Updated Feb.29,2008 09:41 KST

President Lee Myung-bak and CEO Lee Myung-bak, by Kang Chun Suk
The unification minister-designate and the environment minister-designate withdrew their bids Wednesday. With the gender equality minister-designate, who did the same on Sunday, added, three Cabinet nominees have already thrown in the towel even before the parliamentary confirmation hearings.

On the day after the two candidates withdrew, Cheong Wa Dae formally announced the new National Intelligence Service director. He has long been short-listed for the post along with rumors that President Lee Myung-bak had him uppermost in mind. His appointment seems to have been put off for fear of possible controversy over excessive regional preference in the nomination of such key positions as the justice minister, prosecutor general, presidential secretary for civil affairs and police commissioner general. But the chief executive seems to have cemented his "person first" and "merit first" position. Whatever the inside workings, outwardly the practice was rare in former administrations that proclaimed equitable distribution of key posts among regions. It remains to be seen whether the repercussions will be mild or violent when the president's "advanced" personnel criteria of person first and merit first clash with this "developing" national sentiment that "10 public office seals are inferior to a long village acquaintance,¡± as the saying goes.

The lineup of senior presidential secretaries also triggered backbiting. The criteria given then were also person first and merit first -- but that could prove more awkward than admitting that friends were tapped. It could be interpreted as meaning, "We've evaluated them in respect of personality and abilities, but nobody else was available." When even people within the ruling party complained, they were reportedly told the talent pool had been exhausted because most talented people allied themselves with the leftwing administrations in the past 10 years. This is doubly offensive, since it might also be seen as accusing innocent people of being leftwing opportunists.

Lee pledged in his inaugural address to serve the people and make the country comfortable. He also has to fulfill his so-called "747¡± jumbo election pledge of achieving 7 percent annual growth, per-capita national income of US$40,000 and making Korea the world's seventh largest economy in 10 years. To achieve these difficult tasks, Lee has to burn a zeal for doing it together into people's hearts and nourish a willingness to put up with difficulties. Fair personnel decisions are a step toward keeping resentment at bay. Lee should seek harmony between political and economic efficacy in his personnel administration.

While he was president elect, Lee said, "I constantly changed when I was a corporate president and chairman, lawmaker and Seoul mayor." The fundamental difference between those posts and the presidency is that he now needs the political instinct to distinguish what is essential to improve efficiency, even if it looks inefficient at a glance.

In the U.S., the key Cabinet posts are the secretaries of state, treasury and defense. President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat who promised a New Frontier in 1960, said he would lead American confrontation with the Soviet Union. And he appointed the amiable Dean Rusk as secretary of state, C. Douglas Dillon, a Republican and Wall Street tycoon, as treasury secretary, and another Republican, Robert McNamara, a former Ford Motor president, as secretary of defense. It was an expression of his political instinct to consider the opposition to reduce resentment when the New Frontier policy was launched.

Asked "What did you do as CEO when the corporate owner was about to make a wrong decision," Lee replied, "I remained silent in the meeting and went to see the owner alone after the meeting was over and explained the problems in detail. Then the owner changed his mind 100 percent." He found a way to make the firm prosper while saving the boss¡¯ face. Had there been a man under the president who is like Lee, who silently knocked the door of his boss after a meeting, what would have happened? What would it be like if the chief executive embraced the flexible mindset of his former boss, who was able to change his mind when a subordinate pointed him in the right direction? Perhaps the recent mess could have been avoided.