Leadership / Finland

A long time ago, there was a president who thought of the country and the people as his profit structure. Naturally, the people did not follow the president. He used the intelligence agency, the president's direct agency, to inspect civilians and conduct craft politics. I was oppressed by the problem and unintentionally observed the president to reverse the pressure. I studied why such an immature leader was born. At the end of the presidential term, it seems that all state agencies, including intelligence agencies, abandoned the president. The price of not doing politics that former President Park Chung-hee emphasized "prioritizing efficiency and substance with public interest and order at the forefront" had a very bad impact on the president himself and the people.

 

As I observed the problem, I thought the root of the problem was education. Throughout the Japanese imperialism and the Cold War, we lived by confusing the concept of "public interest" with the concept of "communism." It was partly due to the poor position of the times and geopolitics, but the generations who failed to learn humanities and received competitive education did not have the ability to objectively think about reality and the future. These days, there is such a problem even if you look at the generations that gave birth to the current administration, the political prosecution organization, and even the president's neighbors and key figures. There were many times when I wished that the current administration would have a broader and more comprehensive perspective in managing state affairs. Many years have passed, and I have also learned that people's thoughts do not change quickly.

 

In the past unreasonable presidency, on the one hand, I have long explored the role model of a leader in search of an ideal direction of improvement, resenting his behavior. Of course, it is even more so now. At home, I ideally thought of President Park Chung-hee's sense of duty and Roh Moo Hyun's democratic rule. And Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who was committed to Singapore's development despite his long-term rule, Kemalpasha, who reformed Turkie, and Uruguay's President Jose Muhika, like Saint, taught me what a leader should think. A good leader shouldn't be too personal. And I think socialist countries should use Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai as role models for leaders.

 

On the other hand, considering various conditions in Korea, I considered Finland an ideal country as a role model for Korea. Finland's national system and education method presented what Korea needs most. The common value for all parts of Finland was 'public interest'. In particular, Finland's educational ideology that requires the ability of inferior students to be educated as talents useful to the country due to Finland's conditions that cannot neglect one's ability has many implications for the reality in Korea, where competitive education is being fed back as a very bad result.

 

The most common characteristics of Finnish leaders are honesty, directness, stability, pragmatism, rationality, determination, result-oriented, realistic, task-oriented, respect for others, humility, introversion, silence, listening, distrust of unnecessary talk, service concept, mid- to long-term perspective, combination of individualism and teamwork, and the coexistence of optimism and pessimism.

 

- [ Finland, Cultural Lone Wolf ] by Richard D. Lewis -

double translation

 

In Korea, there is a gap between ideals and reality for a long time, so it is difficult to accept it easily, but Finland's education and leadership behavior must be accepted quickly for the future of Korea.