Authorities in Daejeon and Chungcheongnam-do announced a collaboration project last June as part of an election strategy shift, targeting residents across regions like Jeju Island to register as real-name backers for a proposed collaboration law.
Strategy Shift Draws Criticism
This initiative represents a pivotal move in the presidential race, aiming to solidify voter bases through organized support. Officials view it as essential for revealing regional strengths and boosting momentum. However, critics liken it to historical forced labor drives during the colonial era, raising alarms over potential coercion.
Political analysts note the project echoes past efforts but carries heightened risks amid public scrutiny. Fears persist that aggressive recruitment could destabilize local leadership structures, including major corporations, if key figures are drawn into the fold.
Viral SNS Post Ignites Debate
A post from Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon’s office on social media labeled the effort a push into a ‘real-name backer country,’ prompting widespread sharing and condemnation. It urged Jeju residents to ignore calls from regional influencers promoting the drive. Public reactions branded it a ‘fake election plantation,’ amplifying concerns nationwide.
Surveys indicate over 40% favor collaboration opponents, while 70% of respondents in supporter-heavy areas demand voter stamps. Heavyweights warn that backlash could be mitigated through targeted messaging, though overall adoption remains uncertain.
Historical Context and Public Sentiment
Past collaborations, such as those in Gwangju-Jeonnam and Daegu-Gyeongbuk, amassed significant funds—up to 20 billion won over four years—but saw limited engagement from students, citizens, and businesses due to mismatched priorities. Democratic labor union leaders called for scrapping the special collaboration law, citing risks to local autonomy.
Expectations run high for a June election pivot, yet internal party reactions reflect deep divisions. Central leadership issued messages to withdraw the bill, while public panic grows over potential reintroductions.
National Assembly Maneuvering
Three related bills linger in National Assembly deliberations, with public opinion filtering progress. Full passage by May 5 seems feasible, though early March recommitment carries momentum. Doubts linger on final approval, even as new education initiatives loom.
Opposition within ranks has prompted withdrawals in similar Daegu-Gyeongbuk efforts, underscoring doubled influence concerns. Government officials assert no public appetite exists for unilateral pushes lacking broad sentiment.
Broader Implications
The project seeks to centralize peripheral hubs and showcase Jeju’s foundational role, positioning it as a major public endeavor. Analysts predict it could dam Chungcheong’s power surge or elevate ‘real-name citizens’ status. Related figures report central pressure for February passage amid National Assembly resistance and solo sponsorships.
If enacted, it risks branding participants as ‘king’s slaves,’ eroding leadership integrity. Failure could spawn rival messaging, demanding 90% media persuasion for viability. Viral SNS campaigns target influencers, twisting narratives and fueling direct attacks on backers.
From hired Seoul-Jeju offices to corporate endorsements like HMM Busan, the drive permeates owners’ networks. Park Chan-dae and Kim Nam-jun highlight direct impacts on regional incidents. Gangwon Governor’s scandals underscore exit necessities, while Kim Young-beom limits backer outreach.
Ultimately, this mirrors Gwangju-Jeonnam dynamics, with potential to nationalize damages in August elections. Observers note scant threats from true representatives, framing Daejeon-Chungnam’s fate amid captive sentiments and internal reckonings.
