Showing posts sorted by date for query more korean name. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query more korean name. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, December 28, 2009

Ask a Korean! News: Japan Pays 99 Yen Pension to Former Forced Laborers

First, the Korean must give credit when credit is due. Recently, Korea-Japan relation has been markedly better ever since Japan elected a new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama. In a meeting with Korean president Lee Myeong-Bak, Prime Minister Hatoyama said, “We have the courage to face up the history and resolve our issues.” He also said in a seminar in Singapore, “Now, even after more than 60 years since Japan has caused great damage and pain to many Asian nations and their people, one cannot think that true reconciliation has been achieved.” Given these remarks, the Korean had high hopes for what Mr. Hatoyama would achieve.

But problem for the Japanese government has not been that it was unwilling to apologize. Contrary to what many Koreans mistakenly believe, Japan did apologize several times for its imperial past, most notably in Murayama Danwa issued by then-Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama in 1995. The problem has been that the Japanese government, and the Japanese society as a whole, had trouble maintaining that stance of contrition.

Well, same ol’ story now – Japan went one step forward with Mr. Hatoyama, and two steps backward:
The Japanese government fanned anger among Koreans after news came this week that it sent 99 yen ($1.08), or 1,280 won, in welfare pension refunds to Koreans who were used as forced laborers during the Japanese colonial occupation of the Korean Peninsula.
Japan offers $1.08 to the laborers it conscripted

More information is available in the Korean version of the Dong-A Ilbo article. Additional analysis is available here and here, all in Korean.


Former South Korean forced laborer Yang Geum-Deok, 81, who worked at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, cries during a rally in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul.

First, in a controversial issue like this one, it is very important to get all the facts straight. The women who claimed the pension refunds were forcibly conscripted to work for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries during World War II in Osaka, Japan for about a year when they were 13 to 14 years old. They were not paid for their labor, but they were automatically enrolled in a pension fund. In 1998, they claimed for the pension from Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, which oversees pension plans. Eleven years later, MHLW recognized that these women were indeed enrolled in a pension plan, and paid them 99 yen each – the absolute amount to which they were entitled in 1945, when World War II ended.

“Wait” – history buffs and reflexive Japan apologists might say – “what about the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea? Does it not ban individual claims of compensation for the wrongs committed by Imperial Japan during war time?” Indeed, the Japanese government takes the position that the unpaid wages were considered paid under the Basic Treaty. But MHLW thought about this for eleven years, and apparently decided that the Basic Treaty does not cover unpaid pension funds, which is governed by Welfare Pension Insurance Act. And because that law does not provide for indexing to the inflation rate, it decided to pay 99 yen – about a dollar – to the claimants.

Those are the facts. Now, let us sift through the moral aspect of this story. First, a fair share of the blame must be assigned to the dictator-president Park Chung-Hee who sold out his people and signed the Basic Treaty, and the subsequent Korean governments that failed to uphold its obligation under the Basic Treaty to be in charge of distributing the funds that Japanese government provided.

But irrespective of the merits of the Basic Treaty, the overriding fact remains very clear – Japan committed the original wrong of annexing Korea and put Korean people through a war not of their making, causing immense suffering through war time conscription, forced labor, comfort women and human experimentation. And simply signing the Basic Treaty does not make Japan appear to be a reformed character by any stretch of imagination – not when Korea was under duress for any modicum of aid; not when the signor on the Korean side is a dictator who came to power illegitimately through military coup and rigged elections; not when hundreds of thousands of Koreans protested in opposition to the Basic Treaty such that the Park dictatorship had to declare a martial law; not when the Japanese government got off the hook simply paying $200 per survivor ($1,351 in 2009 dollars) and $2,000 per injury, while the German government pays a lifetime pension to survivors of the Holocaust.


Picture from Unit 731, a Japanese military outfit that conducted live human experimentation. Various weapons were tested on more than 3,000 prisoners and civilians. This test subject went through a biological weapons testing. More Unit 731 pictures can be seen here.


Consider O.J. Simpson, for example. By now, we are more or less certain that he killed two people. But in 1995, a lawful process found that under criminal law, he was not guilty of the two murders that he was alleged to have committed. Another lawful process found he was responsible for the wrongful death of one of the two murders that he was alleged to have committed, and he paid a large sum of money because of that verdict. Are Americans not outraged because a lawful process found Simpson somewhat responsible for the murders and Simpson paid a substantial sum of compensation? Of course not. If O.J. now said, “Don’t look at me! I did everything that I was legally supposed to do. If anything, you should be blaming Lance Ito, Chris Darden or Mark Fuhrman for not doing their job right,” would any of us be any less outraged at him? (Does anyone even remember who Ito, Darden or Fuhrman are anymore?)

The same here. It is fair, and may even be fashionable, to blame the Korean government and/or Park Chung-Hee to some degree for the fact that the Korean people who suffered under the Japanese rule were not compensated. But at the end of the day, it is the party that committed the original crime that deserves the most outrage. Japan was never supposed to annex Korea and subject the Korean people to the aforementioned suffering, period. Regardless of what the Korean government/Park Chung-Hee did, there is no denying that Japan got off laughably easy, considering that in both Japan and Korea, wrongful death claims settle at much, much higher cost than around $11,000 per each death – which is what Japan paid under the Basic Treaty in 2009 dollars.

Having said all that, let us fire up the outrage afterburner. What is truly outrageous is that the Japanese government does not seem to care at all about the optics of their actions regarding its colonial past, much less the feelings of the victims involved. To its credit, the Japanese bureaucracy found that those who were enrolled in a pension plan deserved their pension money, regardless of the Basic Treaty. But the crass amount of 99 yen – not even enough to get one bus ride in Tokyo – instantly made a mockery of whatever credits it would have deserved. It really should not have taken a rocket scientist to figure out that paying out 99 yen after eleven years would look terrible. Eleven years! Couldn’t they have spent just one day of those eleven years to think about how to make this decision look better?

What is amazing to the Korean is that over and over again, Japan does not seem to understand how terrible it looks as this decades-old saga goes on. It is as if the country as a whole suffers from some type of brilliant autism, creating beautiful machines and arts while being completely oblivious to how others perceive its actions. And this historical autism is clearly causing harm. We need not even discuss the obvious human tragedy – namely, the anguish of those who suffered under Imperial Japan who have never received any meaningful compensation – because that is too obvious, and the Japanese government has shown time and again that it really does not give a shit about causing that harm. This historical autism is hurting Japan in another measurable way – by discouraging partnership with a rising regional economic power that is Korea. (And China, for the same reasons.)

This damage to Japan is not an idle imagination. It is a mistake to think that Korea’s nationalism causes Koreans to hate Japanese people or Japanese products. Koreans are nationalists like Americans are Christians – in their everyday lives, they generally do not give much thought about whether or not their action violates their ideological/religious principles. And while no Korean will admit this in a direct answer, Koreans are actually ready to love Japan. Koreans already consume Japanese products in droves despite incredibly high tariffs. Japanese cartoons are so popular in Korea that they essentially merged in as a part of Korean culture. You cannot have a conversation with hipster Koreans without watching the latest Japanese movies and dramas. The only thing – literally, the last possible thing – that is holding Koreans back from completely embracing Japan is that Japan is constantly provoking their nationalist sentiments that Koreans are generally happy to ignore otherwise.

Lexus dealership in Gangnam, Seoul. In 2009, Lexus ES is the second most popular imported car in Korea, trailing only BMW 528.

In fact, this is the perfect time for Japan to make a Godfather offer regarding its past history to Korea – an offer that Korea can’t refuse. What if the Prime Minister of Japan offered this to the President of Korea next year, at the 100th anniversary of the annexation?

“Mr. President, Japan wishes to have a fruitful partnership with Korea toward the future, and we recognize that Japan’s handling of its historical issues so far has been a roadblock for that partnership. Now that a century has passed since the annexation, we wish to resolve the historical issues once and for all. To that end, I propose the following:

(1) Japanese government will establish a pension fund for all surviving Koreans who suffered during the Imperial Japanese rule, which will pay pension to all survivors and their children until they die. Korean government can name the price as to how much each individual will get.

(2) The Prime Minister will re-issue an even stronger worded apology than Murayama Danwa, and will be made available to personally deliver a letter of apology and personal visit to every Comfort Women survivor. Each survivor can name her own form of apology desired from me. I will kneel and bow as long as it takes.

(3) Japanese government will pass a hate speech law similar to those existing in Germany where Holocaust denial is a crime. Anyone who denies the damages caused by Japan’s imperial past will be punishable by fine.

(4) No one who is in the cabinet of the Japanese government will be allowed to visit the Yasukuni Shrine. Instead, the Japanese government will fund and maintain a memorial museum dedicated to displaying Japan’s war crimes, and the Prime Minister will make a yearly visit. There will also be a scholarship established to fund students who study Japan's occupation of Korea.

(5) All history textbooks in Japan will be written by a joint committee consisting of both Japanese and Korean scholars. I hope Korea will do the same.

(6) And lastly, just to let you know I am serious, right here is a declaration from the Japanese Parliament that says Dokdo belongs to Korea. Take those islets – they are yours. And think about our offer.”

Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks

This truly is an offer that Korea cannot refuse. It more or less addresses all of Korea’s complaints’ about Japan’s treatment of its history. And it would be an incredibly daring gambit that, in the end, would cost Japan very little in practical terms. Even if Japan were to pay enough money to the survivors and their children to make them not lack anything for the rest of their lives (around $200,000 a year will do the trick,) most of Korea’s wartime survivors are dead and even their children are old. Building a museum and maintaining a scholarship, in the grand scheme of things, cost next to nothing. The fishing rights by gaining Dokdo/Takeshima could potentially be significant, but there is no way Japan can have them in the foreseeable future at any rate.

But what Japan will gain from it is incredibly significant. This will not be an easy offer to make without offending the Japanese nationalism, but that is exactly the point. By disarming Japanese nationalism, Japan can legitimately claim the moral high ground for the first time since the end of World War II. On that high ground, Japan can finally put Korean nationalism on trial. Because really, the dirty little secret in the Korea-Japan relation is that some Korean politicians just love having a whipping boy in Japan to stir up nationalist sentiments that serve as an instant support/distraction. If the Korean government waffles even just a little bit facing this offer, the Japanese government can finally claim legitimately that it has done everything it could, and it is Korea’s political opportunism that is getting in the way of true reconciliation.

If the Korean government accepts the offer – and it can’t not accept, if it is offered this – the payoff for Japan is massive. The japanophiles in Korea will finally have the guilt-free conscience to indulge in Japanese products. Allied with Korea, Japan can be a much more meaningful counterbalance against China. By jointly writing history books, Japan can directly influence the way Koreans think about the occupation and the aftermath. In the long run – when the memories of the occupation fades enough for Koreans not to have a gag reflex over the idea – Japan and Korea can enter into a free trade agreement or even a NATO- or EU-like alliance.

The benefit for Korea under this offer should be obvious. Its people can be finally compensated adequately without the embarrassment of hashing out the terms of the Basic Treaty. It can finally have a historical closure, and move on. At this point, Korea no longer has to worry about being annexed or otherwise controlled by Japan because its position is incomparably stronger relative to that at the turn of the 20th century. Given this, a close partnership with Japan could lead to Korea's being a world power, at last -- something that Korea has dreamed of since the independence.

