Free Lunch Debate

Milton Friedman, praised as the most influential economist of the 20th century and a recipient of Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, used to say ¡°There¡¯s no such thing as a free lunch,¡± which means there is nothing for free. Yet, concerning young students of Korea, ¡°a free lunch¡± seems to show a quite different story.

¡±Schools should provide free lunch for the benefits of underprivileged children.¡± vs. ¡°Education authorities should not spend taxpayers¡¯ valuable money to provide free meals even to lucky children born with a golden spoon.¡±

The issue of providing free lunch to primary and secondary students in Korea has emerged as a hot potato among politicians as the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) is pushing for a plan to expand free school meals to all primary and secondary students.

The conservatives and the progressives are tangled up with controversy over the proposed provision of free school lunch with the June 2 local elections drawing closer. Local elections are a major political event to elect mayors, provincial governors, and other officials.

The ruling Grand National Party (GNP) legislators criticize the initiative, claiming that it is nothing more than a populist idea aimed at garnering more votes to bring out results in favor of the opposition parties in the upcoming elections.

They point out that allowing even the privileged children from wealthy families to have free lunch at school doesn¡¯t really make sense and it is more likely a waste of money, as they maintain their position that free lunch should be only available to school children from low-income families.

GNP lawmakers also stress that it would be much better for education authorities to use taxpayers¡¯ money to improve school environments and facilities for students, such as enhancing heating or air-conditioning systems or replacing old-fashioned computers with new ones.

On the other hand, proponents insist that the provision of free lunch would certainly help the nation promote better education for children. The supply of adequate nutrition should be one of the foremost policies of any government to meet its fundamental educational goal, which cultivates healthy future citizens with a sound body and a sound mind alike.

In this sense, they also refute the opponents¡¯ view, claiming that free school meals are not an act of charity for the poor but it is closely related to the nation¡¯s underlying policy of education and welfare for its people.

But above all, they question how painful the underprivileged children would feel when they receive free lunches amid wide attention from their friends under the ¡°selective¡± or ¡°discriminative¡± school meal system backed up by the ruling party that provides free meals to only the students from low income families.

Meanwhile, as both sides stand face to face over the issue, a recent survey result shows that 46.1 percent among 3,145 respondents from nationwide oppose, while 45.9 percent of them support the proposed provision of free school lunch, showing the general public is also divided almost equally into two sides.

So, which side would you take? Are you for or against it?