hankyoreh

broadcast from KBS studios in Seoul’s Yeouido neighborhood on Dec. 16. (photo pool)

By Seong Han-yong, political correspondent

Park Geun-hye and Moon Jae-in had their first and last one-on-one presidential debate on Dec. 16 following Unified Progressive Party candidate Lee Jung-hee’s sudden withdrawal. Now observers are looking to see what impact the third official debate will have on the Dec. 19 vote, which is expected to be extremely close.

The debate contrasted noticeably in form and content with the two previous debates, both of which featured three candidates. As part of the new format, Park, the conservative Saenuri Party (NFP) candidate, and Moon, the liberal Democratic United Party (DUP) candidate, were allotted time to state their positions, while also being given the opportunity for free debate.

Among the topics discussed were measures for addressing South Korea’s low birth rate and aging society, improvements in the education system, crime prevention and social security, and ideas for developing science and technology.

Clashes between the candidates erupted throughout.

During the education discussion, Park questioned Moon on why he was collaborating with Lee Su-ho, a candidate for the vacant post of Seoul superintendent of education and onetime member of the controversial Korean Teachers’ and Education Workers’ Union (KTU). Moon, who appeared to have anticipated the line of questioning, blasted Park’s mention of the KTU as an ideological attack.

Moon also brought up the issue of nuclear power plant safety in the discussion on crime and social security, while Park talked about the human rights of a female National Intelligence Service employee suspected of posting Internet comments slandering Moon. The two candidates presented very different perspectives on the employee. Park said the DUP had been violating her human rights through harassment, while Moon asked why she was defending someone suspected of criminal acts.

But the third debate was missing a lot of the tension of the first two, thanks to the absence of Lee Jung-hee and her withering attacks on Park. Park and Moon also showed some difficulty adjusting to the different debate rules, with each cutting the other off during the period given to state their position.

Following news of Lee’s withdrawal, the National Election Broadcasting Debate Commission, chaired by Yu Il-sang, held an emergency general meeting to change the format and guarantee rebuttals and answers to rebuttals in the structured debate portion, while also allowing for a free debate period. The length was kept at 120 minutes despite Lee’s departure. The argument was that the two main candidates had not had enough time to debate one-on-one throughout this campaign.

As a result, both Park and Moon received 50% more time to speak than they had had in the previous debates. Also, while each had previously been able to rest while the other two candidates were debating, this time they focused on their questions and answers for the full two hours, resulting in a much higher level of concentration.

TNMS, a television research company, found a 36.2% viewership rating for the three terrestrial networks airing the first debate on Dec. 4, and a rating of 40.8% when general programming and news channels were added in. Those numbers rose for the second debate on Dec. 10, jumping to 37.9% and 43.6%, respectively. The ratings for the first debate were also 12 percentage points higher than the 24.0% recorded for the first debate in the 2007 presidential race, which was broadcast by the terrestrial networks KBS and MBC. The numbers also exceeded the 33.8% for the first 2002 presidential debates between Roh Moo-hyun, Lee Hoi-chang, and Kwon Young-ghil.

Analysts are predicting the numbers for the latest two-day debate will be fairly high despite it taking place on a Sunday night.

At the moment, it is not clear just what impact the three debates have had on the election. But the fact that Moon has narrowed the gap with frontrunner Park since Dec. 4 suggests that they have worked in his favor and to her detriment. In particular, analysts said there was a chance some younger voters moved squarely into the Moon camp after confirming their negative sentiments toward Park.

Indeed, a number of young netizens voiced displeasure at Park bringing up the KTU issue at the debate, calling it a “red-baiting tactic that had no bearing on the discussion.”

Park left the KBS studios after the debate without taking questions from reporters, as she had after the two previous debates. However, she did respond to chants of her name from supporters outside the studio by asking whether they had actually watched the debate.

Chin Young, chairman of the Saenuri Party’s policy committee, said Park had done a much better job of bringing up issues and answering questions.

“The two-way discussion was more productive, and the policy debate really brought out the contrast,” he said. “If [Park] was hesitant in her answers, it was because of time. She would have done an even better job if she’d had more time, so that was unfortunate.”

Meanwhile, a smiling Moon responded to post-debate questions about whether he was happy with the debate by saying, “It’s always disappointing.” However, he did add he thought the two-candidate format was better than the previous one.

Shin Kyung-min, head of the DUP’s media team, said the two candidates showed an unbridgeable gap in their understanding and responses to questions and in their grasp of the reality and facts.

“I think it’s likely to have had some impact on swing voters who haven’t made up their minds yet,” he said.

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]