Will this happen? Of course not. File this under “The Korean’s Cockamamie Proposals That Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time,” next to the Korean’s preferred immigration policy. But the Korean’s larger point is this: at this point, Japan really needs to do something about its past. Year 2010 will be the perfect time to do something. Missing this opportunity will not only be a moral outrage (again), but also a huge cost to the future of Japan.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.com.

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Religions in Korea?

Dear Korean,
I would like to know of the common religion that most Koreans believe in. Is there some sort of fixed Korean religion, or are they just a bunch of Koreans who believe in different religions or so? If so, what other religion do they believe in?

Max


Dear Korean,

Recently there was a news story of Armenian and Greek Orthodox monks in Jerusalem (again) brawling over procedure/territory. That makes me wonder whether the factions in Korean Buddhism, or, for that matter, Christianity, share a particular enmity. (You know how God can fire up some folk.) Personally, I can see where the followers of Mithras might have a problem with the rest of the world (those pesky safety regulations), but what is the situation in the Land of the Morning Calm?

Cactus McHarris


Dear Korean,

Do you know how common traditional Korean religions are in Korea these days? I used to have the impression that most Koreans no longer practice traditional religions, and that most are not religious or are some form of Christian--but sometimes I still come across stories about rituals in the mountains or business execs moving their family graves for good luck but at horrendous cost. I'm sure some Koreans are still following traditional religious ways, but do you know how common it is? Are there any stats anywhere? As for fortune telling, I know it's still widespread, but almost all young people I've talked to (under 30) say they go to a fortune teller just for fun and don't take it seriously.

John


Dear questioners,

First of all, a full disclosure – the Korean is a Presbyterian. Discussing religion is always a tricky subject, so that disclosure was necessary.

Let us address Max’s question first. The answer is that Koreans generally believe in different religions. According to the 2005 census by Statistics Korea (a quasi-governmental body dedicated to creating official statistics,) here is the breakdown of major religions in Korea: Buddhists 22.8 percent, Protestants 18.3 percent, Catholics 10.9 percent and 1 percent for Other.

What you may notice is that there is a very large population of Koreans who have no religion at all, since the religious population only adds up to 53.1 percent. This does not mean the non-religious Koreans are atheists – it just means that many Koreans simply do not care too much about religion. Accordingly, religion is not really a part of public discourse in Korea. What may be controversial in the United States because of religion – e.g. abortion or stem cell research – is not controversial in Korea.

To answer Cactus’ question, people of different religions in Korea get along with one another quite well. To be sure, recently there has been some backlash against some Protestants who proselytize very aggressively, mostly in the form of nasty Internet rants and some scattered cases of vandalism on church buildings. Also, the fact that the current president Lee Myeong-Bak is a devout Christian whose cabinet includes some of his church members draws some collateral fire against Christianity from those who dislike Lee. (For example, when Lee was a presidential candidate, Buddhist leaders of Korea demanded that Lee to be more accommodating for Buddhists. Lee promised he would.)

But in the grand scheme of things – especially given our knowledge of how explosive and deadly a religious strife could be – religious life in Korea is generally diverse and tolerant.

-EDIT 12/11/09- Upon reading Cactus' question again, the Korean realized he read it completely wrong. How embarrassing -- the Korean is very sorry. Let us actually address it. The different factions within each religion in Korea mostly get along just fine. But there are occasional instances of tension that sometimes escalate to physical jostling. For example in 2006, there was a physical altercation between Buddhist monks of Seonam-sa and of the Buddhist head organization Taego-jong, the second largest faction of Buddhism in Korea. (The largest is called Jogye-jong.) The altercation occurred because the monks of Seonam-sa temple wanted more independence from the head organization, and Taego-jong was not going to stand for it. This incident was roundly mocked by irreligious Koreans.


Nothing to see here folks, just brawling monks at Seonam-sa.
No nunchakus or anything.


Also, certain Protestant churches in Korea are known for their extremely aggressive proselytizing, which includes denigrating other Christian branches and other religions. But while they are highly visible due to their shrill loudness on the streets and on the Internet, their absolute number is quite negligible. So while those groups generate some amount of tension, the manifestation of that tension is usually confined to flame wars on the Internet message boards, not any actual physical altercation. -EDIT over-

Now, onto John’s question. The question about Korea’s traditional religion is slightly tricky because there is some ambiguity as to what really counts as “traditional religion.” For example, vast majority of Koreans perform rituals (e.g. jesa) for their dead ancestors, which may be considered a traditional religion in the form of ancestor worship. But in fact, those rituals are not particularly religious – they are more like a memorial ceremony rather than ancestor worship. Evidencing this characteristic, both Buddhists and Catholics in Korea participate in jesa and other traditional rituals. Korean Protestants also engage in the traditional rituals, although they tend to somewhat modify the rituals.

Also, there are a host of minor organized religions in Korea that may be considered “traditional religion,” in a sense that they contain some reflection of traditional faith. Such religions include Won Buddhism, Chondogyo, Zeungsangyo, Daejonggyo, etc. For example, Daejonggyo, established in 1909, is based on worshipping Dangun, the mythical progenitor of all Koreans back in 2333 B.C.E. But the influence of these religions is nearly negligible, as less than 0.5 percent of all Koreans believe in those minor religions combined.

Then there are the traditional, unorganized faiths/superstitions, such as fortune telling, feng shui, shamanistic rituals (gut), etc. There is no real statistics about how prevalent these things are. The Korean’s own experience has been that the oldest generation of Koreans takes them seriously, while the rest not so much. (The Korean Grandmother, 94 years young, is a huge fan.) It is not very easy to see a real-deal gut, for example – which is a pity, because it is quite a spectacle.

Yeongdang Poong'eo gut - a gut asking for plenty of fish for the fishermen (Source)

Instead, the younger generation in Korea has turned them into somewhat of an entertainment, like the way American girls use a mirror and a brush to find out what their future husbands look like during a sleepover. There are a number of “fortune telling cafes” in Korea, where mostly young clientele enjoy coffee while different fortune tellers visit the tables to read their future.

But, to the extent it does not take too much effort, many Koreans lukewarmly follow those superstitions in a eh-what-have-I-got-to-lose manner. For example, many Koreans do consult some feng shui-type book or website when choosing the gravesite for their parents. Similarly, many Koreans do a perfunctory check when naming their children to make sure they did not inadvertently saddled their children with a name that invites bad luck.

One time when he was living in Korea, the Korean visited a fortune teller, whose trick was to pull three Chinese characters out of hundreds that represented the Korean's personality and destiny. The characters for the Korean were: 才, 才 and 才. Talent, talent, talent. The Korean does not (and did not) take fortune telling very seriously, but he's not going to lie -- that felt pretty good.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.com.

Saturday, December 05, 2009

Ask a Korean! News: Internet and Korean Entertainment

Here is an interesting article that nicely describes the interplay between Korea's Internet and its entertainment programs. Original here.

Portal-Friendly Talk Show or Chumming Heaven?

[TK Note: "Portal" is the word Koreans use to describe sites like Naver or Daum, which is similar to the structure of Yahoo! or MSN with a lot of content in the front page along with a search engine.]

The media scholars of the future may record July 2004 as a significant moment, because it is the date when Paran.com, Internet portal operated by Korea Telecom, officially launched. Why must we remember the launch of Paran, which no longer has much presence at this point?

At the time, paran.com focused on the Korean Internet users' high interest in contents regarding sports and entertainment. So it secretly entered into an exclusive deal with the five largest sports newspapers in Korea for a groundbreaking sum of $100,000 per month for a year. [TK Note: "sports newspapers" are Korea's tabloids, focusing on sports, celebrity gossip, lots of pictures and cartoons. All dollar figures assume $1 = KRW 1,000.]

Behind the so-called "Paran incident", there exists the portal market that was on a meteoric rise.

Gangshimjang, a mass-guest talk show, is the top rated show on Tuesday

At the time, the portal companies were engaged in a heated competition to attract visitors by cramming articles about sports and entertainment, preferred by young Internet users. Paran, which was late in joining this competition, reacted by hoarding the sports and entertainment content from the sports newspapers for $6 million for a year (five companies for $1.2 million each.) This was based on the erroneous judgment that monopolizing the killer contents would lead to the domination the portal market.

The result is as we know now. The competitors -- Naver, Daum and Yahoo Korea -- began to focus on supporting Internet news media that created similar contents. Within a year, the sports newspaper suffered a precipitous drop in circulation as well as in the public opinion-forming power that they previously had. Although this example is limited to entertainment content, the Paran incident went down in history that symbolizes the changed media environment.

Gangshimjang, an Epitome of a Portal-Friendly Broadcasting

The recent trend is that a portal site's main screen and real time search term rankings each morning are filled with gossips about celebrities who appeared on a talk show the night before. For a show to make a hit, it has to be "portal-friendly" -- because now there exists a virtuous cycle of voluminous and strong gossips feeding into higher ratings.

Of course, in any country's television, the night time is filled with talk shows featuring superstars. The the defining characteristic of "orthodox" talk shows, such as Jay Leno's "Tonight Show" or David Letterman's show, is a 1-on-1 conversation between the host and the guest. The conversation may be shortened through editing, but it does not veer from the basic framework of "person-to-person" conversation. Korea's best talk show, Gang Ho-Dong's Mureupak Dosa, follows the same format. There is no other show that is more populist, nor is there any other show that better showcase of the character of the guest. But it does have a weakness -- because there is only one guest, there is a large variance in its power to create issues.

At the point opposite of Mureupak Dosa is Gangshimjang, the ambitious new project by SBS. [TK Note: name of a TV station.] Gangshimjang focuses on how it could produce the greatest quantity of gossip materials in the shortest amount of time. Airing its seventh episode on December 1, this program is the culmination of the talk show format that reflects the very Korean, portal-led media structure.

"Quantity" and "Speed" - the Strength of Talk Shows Today

First, one must take note of the overwhelming number of guests. The number of guests for talk shows, including Yashim-manman (the previous edition of Gangshimjang) and KBS's competitor program Imagination Plus, has not exceeded 4 to 6 so far -- because even as a "mass talk show," that number was about the upper limit of a conversation considering the number of hosts (usually two to four.) In fact, the number of people before the camera on most domestic talk shows, including the hosts, are around ten.

But Gangshimjang came out with a groundbreaking format of two hosts and over 20 guests.


Gangshimjang's two hosts, Gang Ho-Dong and Lee Seung-Ki.
But their roles in fact are very limited.


Of course, not all 20 guests can be the main focus of a conversation. So the show boldly discards the conversation format; instead the guests toss to the viewers the pre-packaged "strong issue-creator" (or "chum", according to the Internet vernacular.) Seen positively, the show is an evolution toward a conversation with the viewers; seen negatively, it is an degeneration toward yellow journalism.

