becoming increasingly complacent. With the media aggressively reporting from this point of view, Sejong City is easily perceived as the Galapagos Island of Korean politics. 

However, the problems that the media focus on are superficial. Professor Choi Sang Ok (Department of Public Administration) remarked, “The physical isolation of Sejong City may seem inefficient. However, the isolation itself can be viewed in a positive perspective also.” Professor Choi continued, “Government officials could develop policies carefully, taking one’s time, without the workload of dealing with civil complaints. They could also work for self-improvement and use their isolation for the good of the people, the citizens.” Underneath the problems of Sejong City lied a greater possibility of a more matured political administration.

According to Professor Choi, the fundamental problem was in the communication modes and attitudes of government officials. He commented, “This top-down approach of giving orders and instructions is still easily spotted in Korean politics nowadays and there is a prevalent atmosphere among officials stating that faceto-face communication is the only method.” When the meetings gradually become more of a discussion, rather than a directions-transmitting session, and modes of communication diversify, physical distance will not be a problem that significantly undermines the quality and efficiency of administrative practices. 

Criticism can only be deemed as constructive when it leads to solving the problems. When the vision for a better future is not included in the criticism, the criticism could only be considered as denunciation. The recent press coverage of Sejong City shone the limelight in all the negative examples and anecdotes of Sejong City’s inefficiency and incompetence, lacking a balanced viewpoint and a suggestion for improvement. This could only result in making Sejong City a political issue that parties can argue about forever. 

 

Just as one needs to acknowledge the potential that Sejong City has, it is also an indisputable fact that Sejong City needs further improvement and is by no means perfect. Even if methods of communication in the workplace eventually do change, there still will be inconveniences triggered by the physical distance among pivotal governmental agencies. Professor Choi also resonated with the underlying problem and suggested, “As administrative agencies have to work in close relationship with the legislative branch, transferring the congress to Sejong City could be examined.” He also emphasized the importance of prudent and thorough examination and avoidance of hasty judgement. 

Furthermore, as Sejong City is situated in Chungcheongdo, it has a substantial potential of connecting the provincial government with the central government more effectively. Chungcheong-do is the site where freeway roads overlap, making it a major transportation point. Also, it is right in the middle of the South Korean landscape. This geographical advantage is what determined the location of Sejong City in the first place. Professor Choi described the role that Sejong City could perform as the “political hub” of our nation, linking the provincial government and eventually resulting in a more balanced growth of South Korea. 

Overseas, there are numerous examples of administrative capitals that are successfully performing their role. Countries like the United States (U.S.), Germany and Malaysia have all adapted this policy for balanced growth of the nation. The results were visible. For example, in the U.S. the California state government and the federal government have a time difference of three hours. Instead of complaining about the inconvenience, they prioritize tasks and devise methods to have a productive and efficient meeting every time. U.S. has its own problems, but its attitude towards communication is something that we can learn from. 

Every political judgement has its pros and cons. Policies are put into practice when the benefit that we can gain from the policies are greater than the downsides of them. This was the case for Sejong City also. Settlements may take time, but the overall outcome and the expected benefits overpower the hardships. What our society needs is a more active discourse on further improvement of Sejong City, neither superficial nor provocative criticism.