Of course, reaction from the Internet users alone is not enough. What really makes a TV talk show shine is the Internet-based entertainment-focused media companies. For these Internet-based, breaking news-focused media that strives for low cost and high volume, relaying the contents of a TV talk show plays to their strength. They are also welcome allies to television, since they provide a near-watching experience that does not require actually watching TV, and also some "official" authority even to simple gossip-like remark. In the end, the entertainment news on portal sites on Wednesday morning is filled with gossips provided by Gangshimjang and its competitor, Imagination Plus.

The limit of a traditional talk show is that there are only two or three topics to focus in one hour. But Gangshimjang brims with more than ten well-summarized and interesting stories. Thus, there is no overlapping news among different media, and generally more articles can be written.

Gangshimjang was initially considered a "survival talk show," emulating its predecessor Seo Sewon Talk Show. But now, it appears that it is an evolved form of talk show, aggressively accepting the portal environment. Leeteuk of Super Junior would reveal a fictitious "Realtime Search Term Ranking" in the middle of the show, and a portal company's search window naturally appears at the bottom of the screen as advertisement.

Because of Gangshimjang's rise, KBS's Imagination Plus (which had loudly proclaimed public interest) also began to invite multiple celebrities, quickly churning out "stimulating topics" without dragging on. We have now arrived at an age when the quantity and speed of a talk show "chum" determine ratings.

A Critical Moment

Singer Hwang Hye-Yeong on Gangshimjang.

On its December 1 episode, a 90s favorite Hwang Hye-Yeong (36 years old) appeared on the show after a long hiatus. She began on the topic of "Dating in my 20s":

"The biggest pop star at the time asked me out. I liked him too, so we began dating. We were on a secret date in a car, but we got into a fender bender on a snow road. Both of our production companies found out about us, took away our pagers and began a 24-hour watch. So we broke up against our will ..."

Immediately, the hosts asked who the man was. The secret of high ratings is not giving the answer right away. Hwang mumbled, "A member of the most popular group in 1994, who is still single." To this, Gang Ho-Dong concludes: "Don't worry. We have the Internet search party."

As Gang predicted, on the morning of December 2, the leading portal search term was: "Hwang Hye-yeong". The leading candidates for the mystery date, "Seo Taiji and Boys" and "R.E.F.", were also near the top. And the numerous entertainment news articles about this "scandal"! Everything worked out as planned.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.com.

Friday, December 04, 2009

2PM, Jaebeom, and Korea's Internet Culture

Dear Korean,

You may recall about two months ago that a kid named Jaebeom from the boy group 2PM (managed by JYP) was basically run out of Korea for some "anti-Korean" comments he made on his MySpace page a few years ago. What's your take on this, especially surrounding the jingoistic knee-jerk reaction to his comments, as well as the equally ridiculous movement to boycott JYP for not "protecting" Jaebeom?

Simon



Dear Simon,

The Korean will first state this for the record: the Korean loathes K-pop. Most Korean music worth listening to was produced before the 21st century. As of now, the Korean can count with one hand the Korean singers/bands that are worth listening to. Everyone else is a pretty, soulless shell mass-produced by production companies. Watching them or listening to most K-pop stars makes you stupider. There is nothing redeeming about them. They are the musical equivalent of McDonald’s French fries.


If you are interested in contemporary Korean music, try this guy.
His name is Jang Gi-Ha (장기하). Absolutely fantastic.

But the phenomenon that you described is indeed interesting, so here is the Korean’s take on it. But first, for those who are unfamiliar with the context, the Korean will provide an executive summary:

JYP, or Jin-Yeong Park, is one of the most successful talent developer/managers in the K-pop scene. (Park himself was a relatively successful pop star when he was younger.) The products of JYP Entertainment include such luminaries of K-pop such as Rain and Wonder Girls. JYP frequently mines talent out of both Koreans and Korean Americans.

One of JYP’s most recent creations was 2PM, a boy group with seven members that debuted in 2008. (Hilariously, JYP simultaneously created 2AM, a four-member boy group who sing ballads rather than the beat-heavy dance numbers that 2PM do.) Jaebeom, a third-generation Korean American from Seattle, was one of the members. Jaebeom joined JYP Entertainment in 2005 at age 18, and was trained in Korea prior to his debut as a 2PM member. 2PM was very successful, rising to the top of the charts by early 2009.

2PM. Barf.


Trouble began for Jaebeom in September 2009, when his MySpace page that he kept between 2005 and 2007 became public. Particularly problematic was a correspondence from Jaebeom to his friend on Feb. 22, 2005, which said: “Korea is gay. I hate Koreans. I want to come back like no other.” (Quote is cleaned up for grammar and punctuation.) When the news broke, JYP initially defended Jaebeom, calling the posts “youthful mistakes.” Jaebeom also issued an apology. Other members of 2PM stood by him, expressing support on their own homepages.

But the reaction of K-pop fans, particularly over the Internet, was swift and harsh. Massive amount of hate mail and blog posts soon overwhelmed the popular Korean websites such as Naver and Daum (similar to Yahoo and Google.) Petitions calling for 2PM’s disbandment circulated. JYP suspended 2PM’s appearances. Jaebeom then quit 2PM and returned to Seattle, four days after the news broke. Counter-protest from Jaebeom’s fans also broke out on the Internet over this development, claiming that JYP threw Jaebeom under the bus.

As of now, 2PM chugs along without Jaebeom, releasing a new album. In November, JYP appeared on a TV show indicating that he is considering Jaebeom’s return.

So there is the summary. Now, what does the Korean think about all this?

The Korean thinks that Jaebeom is a fucking retard. It is hardly a secret that Koreans are rather nationalistic, and some of them are prone to complete overreaction at any perceived slight against their nation. It should also be very clear that if you are a star, you have no privacy. Your MySpace page will be made public sooner or later. If Jaebeom did not know that when he was 18, he should have known by the time when he was 22. There is no excuse.

This is a different case from other cases of swift, harsh judgments on the Internet driving celebrities into a corner, for example like Choi Jin-sil. In case of Choi, the rumors on the Internet were baseless lies. In case of Jaebeom, the possible implications of his own words on the Internet were very clear. The Korean has no sympathy for him. Worse has happened to better people.

We still miss you very much.

Having said that, this episode is indeed very interesting because it is an excellent illustration of a particular characteristic of a Korean society that often baffles the outsiders – its interconnectedness. Korea is an extremely interconnected society. Put differently, everyone knows everyone in Korea. (Or more accurately, in Korea, everyone knows at least someone who knows another, leading to knowing everyone.) And by “everyone”, the Korean truly means everyone – including the biggest stars and celebrities.

Often this is described as Korea’s being small, but it is more than that. Compared to Americans, Koreans build a much denser social network over their lives through school, work, hometown and neighborhood. Also, Korea itself is literally denser than America – anything and anyone that matter are located in Seoul, a 12-million people gigapolis. On top of that, Korea is unquestionably the most wired country in the world. Internet works on incredible speed. (What is now advertised as Verizon FiOS has been available in Korea for the last 10 years.) Cell phones work everywhere, including in the subways.

There are many practical implications of this, which will be discussed over other posts as well. But one of the major implications is that in Korea, the distance between the media/Internet and the real world is very, very small.

Contrast America. Take Britney Spears, for example. There is no doubt that she lives in a fish bowl of sorts in America. Paparazzis follow her around everywhere. Any small detail of her life gets publicly exposed on Perez Hilton and TMZ. But as bad as her life is in America, few Americans can reach her in a meaningful way, because Spears is physically removed from most Americans. Few people know Spears personally, nor do they know anyone who knows Spears personally. Her career as a celebrity might suffer, but she can more or less go on living her life.

Not so in Korea. If there is a celebrity, there are already a lot of people who know that celebrity personally. There are even more people who know someone who has a personal relationship with that celebrity. (Heck, the Korean himself can get the phone numbers of a number of celebrities right now by using less than 5 phone calls/emails, and he has been out of the country for 12 years! The Korean even played basketball once with JYP in New York. He had a nice jump shot.) And they all live right around one another, and they are constantly chattering through the world’s fastest Internet and the world’s most extensive cell phone network. One intriguing move, and the eye of the public turns to that celebrity like the Eye over Minas Morgul.


Did anyone see my contact lens?

This is not always bad. For example, when Moon Geun-Yeong was revealed as the anonymous donor who donated around $800,000 over six years, the entire Korea went into a swoon over her commendable act, as the positive opinion of her multiplied quickly over the Internet. The story of her charity was justifiably hyped, which prompted more Koreans to care about charity and donations.

But when things go wrong, the power of the Eye is absolutely terrifying – particularly when it is aimed against ordinary people who never signed up for public scrutiny like celebrities did. The most infamous example is the Dog Poop Girl in 2005. A college student refused to clean up after her dog in a subway car, and another commuter took a picture of her (and her dog) with a cell phone camera. Within days of the picture being circulated on the Internet, everything about her became public – name, picture, address, school (current and former,) websites that she frequents, any comments that she left on the Internet, even where she is right now as “sightings” were reported.

This makes a celebrity’s life in Korea more difficult as well. For example in 2008, comedienne Jeong Seon-Hee made a remark that can be considered disparaging towards the Mad Cow Protestors. The Mad Cow Protestors, also organized over the Internet, began a boycott against Jeong, as well as against the business run by Jeong’s husband, a former actor named Ahn Jae-Hwan. Ahn’s cosmetics business was shut down, and did not do the same business after it re-opened. (Although the complete picture indicates that Ahn probably was not such a good businessman to begin with, as he was vastly overextended in multiple businesses that did not do very well at all.) The loss of income from his wife as well as from his business led to a financial ruin, which prompted Ahn to commit suicide.

But again, by September of 2009, the consequences for a celebrity who pisses off his fan base should have been pretty clear to anyone. Jaebeom is still an idiot for allowing this to happen. Jaebeom is actually lucky, because his sentence was not hell but a purgatory. The Korean society now has had the time to reflect the excesses of its Internet culture, and is coming around to realize that it is being too harsh on individuals for understandable mistakes that individuals are capable of making. This enabled JYP to bring up the possibility of Jaebeom’s return within two months without causing another riot on the Internet. He will be back in K-pop scene sooner or later.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.com.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Ask a Korean! News: Acclimation of a North Korean

An unusally light-hearted, yet nonetheless insightful, piece from Joo Seong-Ha:

Evidence that I am Becoming a Korean

When I was in China after having escaped North Korea, I heard news on the radio that said, "South Korea produces 4.5 million tons of food waste every year." My jaw dropped -- 4.5 million tons! I, as someone who was in China after having witnessed people starving to death, could not understand the South Koreans who threw food away.

When you think about it, 4.5 million tons of food would feed the entire North Korea. One side starves to death and the other side throws food away -- what incongruence, I thought then.

That must have shocked me a great deal, because I never left any food behind for about three years since I came to Korea. No matter how full I was, I would scrape to the bottom of any serving that the restaurants gave. If I could not finish it, I felt like I was committing a crime to the North Korean brethren who were clutching their hungry stomach.




Having lived that way, my stomach ended up growing by 5 inches since I first came to South Korea. The first pairs of pants that I bought after arriving Korea no longer fit me. I also have several suits that I can no longer wear because they are too small.

Gradually, I began to think that it was only to my damage that I finished all the food -- my cheap conscience was hastening my death, since the lipid accumulated in my stomach would shorten my lifespan. According to the Secret of Life, Aging, Disease and Death [TK: a popular Korean health documentary], having intestinal fat was just like stuffing poison in the body. Also, there was a study in the U.S. that immigrants from poorer countries who become obese in the U.S. are three to four times more likely to die from cancer than native-born Americans who are obese.

So no, this wasn't it. I still have a lot to do, I have to see the reunification, and so on and so forth... So at any rate, I should never contract obesity. Now, after coming to Korea seven years ago, I leave food behind without any sense of guilt. I decisively do not eat any more after I am full.

And there was that time when I got my first job after coming to Korea.

My boss, Mr. Kim, was laughing at an entertainment program with celebrities. I could not understand that for the life of me. I could not understand why he would watch such trashy program that had no educational value, where celebrities showed up as if to parade how stupid they were. I would have read another page of a book for that time.

Humor has a cultural background and code. I don't know if South Koreans would laugh at North Korean mini-series (probably not, since they would not understand it,) but at first I could not understand why they even had the programs like Wootchatsa [TK: name of a program like SNL] or Gag Concert [TK: same]. Even when I tried to laugh, I could not understand when I was supposed to laugh, and it was no fun.

So I asked. "Why do you watch and waste time with that program? Seems like it has no educational value and just turns people into idiots."

The answer flew back. "What do you need 'educational value' for? You just laugh at the moment and forget about it." At that point, I had to re-evaluate him. "Wow -- all that education and wisdom are useless. I thought he was a capable guy, but that's all he has for intellectul capacity? What a disappointment."

Seven years since, I now watch Gag Concert, and laugh and chuckle. I do not schedule my day for it, but I would flip the channels and gape at Two Days One Night [TK: another show name].




Of course I don't go out of my way to watch any entertainment program, but I got to a point of watching it if they happen to be on. There is no telling how I would be in the future.

And another thing. I could not help but drink coffee in Korea in order to meet people. At first when someone took me to Starbucks or Coffee Bean to buy me coffee, I thought "Why would anyone drink this?"

Even after I began to drink coffee, the best coffee for me was the 200 won [=20 cents] vending machine coffee. It seemed strange that people would pay 5000 won [=5 dollars] for coffee that was far worse than the vending machine coffee.

Seven years since, I now have turned into someone who enjoys the aroma of a latte. Now I know that the 5000 won coffee is definitely worth more than the 200 won coffee. Of course, I still cannot bring myself to pay for the coffee. I do not yet understand why what is essentially a cup of water costs as much as a meal. But I do appreciate it when someone buys me an expensive cup of coffee.


The last one. When I first came, the politicians under investigation always said, "I am truly innocent." Seeing that, I thought, "Why would a National Assemblyman, a representative of the people, sell his reputation for some tens of million won [=tens of thousands dollars]? There has to be something wrong."

On top of that, they always say "I swear upon my honor that this is the truth." When I see that, I thought: "Right -- this has to be a frame job, since that politician is willing to bet his honor that he must have built all his life. A National Assemblyman's honor cannot be had for that cheap."

I have been in South Korea for seven years. Now when I see a politician who says "That is not true at all," I say: "Come on -- how do you deny such an obvious thing? Tsk tsk."


Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.com.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Dog – It’s What’s for Dinner

Dear Korean,

I heard that people eat dog meat in Korea. Is it something special, or do they put the dog meat to any meaty meal?

Sibelius

Dear Sibelius,

The answer is no. Dog-eating is one of the things for which is Korea is notorious, and much of it is distorted or misunderstood. For example, Wikipedia’s page on dog meat consumption in Korea is filled with utter falsehood, likely generated by anti-dog meat crowd in Korea. Hilariously, the Wikipedia post cites to some incredibly dubious sources such as Helsinki Times – clearly an authority in Korean culture. Therefore, the Korean will outline the facts about dog-eating in Korea, and follow it up with the Korean’s own opinion regarding the topic.

The “fact” section will be organized in a Q&A style. Because the Korean is feeling rather generous today, for this topic only the Korean will accept any further question on this topic that he did not address through the comment section.

Facts about Dog-Eating in Korea

Q: Do Koreans eat dogs?
A: Yup, they sure do. A good friend of the Korean would not believe him, saying, “I thought it was an untrue and malicious stereotype.” No, it is all true. Koreans eat dogs.


But this is not what happens. (Seriously, the picture is a joke.)

Q: Why do Koreans eat dogs?
A: People eat what’s around them. Protein, especially obtained from a large animal, was traditionally scarce in Korea. Eating a cow was nearly out of the question – each household, if it were lucky, would have a single head of cattle to pull the plow. Pigs competed for the same food that humans ate. Dogs did not. Traditionally, dogs are eaten during the three high heat days of summer, called bok or sam-bok ("three bok").

Q: How prevalent is it?
A: Dog meat is not very prevalent in modern Korea – it is not what people eat every day. You have to visit a restaurant that specializes in dog meat-based dish to get it. There are apparently around 530 such restaurants in Seoul, which is not many for a 12 million people city. Roughly 1 million dogs are slaughtered for food each year. By weight, it is the fifth-most consumed meat in Korea, following chicken, pork, beef and duck.

-UPDATE 4/18/2011- According to the survey commissioned by the National Assembly in 2006, approximately two million dogs are slaughtered for food each year, and it is the fourth-most consumed meat after chicken, pork and beef.

Q: Is dog meat considered a gourmet delicacy?
A: No. It is traditionally a peasant food, and was never considered high-end. Reflecting this status, you would have to get out to the poorer outskirts of Seoul to encounter a good dog meat dish.

Q: What do Koreans think about dog-eating generally?
A: According to a survey conducted in 2000, 83 percent of Koreans (91.9 percent of males and 67.9 percent of females) have eaten dog meat. 86.3 percent of Koreans favored eating dog meat (92.3 percent of males and 72.1 percent of females).

-UPDATE 4/18/2011- According to the survey commissioned by the National Assembly in 2006, 55.3 percent of all adults have tried dog meat. Approximately 75 percent of Koreans are in favor of eating dog meat.

Q: What do Koreans who own pet dogs think about dog-eating?
A: Some pet dog owners in Korea have become extremely vocal against dog-eating, citing all the reasons that are familiar to non-Koreans who find dog-eating unpalatable. Most pet dog owners are more moderate: in most cases, they wouldn’t eat a dog, but do not care about other people who do. Still others distinguish dogs raised as pets and dogs raised as food, and have no qualms about eating a dog. The Korean’s friend who lives in Korea owns a Yorkshire Terrier as a pet but is nonetheless a huge fan of dog meat. She frequently goes to the dog meat restaurant with her Terrier, and says she feels no inner conflict.

-UPDATE 4/18/2011- According to a survey conducted by Bayer in 2007, about a quarter of pet dog owners have tried or enjoy dog meat.

Apparently, looking at this mug does not dim the Korean's friend's appetite for dogs.

However, the distinction between edible dogs and pet dogs is not necessarily ironclad for sellers of dog meat. Recently there was a report that abandoned pet dogs were being trafficked to dog meat dealers instead of an animal shelter, where they are supposed to go. The movie Ddong Gae (English title: Mutt Boy) shows the main character fighting the bullies who ate his dog, which the main character picked up as a stray.

Q: I heard dog meat is illegal in Korea. Is that true?
A: It is more correct to say that dog meat is in legal grey area. Livestock Processing Act of Korea sets forth various standards for how livestock may be raised, slaughtered, processed, sold, inspected, etc. Oddly, dogs do not fall under the definition of “livestock”. This is an odd omission because the definition of “livestock” includes horses, which Koreans almost never eat. (The Korean's guess would be that whichever aide to the legislator who drafted the law copied a non-Korean law without thinking too much about it.) This does not mean that dog meat is illegal; it just means that Livestock Processing Act does not regulate the processing of dog meat. Instead, it is regulated by Food Hygiene Act, which simply defines “food” as “all foodstuff, except taken as medicine.”

But dog meat-abolitionists of Korea often argue that this indicates the Korean law’s recognition that dogs are not for eating. On the other hand, however, the National Tax Board of Korea issued an opinion that dog meat restaurants may receive the same tax treatment for their purchase of dog meat as, say, the tax treatment that a barbecue restaurant receives for its purchase of beef. So it’s fair to say that this issue is muddled.

Several years ago, there was some attempt on the part of Seoul city government to regulate dog meat processing in order to ensure it is processed in a hygienic manner. However, the vocal minority vigorously opposed the “legalization” of dog meat, and the idea was dropped.

Q: How are the dogs raised and slaughtered?
A: Because Livestock Processing Act does not cover dog meat, dog-ranchers (so to speak) and dog meat sellers essentially go for the raising/slaughtering method that generates maximum profit. This generally leads to unsightly living conditions for edible dogs, similar to those of pigs or chickens in industrialized farming in the U.S., only in a smaller scale. Dogs are raised in a small cage and sold alive until they get to meat market. Then they are generally electrocuted before being processed and shipped to restaurants.


Freshly slaughtered dogs in a market in Korea that specializes dog meat wholesale.

Q: Is it true that the dogs are tortured before they are killed?
A: Again, because Livestock Processing Act does not cover dog meat, there is no restriction about how to kill a dog for meat. At the meat market, the need to slaughter the dogs quickly usually means dogs are electrocuted, similar to cattle. However, especially in rural areas where people slaughter dogs to cook and eat on their own, the common method is to hang the dog and beat it to death, in an attempt to tenderize the meat. (This, however, may be counterproductive; while beating the meat does tenderize it, an animal that dies in a stressed state generally produces tougher and less tasty meat.) A figurative expression in Korean for a severe beating is “like beating a dog on bok day.”

Q: Enough with the cultural stuff, let’s get to the food – How is dog meat cooked? Is it like a Chinese restaurant, where you can get the same dish in different meat? (e.g. beef fried rice/chicken fried rice/shrimp fried rice/dog fried rice?)
A: The answer to the second question is no. Dog meat is generally cooked in two different ways – in a spicy soup or steamed and braised. (The same soup is sometimes made with goat meat.) In addition, dog meat broth made with herbs is considered medicinal, and is often prescribed by oriental medicine doctors in Korea. It is supposed to be an energy booster.
Dog meat, two styles

Q: What does dog meat taste like? Is it good?
A: It tastes closest to goat meat – like extremely lean beef, with a little bit of its own aroma (a little like lamb). Yes, it is very tasty.

Q: What does the Korean think about dog-eating in Korea?
A: Glad you asked, made-up-questioner!

The Korean's thoughts on dog meat, and additional questions/objections about dog meat, after the jump.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.


Sunday, August 09, 2009

Ask a Korean! News: Double Dose of Joo Seong-Ha on Euna Lee and Laura Ling

Two recent posts from the Korean's favorite North Korea blog Nambukstory were very interesting. If you don't know, the proprietor Joo Seong-Ha of Nambukstory is a graduate of Kim Il-Sung University and was on track to be an elite officer in North Korea, until he defected the country. He was actually captured in China and sent back to North Korea, suffered in a gulag for several years, then defected again and finally made down to South Korea. Then he became a reporter for Dong-A Ilbo, one of the most read newspapers in South Korea.

As evident from the posts below, Joo is not very sympathetic to Euna Lee and Laura Ling. The Korean does not necessarily agree with everything Joo says. However, they are certainly worth a read.

Propaganda Following Clinton's Visit to North Korea (posted Aug. 5, 2009)

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton visited North Korea unannounced. The morning paper would be flooded with the meaning of the visit and different analysis, so I will save my words on those topics. Instead, I will write about something that likely would not come out on newspapers or television news.


As we have seen many times over, it appears that North Korea again achieved its objectives. Now that they were successful in luring someone as big as Clinton, the only thing remaining for them is to maximize the effect of the visit.







There is much analysis about whether Kim Jong-Il would send a message to Obama via Clinton; I think Kim would. In fact, Kim has been in love with the U.S. for a very long time. But love is not something that can blossom when only one side of the deal holds the love.

Kim Jong-Il would like to align his regime with the U.S. as long as his regime is maintained, but the U.S. does not want to align itself with an authoritarian regime like North Korea. In other words, the interests of the two parties conflict. Keeping up with America's demand for human rights even at the most basic level -- shutting down the concentration camps for political prisoners, for example -- would shake the foundation of the North Korean regime. In addition, Kim cannot get out of his father's shadow. Because he grew in that shadow, it is difficult for him to transition to capitalism.

But Kim knows that if he cannot normalize relationship with Obama administration, which is very conciliatory toward North Korea, normalization of relationship with America is just a pipe dream. So it appears that Kim would try to send some form of enticement to American government somehow.

And -- now for the topic about which I really wanted to write -- how would North Korea propagandize  Clinton's visit to its people?

This propaganda happens in a way that is different from the Rodong Shinmun [newspaper] or Joseon Jung'ang TV. It actually happens through internal lectures geared toward the people. In other words, the propaganda is not shown externally.

Because I have heard numerous such lectures in North Korea, when the news of Clinton's visit came out I immediately thought of the title of the lecture to be given:

"Finally, American bastards kneel before Dear Leader."

Of course the precise expression may differ, but the general framework would not be very different.

When I was attending Kim Il-Sung University, there was a constant stream of lectures from the Chief Lecturer of the Central Party -- in other words, the best lecturer in North Korea. He is a talented man, extracting the best possible analysis out of any given situation. Having been educated by such a person for years, I have a rough guess of how he would play it out.

North Korea consistently relies on the "Porcupine Theory," which goes likes this: "There are many things for a tiger to eat in the mountain, so why would it choose to hunt a porcupine?" North Korea likes to compare itself to a small but spiked porcupine, as all of its people can be mobilized and are generally military-ready.

It would also connect Clinton's visit to the missile tests in April and the nuclear weapon test in May: "At first, Obama underestimated us and said dumb things, but Dear Leader taught him a lesson. Once we fired a satellite and tested a nuclear weapon, America has gotten scared. Eventually, it gave in and paid a visit to the Dear Leader. Clinton is no small fry; he was the Democratic Party president before Obama. America sent the biggest personality it could send." Or so the lecture would go.

Oh, and I would be remiss if I forgot to mention this -- the education about the greatness of Kim Jong-Il: "Our Dear Leader's courage is simply the best. In the face of adversity not even his eyebrow flinches, not even against America. He toys with the world's greatest power. The Earth turns on the axis of Dear Leader's willpower."

And at this point disparagement of South Korea would come in, like this: "The puppet traitor Lee Myung-Bak became blindsided after trying to follow its master's will. He was wagging his tail while not even knowing what his master was thinking of, and now the situation is out of his hands. He must be getting sick thinking about how to curry favor with us. But we will not be that easy. Until he begs for mercy for his past misdeeds against us, we will never engage him." They need to set it up this way so that in the future when the North-South relation becomes strained, they can propagandize: "They want to beg for mercy, but we are not talking to them to teach them a lesson."

Then the question is whether the North Korean people would believe in this kind of lecture. Unfortunately, I think most would. They have been fooled for the last several decades, but did not necessarily get smarter about this. Of course, no one would believe them if the regime announced that it would give regular rations, but this is a little different. Because Clinton did appear after the missile and nuclear test, it does look like the tests caused Clinton to come. In my view, because North Korean people are desperate enough to put their hopes on straws, they would believe the regime's propaganda and begin to have some hope that things will get better somehow.

At any rate, it looks like the journalists would come back to America with Clinton. I recommend reading the post that I wrote on March 19, "Do the two detained American journalists deserve sympathy?" The analysis was written exactly two days after the journalists were captured. In the end, just like I predicted, they spent several months at a hotel (or a guest house, which is better than a hotel,) in North Korea and came back just fine.

In that post, I asked what would happen if the captured people were South Koreans. And as if the North Korean regime decided to show me what would actually happen, a South Korean worker was detained in Gaeseong about a week after I wrote that post.

Now, the time has come when the difference between the "citizens of the continent" and South Koreans starkly reveals itself. I am reminded again that a country needs to be strong.




American Journalists Must Not Act Like Martyrs (posted Aug. 6, 2009)

This morning, many morning papers carried on their first page the pictures of American journalists reuniting with their families.





CNN is also repeatedly showing the video of the journalists deplaning as well as this picture.

I understand that the images are newsworthy, but I am not very pleased about seeing these images over and over again.

The American journalists must shed their martyrdom image. Strictly speaking, they are illegal border jumpers -- not to mention the fact that they were caught fooling around the border of the scariest country in the world. They are lucky to not have gone through worse.

Their situation is only special in that they were caught in North Korea, since many different places in the world would not take kindly to illegal border jumping. America is no exception. I would like to suggest the American press that before endowing the journalists with the halo of martyrdom, look first at how the people who were attempting to illegally cross the U.S. border via Mexico are rotting in its own country's prisons.

The journalists so far did not say much, but surely there will be many interview requests forthcoming. In those interviews, I really hope the journalists don't say they were having such a hard time. The reporters would know what North Korean defectors would go through if the defectors are caught and sent back to North Korea, because the reporters investigated those stories themselves -- although it may be silly to compare the status of American citizens and that of North Korean defectors.

But take for example Chinese citizens, who are foreigners to North Korea as much as Americans are. I have seen with my own eyes Chinese persons being arrested after having illegally crossed the Duman River [which forms NK-China border]. They spend several months in the same prison that keeps the defectors, receiving insults and food that is fit for pigs -- although they were not beaten, and did receive more food than defectors.

Given that situation, the journalists received a special treatment. In what country in the world are illegal border jumpers kept not in prison but in a "guest house" or a hotel, with exercise and leisurely walks being allowed? They even managed to call their family through international call. Even America does not guarantee human rights that way. They received the best possible treatment that illegal border jumpers could possibly receive, and they should be thankful.

In addition, I am sure many were wondering upon their return: what are in those bags?

[Note: Nambukstory does not allow copying its pictures, and the Korean could not find the identical picture online quickly enough. Please see the original post for the picture, which shows the journalists in North Korean airport with several bags.]

They certainly must have been empty-handed when they were captured, but through a little over four months of North Korean life, they now have luggage worth two or three bags. I thought about what those bags are carrying as well -- they seem a little too big for clothes and makeup. I thought it may be possible that North Korean regime gave them some gifts for the reporters' family, in consideration for the mental anguish they went through. North Korea is fully capable of contriving such a show. If that were the case, the journalists may set a record as illegal border jumpers who received several bags of gifts on the way back.

Even if they received no more than some clothes, they were treated extremely well -- especially if they received that much to fill those bags. When I was arrested and sent to North Korea, I wore the same piece of half-sleeve t-shirt and pants that I wore during summer and shivered in bitter cold in forced labor during winter. I could not wash my clothes because I only had one set, and it was not as if I was in a situation to wash clothes. North Korea is a barbaric country like that. The journalists should feel fortunate that they received a treatment that was much, much better than that received by North Korean people in such a country.

The journalists did not say much yesterday, but they stated that every day, every moment they feared being sent to a gulag. Although it appears clear that they were worried, I do not feel very inclined to believe the words "every day, every moment". If they were truly gripped by such fear, they have no right to work as journalists, as they lack the most basic judgment of reality.

It does not take a journalist to make a reasonable guess that there will be no harm, physical or otherwise, to a person who is definitely going to return to America and testify about how they were treated. And it is laughable that they were thinking about gulags when they managed to make international phone calls while living in a guest house.

Guest houses are better than hotels in North Korea; "guest house" is the name for summer and winter homes for Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il. Currently, many of Kim Il-Sung's guest houses are empty. Also, safe houses by special branches of the government are also known as guest houses, which also have the best amenities in North Korea for VIPs. They may have been mentally anxious, but no amount of money would buy the experience of staying at guest house in North Korea.

And I really hope that they are observing the result of their adventurism. Above all, Kim Jong-Il has been loving it since they were captured. One only has to look at Kim's huge grin since the Clinton visit. Obviously, there will soon be propaganda about how America bowed to North Korea. Thanks to the journalists, Kim Jong-Il can deceive the 20 million North Koreans and mobilize them into forced labor.

I only wish that the journalists reflect upon the sins created by their playing heroes and upon the special treatment they received, and live on quietly. But if they further show up on television trying to drum up sympathy by shedding tears and creating an image of a martyr, that would be just unbearable to watch. They really do not have the right.

* Here is my belated reply to certain comments:

1. Couldn't the journalists cry a little after having been reunited with their family after so long?

Answer: I was not commenting on the crying while meeting their family. Of course they can cry after being separated for a while. All I asked was for them to refrain from showing up on media and pretend they deserve sympathy.

2. Didn't the journalists go through a lot, such as mental stress?

Answer: Of course they must have gone through a lot. Everyone feels stressed when the environment changes; it happens at your work too. I did not say they were not allowed to feel stress or anxiety while being under arrest in North Korea.

3. Isn't it too ungenerous to criticize when they were trying report on North Korean defectors?

Answer: Reporting on North Korean defectors in China and jumping the North Korean border to get a nice picture are two different things. The journalists themselves said they voluntarily crossed the border. (If North Korea kidnapped them, America would have never reacted this way.) Could they really not report on North Korean defectors if they did not step on the North Korean soil along the border? Such senseless action makes me question if they truly were motivated by concerns for North Korean defectors, or by a desire to make their own names.

Already the journalists are saying things like there were rocks in the rice given in North Korea, or how they missed fresh fruit and vegetable. I am totally blown away. It is a country that does not even really have refrigerators; such complaint is more fit for tourists. Were they expecting to be treated like heads of states? Meanwhile, North Korean people are having a hard time eating rice to begin with. How good of a treatment was it necessary for them to not say such things?

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.com.

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Here Comes the Sun -- Run Away!

Dear Korean,

I noticed many Korean women do not like to sunbathe, and I noticed that many of them often wear very wide brimmed hats, and avoid getting tan in general. Is having fair and light skin a big factor in beauty for many Korean women?

Jack in California



Dear Jack,

Yes.

The Korean will even answer a follow-up question. Why do Korean beauty standards involve pearly white skin? Simple -- because dark skin means that you are one of the peasants, out in the field and working all day under the sun. Light skinned people are the nobility – they can afford to stay at home and out of the sun.

The fact that this attitude survived for so long is an indicator of how slowly people's frame of mind changes, even as the circumstances that surround those people change rapidly. Korea began industrializing in mid-1960s, and by 1970s Korea could no longer be called an agrarian society. By then the majority of the lower class of Korea no longer worked on the field, but worked in a factory indoors. To be sure, the factory workers had their own appellations to denote their low station in the society. But aversion to tanning is clearly based on the agricultural economy and field work. How long did Korea to take shed a paradigm based on its agrarian past?

Answer: between 30 and 40 years. Tanned face did not become an acceptable form of beauty until early 2000s, when this woman came along:



Her name is Lee Hyori, whose sheer force of hotness made Koreans accept that tanned skin could indeed be beautiful.

But aside from the delay in changing beauty standards in Korea, there is another level of delay that operates among Korean Americans, such as the ones that Jack saw in California. Simply put, Korean Americans have their own paradigm that either very slowly follows the paradigm of Koreans in Korea, or often does not follow at all. And the way beauty standards have been changing provides an interesting example of this phenomenon.

Take Hyori for example. For about a stretch of 3 to 5 years, she was the biggest star in Korean pop culture scene, about equivalent to Britney Spears' peak in terms of popularity and exposure. (Remember the stretch between around 1999-2002 when Spears was the only female celebrity who mattered?) Wherever you went in Korea, Hyori's (hot, hot, hot) images were plastered everywhere in the forms of TV shows, music videos and advertisements. An average Korean living in Korea, seeing such images, could slowly accept that tanned body can be beautiful as well.

But what about Koreans who live in the U.S.? Most Korean Americans immigrated to the U.S. prior to early 2000s. There has not been any massive exposure of Hyori in America. (In fact, there basically has been no exposure at all.) Korean Americans generally knew who Hyori was, but were not perfectly aware of the ground-breaking nature of her celebrity, exactly because Korean Americans did not see Hyori everywhere like Koreans in Korea did. Therefore, while Koreans in Korea moved onto a new standard of beauty, Korean Americans retained the pre-2000 standard of Korean beauty, as if being stuck in a time warp.

There will be another time to more fully discuss the "immigrant time warp", but the Korean thought this was a great example. The Korean has found that understanding the immigrant time warp is most helpful to the second generation Korean Americans who have a hard time understanding their parents. In most cases, they do not know that their parents think not just like Koreans, but more like Koreans of the 1970s (or whenever they immigrated). But more discussion on this later.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.com.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Is It Safe to be in Korea Now?

Dear Korean,

Six months ago I decided to get certified to teach English abroad and have been researching South Korea in plans to go in September of this year. As I progress in my certification I can't help but notice the tension and heightened alert on the activity in North Korea, as it is in the news almost daily. Korean, is this a bad time to be considering a move to Busan to teach English as a foreigner? Do South Koreans feel on edge and threatened by their difficult siblings in the North? Would you consider moving to Korea or would you seriously reconsider with the political climate in the region right now?

LakerDynasty09


Dear Most Excellent Pen Name,

Yes! Lakers! World champions!

Sorry, the Korean had to work off the euphoria he has had since Sunday. Your question is serious and timely, so let us look at it. The question is really two parts: (1) Is Korea more dangerous than usual? (2) Is it safe to be in Korea right now? The short answers to the questions are no and yes. Allow the Korean to explain.

First, the danger of North Korea previous to the nuclear testing has always been underestimated, particularly in the American media. Currently, most of North Korea’s artilleries and short-range missiles are lined up against the Armistice Line – which means North Korea can turn half of Seoul into dust at any time it wants, without using any nuclear weapon or long-range missile.

The Korean had his doubts in the beginning stage of North Korea’s nuclear testing and ICBM development several years ago, but it seems increasingly clear that North Korea’s nuclear weapons and long-range missiles are meant to be used as a bargaining chip against the United States, not against South Korea. Joo Seong-Ha, one of the most legitimate analysts of North Korea called the idea of North Korea's developing ICBM to attack Korea a "sophism", because "it can attack Korea with a cannon at any time."

This situation is not new; this situation has essentially been the same since the 1970s. American media is reacting right now to North Korea’s missiles and nuclear weapon because of they affect the United States – and such reaction is justified. But that does not mean that Korea is a more dangerous place than before.

Then the natural question is – is it (and has it been) safe to be in Korea? Truly, there is only one scenario in which it would be dangerous to be in Korea – a full-scale war in the Korean peninsula. This scenario is extremely unlikely. Again, quoting from Joo, North Korea cannot even handle South Korea even if South Korea voluntarily offered itself to be under Kim Jong-Il’s rule. Therefore, the reenactment of Korean War – in which North Korea genuinely attempted to overtake South Korea under its rule – is completely out of the question.

Even the terrorist attacks that North Korea used to engage up to mid-1980s no longer have a purpose. Until mid-1980s, there was a tiny sliver of possibility that if the South Korean president was assassinated, for example, the ensuing chaos may enable North Korea to overtake South Korea. But that was over 20 years ago. In a race between North Korea and South Korea, South Korea won decisively and definitively. Everyone in the world knows this, including Kim Jong-Il, North Korean leadership and every North Korean person.

In fact, the true measure of danger posed by North Korea is the 48 million canaries in the coalmine – 48 million South Koreans. After all, these are the people who remember the actual invasion, and dealt with North Korea’s threat for the past 60 years. These are the people who would be most directly affected if North Korea’s danger were true. The Korean remembers that during the 1980s, whenever North Korea made a saber-rattling gesture, the canned and dried goods section of the supermarket would empty out for days, as South Koreans prepared for war by hoarding those goods.

[This type of scene was common in 1980s whenever North Korea made a threat.]

But what did South Koreans do when North Korea recently tested the nuclear weapon and long-range missile? Nothing. The Korean media reported it around the clock, as they were obviously big news. But on the ground level, few even blinked. Even for South Koreans, the possibility of North Korea affecting their lives was too remote to care. If South Koreans do not feel any danger, there is no reason anyone else should.

If you don't believe the Korean, here is Korea Beat's excellent compilation of the top 10 most read articles on Naver (Korea's version of Yahoo!) on the week ending on May 31, during which North Korea tested the nuclear weapon:

1. An initial report that police had confirmed the death of former president Roh Moo-hyun.
2. Park Ji-sung.
3. Park Ji-sung.
4. Park Ji-sung.
5. Barcelona defeated Manchester United 2-0 in the Champions League final.
6. Park Ji-sung.
7. More on the Champions League final.
8. An initial report that Roh had left a suicide note.
9. Park Ji-sung.
10. In Japan, Lim Chang-yong recorded his 14th save of the season by striking out three consecutive Nippon Ham Fighters.

If you still don’t believe in the Korean, here is the tally of all deaths caused by North Korea since the fall of Soviet Union in 1991: 17 (13 soldiers/police, 4 civilians) died in the course of capturing the 13 spies who infiltrated South Korea by a submarine on the eastern coast of Korea in 1996; one prominent North Korean defector was assassinated in Seoul in 1997; 5 seamen died in the naval skirmish that occurred in 2002; A North Korean guard shot one South Korean tourist who was touring Geumgang Mountain in North Korea and went outside of the restricted area in 2008. That’s 24 deaths in 18 years, average 1.33 deaths per year. Consider this in contrast: in 2007 alone, lightning strikes killed or injured 22 South Koreans.

If you wish to be extra careful (or make your parents worry less,) you can register yourself with the American embassy in Seoul, which has an evacuation plan ready for all American civilians of which it is aware in case of an emergency. But really, when you are thinking about visiting South Korea, North Korea should really be one of your last worries, ranked right around lightning strikes and Fan Death (which is real).

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.com.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

A Retrospective: Former President Roh Moo-Hyun, 1946-2009


Roh Moo-Hyun: an Unlikely Life

I do not believe that humans have a pre-destined path in their lives. I do, however, believe that when humans are born, they all have the most likely path for their lives. If a person is born to loving, happy parents with sufficient financial resources and enough care to educate and nurture, it is most likely that she will live an easy, happy life. That’s not a surprise. Similarly, if a person is born to a hateful, broken family without any money and any desire to provide education, it is most likely that he will live a difficult, unhappy life. That is not a surprise either.

What makes human condition interesting are the turns and deviations from that most likely path. It is even more interesting when those turns are consciously made into a direction that provides the most resistance. In fact, it is those turns that define our lives.

Throughout his life, Roh Moo-Hyun often chose to make the most unlikely and drastic turn away from his likely path of life. And truly, those turns made him what he is.

Roh Moo-Hyun was born on September 1, 1946, at Bong-Ha village near Gimhae, Korea. The only claim to fame that Bong-Ha had was its dreary reputation – “a place where crows turn away because there is nothing to eat.” His parents were mere peasants. Roh almost did not enter middle school because his family could not pay the tuition. Roh would not have gone to high school had he not received a full scholarship at his high school – he was preparing for a civil service exam after graduating middle school. He never went to college.

After graduating high school, after applying for and failing to get a job several times, Roh built a hut made of dirt in a nearby mountain, and began studying for the bar on his own. Apparently it took him around 10 years to make it (seven if you discount the military service,) but he did – he passed the bar in 1975, when he was 29.

Roh’s passing the bar needs to be put in perspective. Korean bar in 1975 was not like Korean bar in 2009, and most definitely not like American bar in 2009. Out of the thousands who take the bar exam, only the top 500 are allowed to pass per year. Because there were so few attorneys, becoming a lawyer was an automatic path to power and prosperity. Back in those days, when you passed the bar, your elders would bow to you and call you yeonggamnim – “old man”, an unthinkable thing to do in a Confucian society like Korean in any other situation. And here is a guy who never went to college, took any prep courses or had any tutoring passing that exam. He nonetheless managed to be one of Korea’s top 500, and forged himself a way out of poverty and into wealth and power. This was the first significant turn in Roh’s life away from its pre-determined course.

But the second turn in Roh’s life would involve willingly throwing away that wealth and power he managed to achieve. Roh was appointed to be a judge, but he quit after only serving 8 months. Then for several years he was in private practice, specializing in tax law. He came to nearly monopolize every major estate tax cases in Busan area, earning plenty of money for a very comfortable life. His hobbies included yachting.

In 1981, twenty-two Busan-area people who were known for their democratization activities were arrested and subjected to tortures such as beating, waterboarding and electrocution for as long as 63 days, in an effort to frame them as communist rebels. Prosecution claimed they plotted to overthrow the government and indicted them with charges of treason that carried sentences as long as 10 years in prison.

Remember, this is only one year removed from May 18 Democratization Movement, when the Chun Doo-Hwan dictatorship killed 151 civilians protesting for democracy and sentenced 7 more to death for insurrection and treason. It was clear to everyone in Korea at that time that torture and death was always a possibility for those who opposed the dictatorship. But that did not stop Roh, who represented the defendants pro bono. Since then, Roh began to be known as a human rights and democratization activist prominent enough that at one point, the National Prosecutor’s Office sought an arrest warrant for him four times over a single night.


[Roh during Burim Incident representation (right)]

Democracy began to take root in Korea, as the dictator Chun Doo-Hwan capitulated to the wave and waves of protest and promised to hold a free election after his term ended in 1987. As a major player in organizing those protests, Roh made his way to National Assembly (= Congress) in 1988. He gained further renown by indignantly throwing his name plaque at former president Chun during a National Assembly hearing concerning the Gwangju massacre in 1987 – Roh was the original shoe thrower before Muntadhar Al-Zaidi. Again, Roh’s star was rising in a way that was unimaginable had he merely stayed as a lawyer in Busan who earned a comfortable living.


[Roh objecting during a National Assembly hearing]


Even after President Chun stepped down, the following president was hardly any better: President Roh Tae-Woo was a right hand man to Chun, and won his election mostly because the democratization forces could not agree upon a single presidential candidate, splitting the anti-dictatorship votes among the three most prominent democratization leaders: Kim Young-Sam, Kim Dae-Jung and Kim Jong-Pil, known as the “three Kims”. Therefore, regardless of the election, Roh Tae-Woo had about as much legitimacy as Chun Doo-Hwan for most democratization activists. However, Kim Young-Sam and Kim Jong-Pil made a deal with the devil in 1990. They agreed to merge their parties with Roh Tae-Woo’s such that they can ensure their own road to the presidency after then-president Roh stepped down.

But once again, Roh Moo-Hyun turned his life away from its most likely course – and this is perhaps the turn that eventually made him the president. Roh belonged to Kim Young-Sam’s party, and Roh’s stature rose as Kim Young-Sam’s did. The three-party merger all but guaranteed Kim Young-Sam’s coming presidency. Roh’s path of least resistance surely was to follow Kim Young-Sam.

But Roh did not, and his political life suffered as a consequence. Roh would lose his seat in 1992. He would run for different elected offices in 1995, 1996 and 2000, only to lose again, again and again. (He did serve as a National Assemblyman in a truncated term between 1998 and 2000, when he took over the seat of an Assemblyman who resigned amidst an investigation for elections law violation. The resigned Assemblyman was none other than the current president Lee Myeong-Bak.) However, Roh’s efforts did not go unnoticed: Roh perhaps is the first Korean politician to have a self-generated fan club, established in 2000.

The Significance of Presidential Election of 2002

Despite all this, it is fair to say that Roh was given a very small chance to win in the presidential election of 2002. To understand why, it is necessary to understand how political parties operated in Korea until that time.

In essence, political parties in Korea have been (and to a degree still are) an organizational vehicle for certain individuals to achieve and maintain political power. An important corollary to this definition is that political parties were not organized along any meaningful ideology or a set of policies. Broadly speaking, one could say there have been two large streams of political ideology in Korea – pro-dictatorship parties and democratization activist parties. However, as exemplified in the three-party merger in 1990, those distinctions did not mean much as long as power was to be had.

In practice, this means that an average Korean did not have a lot of say in an election. The boss of the party tightly controlled the process of who may run under the party slate. And in any election, a candidate without the organizational and financial strength provided by a political always faced nearly certain defeat. This applied to the presidential elections as well. The bosses of the party chose who would be the candidates of the election (usually themselves), and voters were expected to show up and choose one or the other.

This all changed in 2002, when the Millennium Democratic Party (MDP), to which Roh belonged, decided that it would hold American-style primaries to choose its presidential candidate. The idea certainly had a gimmicky feel to it – then-president Kim Dae-Jung, the boss of the MDP, was not very popular at the end of his term, and MDP’s repeat appeared to be a long shot. The candidate for the opposing Grand National Party (GNP) was Lee Hoi-Chang, the same guy who lost to Kim Dae-Jung five years previously; each of Kim’s failure served as a reminder that Korean people could have chosen Lee five years ago. MDP needed something to turn the tide that appeared to be heading toward GNP’s way.

On the other hand, however, I submit that first, American-style primary elections are good for Korean democracy, and second, GNP would have never done it first. GNP is a party born out of the three-party merger. At that point it still counted as its members many cronies of the military dictatorship. (In fact, a GNP Assemblyman, a former prosecutor, tortured an MDP Assemblymen, a former democratization activist, before they won their seats.) While GNP had many worthy members at that time, the anti-democratic legacy of the party was still too pervasive for it to take a bold step like primary elections.

Before the primary elections, GNP’s boss was Lee Hoi-Chang, and it was obvious that Lee would run. But because the boss of MDP was the outgoing president, it was not very clear who would run in the presidential election. It was widely presumed that Lee In-Je, a heavyweight politician who had the most control of MDP’s insider politics, would come out to oppose Lee Hoi-Chang. Roh Moo-Hyun, at that point the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, was not considered to be a serious threat. Although Roh was gaining popularity, he was hardly a national figure; few in MDP considered him to be a leader of the party.

Oh, how Roh proved them wrong. Beginning in March 2001, Roh embarked upon the most magnificent president campaign in Korean history. (Although it must be granted that the history of campaign strategy in Korea is really not very long.) Roh’s campaign was so beautiful that I can’t help but smile whenever I think about it. Recently, Josh Tucker of the blog Silver Screen and Roll described Kobe Bryant this way: “[Kobe] has the most complete, versatile, and polished skill set in the NBA. Pull-up jumper, leaner, runner, floater, fadeaway, fallaway, midrange, long-range, close-range, pump fake, jab step, up-and-under, dunk, layup, left hand, right hand, face-up, post-up, driving, elevating, strength, savvy, power, finesse, balance, body control, footwork. Bryant can do it all.”

Similarly, Roh’s campaign had everything that a good presidential campaign should have. My own list of a successful campaign is not nearly as exhaustive as the list of basketball skills above, but here are some essential things that a successful campaign has: vision, charisma, fundraising, speechmaking, connectability, relentlessness, ground-level organization, trench warfare. (I am certain I am missing a few – I am happy to take suggestions.) Do everything above well, and you win elections.

[Roh during 2002 presidential campaign]


Roh’s campaign was a thing of beauty because it had everything. It offered a grand vision for the people – a “society where rules apply equally and where common sense works”. The image of Roh’s illustrious career provided much more charismatic dynamism compared to Lee, who was older and appeared to be more wooden. Roh’s speechmaking ability was well-renowned before and throughout his presidency. Roh’s campaign television ad, showing him simply playing a guitar and singing, became an instant sensation – here is a guy we can relate to, voters thought, instead of that other guy who does not seem to have anything in common with an average person. Roh had an inspired group of fans who took care of finances and ground battles, as donations though “Piggy Banks of Hope” would generate a large and clean source of campaign finance. And when it came time to get down and dirty, Lee Hoi-Chang was hit with the allegations that his son was a draft-dodger.

The brilliance of Roh’s campaign was in stark contrast to those of his opponents’, who were still stuck in a basketball game without the three-second rule, the shot clock and the three-point line, so to speak. Lee In-Je used the tried-and-true method of accusing Roh as a communist sympathizer by pointing out that Roh’s father-in-law was a known communist. However, Roh’s simple retort – “So you want me to drop my wife to become the president?” – instantly showed the hackneyed state of that tactic, and the hackneyed state of Lee In-Je who dared to use that tactic. GNP belatedly implemented its own primary elections trying to replicate the buzz that Roh created by winning them, but GNP’s primaries only appeared formalistic and feeble when Lee Hoi-Chang won them all with no real opposition.

In explaining Roh’s victory, many focus on the a few events that appeared to give Roh an edge that he perhaps did not deserve, such as the draft-dodging scandal for Lee Hoi-Chang’s son or the strong wave of anti-Americanism in 2002 following the armored vehicle incident. But this is too narrow of a view. In a fairly conducted national election, victory is never achieved by tactics alone. To be sure, well-executed tactics are essential for victory. However, at the end of the day, the winner of a democratic election does so by following the mandate of the democratic system – that is, by delivering what the electorate wants.

Roh did not win the election through deception or trickery, as his opponents are quick to conclude. Roh won because ultimately, he delivered what Korean people wanted. All the items listed above do not mean anything unless they resonate with the electorate. In particular, Roh’s vision was exactly what Koreans have craved – a society in which rules apply equally and common sense worked. Roh also offered many other things that Korean people wanted in their political lives. Korean people wanted more control in the democracy that they won. In the three previous presidential elections before 2002, Korean people have little say in who becomes the candidate – that process was all done behind closed doors among powerful people. But now, Korean people can directly jump into deciding who will run for the president, and can finance that candidate directly. This participation gave much more legitimacy to Roh compared to any other presidential candidate in the history of Korea.

Roh’s election was not simply a success for himself – it was a success for Korean democracy. By electing Kim Dae-Jung in 1997, Korean democracy already proved that it can peacefully transfer power from one side of the politics, which originally had all the power through military dictatorship, to the other side of the politics which originally had no power at all. Now, within nine years since 1992 (or within 14 years since 1987, if Roh Tae-Woo’s legitimacy is to be charitably considered,) the election of Roh Moo-Hyun showed that the power transfer was not an ephemeral event that could be taken away through rigged elections or a military coup. Roh’s election proved that democracy was truly here to stay in Korea.

The Roh Presidency: the Good and the Bad, the What and the How

Popular perception of the Roh presidency prior to Roh’s death was that it was an unmitigated disaster. I don’t believe that is the case. Although the media pendulum has swung too much to the other direction since Roh’s death by glorifying everything about Roh, it was undeniable that Roh did have a few significant achievements during his presidency.

First, it is fair to say that the decks were stacked against Roh from the very beginning. Although Roh was the president, the existing power structure did not favor him. GNP was only slightly weakened during the Kim Dae-Jung presidency, and its organization retained its strength. On the other than, Roh was an outsider even within MDP, lacking the strength of his own organization. In practical terms, this meant that high governmental positions were filled with relatively younger people with no real governance experience, because anyone in Korea who did have such experience gained that experience by surviving in the military dictatorship. Mostly due to this, the Roh administration frequently suffered from severe incompetence on the ministerial level.

In the same vein, it was extremely unlikely that Roh would receive a fair shake from the major newspapers. These newspapers survived the authoritarian era by serving as the bullhorn of the dictatorship. Even after democratization, the three largest newspapers of Korea – Chosun, JoongAng and Dong-A – tended to lean toward the conservative side of Korean politics. Thus, it was difficult for Roh to implement his policies and receive a fair assessment of the success or failure of those policies.

Nonetheless, Roh did have a few significant achievements, and it must be noted that those achievements tended to be against his own interest. Perhaps the most significant was a considerable weakening of the power held by the National Prosecutor’s Office. The Prosecutor’s Office, at its worst, was truly the “dogs of the power” as it was known among Korean people. It was always willing to move at the president’s direction, striking the opposition with arbitrary charges of treason and insurrection. By weakening that office, Roh rid himself a major instrument for silencing his critics.

Roh administration also pushed for and entered into a free trade agreement with the United States in favorable terms, although his major supporters, particularly unions, staunchly opposed the agreement. (This would later come to haunt the succeeding Lee Myeong-Bak administration in a major way through in the form of beef protests.) Despite his reputation as an anti-Americanist, Roh cooperated with the U.S. when it clearly favored Korea’s interest regardless of the opposition from his supporters, e.g. by sending Korean troops to Iraq.

But Roh’s crowning achievement as the president is not what he did do, but what he did not do. Again, Roh reduced his own power by weakening the Prosecutor’s Office. Similarly, Roh never used any governmental body as an instrument of power. Here is what one needs to understand about Korea: it is a society in which every important person is at least a little bit corrupt. That’s what happens if a country spends decades under dictatorships and behind-closed-doors political economy. Therefore, if a person in power really wants to mess with you, all she needs to do is to sic a law enforcement agency and attempt to apply the law in the strictest sense. A Korean adage describes this situation perfectly: “Dust falls from everyone if beaten hard enough.” For those in power in Korea, silencing their critics is easy: pursue anyone hard enough, and sooner or later some illegality will dust up that will land her in jail.

But Roh never did any of this. There was never any dubious prosecution of his political opponents. No midnight raids on the political groups that he did not like. No harassing tax audit by National Tax Service on companies that he did not like. No secret dossier compiled on individuals by the National Intelligence Service. These are all the things that Roh’s predecessors did to varying degrees (not to mention torture and mass murder,) but Roh stayed away from them. The conservative press screamed bloody murder when Roh, enraged by constant negative coverage (some of which, I do agree, he surely deserved,) shut down the pressroom in the Blue House – conveniently forgetting that 20 years ago, they would have faced tax audit, jail time or disbandment of their company under the conservative presidents/dictators with whom they curried favor. Roh could have made his enemies’ lives much more miserable, but he did not. Instead, he trusted that the democratic process would work itself out. He sat tight during his impeachment based on tenuous charges, and he obeyed the judiciary when the Constitutional Court shot down the crown jewel of his domestic policy – the Administrative Capital – in an extremely dubious ruling.

This achievement alone puts Roh away from the harsh assessment of utter failure. In fact, one can argue that Roh was one of the top three among the eight presidents that Republic of Korea has had, excluding the current one. Seriously, who would you take above Roh? Syngman Rhee, the guy who rigged numerous elections and appointed himself to be the lifetime president? Yoon Bo-seon or Choe Gyu-Ha, men who never had the chops to defend Korea’s democracy and their own power against military coups? Chun Doo-Hwan and his right-hand man Roh Tae-Woo, who usurped power with military and were responsible for killing hundreds in Gwangju and many more? Kim Young-Sam, who oversaw the greatest economic calamity in the history of modern Korea?

Weighing against the foregoing positive points, Roh’s presidency contained no major disaster. Economy grew at a reasonable pace. No major physical accidents like a collapsed department store, a crumbled bridge or an exploding gas main that killed hundreds. (These things all happened in Korea previously.) Relationship with North Korea improved, and there was no major militaristic saber rattling from the North as it happened before and after Roh’s presidency. (Although it must be noted that North Korea acquired nuclear weapon during Roh’s presidency.) Transparency in government improved greatly as well.

One may ask, what about the bribery scandal? I readily concede that it was no small affair. Much of Roh’s authority hinged on the moral superiority of his position compared to his opposition. So it is indeed significant when Roh and his family did in fact receive $6 million – certainly no small amount – as a bribe. But this needs to be put in perspective. Roh is not blameless, but his blame must be proportionate to his crime.

If you were the president of a major industrial nation who is bent on corruption, wouldn’t you earn more than $6 million? After all, $6 million buys all of three luxury condos in the posh part of Seoul. That’s the best that a president can do? And surely, the predecessors of Roh outdid him by several degrees of magnitude. Chun Doo-Hwan collected $1 billion in his slush fund (assuming $1 = 1,000 won,) and this was in the 1980s dollar that is worth twice as much as today. Roh Tae-Woo collected $500 million in slush fund during his presidency. Kim Young-Sam’s son collected $20 million. Even as recently as 2002, in Lee Hoi-Chang and the Grand National Party received $80 million in bribes to use in the election.

Why does the amount of bribe matter? It matters because the larger the bribe, the greater is the impact of corruption. Roh’s $6 million came from one owner of one mid-sized company. On its own, that bribery does not pose a systematic risk to Korea. But when the slush fund is $1 billion, the bribe must come from all corners of Korean economy – in other words, the harmful effects of bribery become much more pervasive. Simply put, the damages caused by Roh’s predecessor’s briberies are far greater than the damages caused by Roh’s bribery.

Also, it is important not to overstate the argument that the $6 million was much more damaging because Roh made his moral superiority the hallmark of his administration. Bribery is something that is not supposed to happen, regardless of whether or not a politician stated his intent not to accept bribery. Stating, “Hey, I never said I wouldn’t take bribes!” does not reduce the culpability of a bribe-taker. It is most certainly true that Roh was a liar when he repeated time and again that his administration was squeaky-clean. He deserved all the reputational damage that followed the investigation. But it was more than a little ironic that GNP, a party that received more than 13 times greater amount of bribe in 2002 in the form of literally truckloads of cash boxes, crowed in delight as if to say, “See? See?? You are no better than us!”




Having said that, it would be foolish to be blind to the many failures of the Roh presidency. He was generally a poor diplomat who did not always have a smooth relationship with the U.S., Korea’s most important ally. It is also fair to say that Korea’s economy grew during his term despite his economic policy rather than thanks to it, as Roh’s policies focused more on distribution rather than growth, e.g., the extremely harsh property tax on the homeowners on certain ritzy parts of Seoul.

But the greatest failure of Roh was that he created a toxic partisan environment in which he relied on the small number of ardent supporters push through his agenda while alienating the greater public. In such a situation, successes during Roh’s presidency became discounted, while failures during Roh’s presidency – however attenuated Roh’s involvement is – were magnified. Toward the end of presidency, it was a common half-serious joke that if your toilet backed up, it was Roh Moo-Hyun’s fault.

The creation of this environment is directly attributable to Roh’s faulty governing style. This style came about because of the simple truth – revolutionaries make lousy politicians. Roh Moo-Hyun was a revolutionary, and he failed to make the transition from being a revolutionary to being a mainstream politician.

The skill set required for being a successful revolutionary is completely different from the skill set required for being a successful politician. A revolutionary works outside the system. His power depends on denying any legitimacy of the opposition; indeed, a revolutionary must destroy the opposition, for they do not fit the new world order that the revolutionary seeks to achieve. On the other hand, a politician must begin by recognizing the legitimacy of the opposition – however unpalatable the opposition is – because negotiation with the opponent is essential in order to get anything done in a democracy.

In a sense, Roh was the most successful democratization revolutionary in the history of Korea. As such, Roh had the skill set to become the most successful revolutionary. His eloquent yet lashing style of speech was legendary; he was always happy to bypass the established lines of communication and speak directly to the people; he never compromised with his opposition, be they the military dictators or the former revolutionaries who co-opted with the dictators. These are the traits that made Roh into the president.

Yet what made Roh also unmade him. It was perhaps too much to ask for the most successful revolutionary to abandon the traits that made him successful. Roh never could make that transition, and the traits that once served as a tremendous advantage for Roh now served as a massive detriment. Roh continued to speak in an unrestrained manner, reducing his stature and providing fodder for the opposition. He relentlessly mocked and demonized the opposition, taking away GNP’s last remaining inclination to compromise. Whenever Roh sensed that he was in a pinch, he sought to communicate directly to the people, at one point going so far as to propose a referendum for his presidency. Instead of achieving the desired effect, these antics simply tired out the electorate. People living in democracy are busy – they elect leaders so that they don’t have to think about politics all the time. Roh’s actions ran directly counter to that fundamental (if less recognized) desire in democracy.

In essence, Roh’s governing style combined the worst elements of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, two of the worst American presidents since World War II. Jimmy Carter ran as an outsider like Roh, railing against the corruption of Richard Nixon presidency. Yet Carter, like Roh, never made the transition from outsider to insider, and his governance was rendered impotent because of that. George W. Bush thought winning an election was enough to push through a highly partisan agenda without consulting the opposition at all. In politics, how you do matters as much as what you do. The things that Roh did (and did not) do are no less significant than the achievements of any other president in Korean history. But it was how Roh did them that set himself up to be a failure.

Death of Roh: Korea’s Tragedy

Perhaps Korea was due for a president like Roh Moo-Hyun. Korea achieved democracy through a series of small revolutions. It would have been strange for Korea to not have a president who made his career as a revolutionary. But like a great individual can change the course of her life away from its most likely path, a great leader can change the course of her nation away from its most likely path as well. While grand historical narratives are always important, one must never lose sight of the fact that individuals matter in history. A great leader can transcend the reflection of the nation upon her, and instead make the nation a reflection of her. Roh Moo-Hyun failed to do this as the president. He was the reflection of Korea that unflinchingly fought for democracy. But during his presidency, he could not transcend that history of Korea.

However, Roh still had one more chance to transcend another aspect of Korea, for simply being who he is. Because of Korea’s checkered history of closed-door politics and corruption, there has never been a single Korean president who had a dignified post-presidency life. Syngman Rhee was exiled; Yoon Bo-Seon and Choi Gyu-Ha lost their presidency in military coup; Park Chung-Hee was assassinated; Chun Doo-Hwan and Roh Tae-Woo were tried and jailed for treason; Kim Young-Sam and Kim Dae-Jung could not escape the corruption scandals of his sons and confidants.

But not Roh Moo-Hyun. Indeed, Roh clearly showed the sign that a happy, dignified post-presidency life was completely within his reach. He simply went back to his native Bong-Ha village and became a village elder. He came out and waved at tourists who came to visit until the crowd became too large and posed a security threat. He still wrote on his website, but did not interfere with the day-to-day politics very much. He led small projects like beautifying the landscape around the village.

Indeed, this is exactly what Korea needed. Korea achieved democracy, but it has yet to have a full democratic narrative in which an ordinary person comes to power, serves his country with that power, and peacefully return to being ordinary after his term is over. Roh was not a very good president because he could not change who he was. But in post-presidency, Roh could have achieved the last leg of the democratic narrative by simply being exactly who he was. As Jimmy Carter exemplifies, while revolutionaries do not make a good president, they make a heck of an ex-president. Ex-presidents are once again outside of the political system, but this time with much dignity and symbolic authority. Because they lack an actual authority, their revolutionary excesses do not become implemented, while their revolutionary idealism serves as an inspiration. Roh was only 63. He had at least 10 good years in him to serve as a symbol of how Korean democracy managed to produce a president who had no political machine to his name, no insider clout and no college education. Over time, people would have forgotten how Roh conducted his business and come to focus on Roh’s achievements themselves. Roh only had to be himself – the revolutionary who steadfastly clung to the principles of transparency and democracy.

[Roh driving around his grandaughter in Bong-Ha village.]


But now we know that Roh was not being himself. He took bribes, however relatively small, just like the opposition that he denounced for being corrupt. For the record, I do not begrudge the investigation. The Roh supporters who blame the Lee administration for vigorously pursuing Roh’s corruption scandal are being shortsighted. Truth is always better than cover-up, and the truth was that Roh did something that he should not have done.

Truth also hurts. The loss of moral authority following the bribery scandal was a mortal wound for Roh not because it recast his achievements in a different light; it was because it eliminated the possibility of Roh achieving anything more in his life. That apparently was enough for Roh to decide that he did not have enough to live for. It was a tragic choice for both himself and for Korea. He lost his life, and Korea lost a valuable chance of having a full and complete democratic narrative.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.com.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...