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

Monday, October 06, 2014

50 Most Influential K-pop Artists: 9. Shin Hae-cheol

[Series Index]

9. Shin Hae-cheol [신해철]

Also known as:  Shin Hae-chul; Crom

Years of Activity: 1989-present 

Discography:  

As vocal/keyboard of Muhan'gwedo [무한궤도]
When Our Lives Come to End [우리의 삶이 끝나갈 때] (1989)

As a solo artist
Shin Hae-cheol [신해철 1집] (1990)
Myself (1991)
Crom's Techno Works (1998)
Monocrom (1999)
The Songs for the One (2007)
Reboot Myself Part 1 (2014)

As vocal/keyboard of N.Ex.T
Home (1992)
The Return of N.Ex.T Part 1: The Being (1994)
The Return of N.Ex.T Part 2 (1996)
Lazenca: a Space Rock Opera (1997)
The Return of N.Ex. T Part III (2004)
Re:Game (2006)
666 Trilogy Part 1 (2008)

As a member of NoDance
Golden Hits (1996)

As a member of Wittgenstein
Theatre Wittgenstein (2000)

Representative Song:  To You [그대에게] from When Our Lives Come to End



그대에게
To You

숨가쁘게 살아가는 순간 속에도
Even in the hectic living moments
우린 서로 이렇게 아쉬워하는 걸
We still want each other more
아직 내게 남아있는 많은 날들을
The many days that I still have left
그대와 둘이서 나누고 싶어요
I wish to share them with you

내가 사랑한 그 모든 것을 다 잃는다 해도
Even if I lose everything I have loved
그대를 포기할 수 없어요
I cannot let you go
이 세상 어느 곳에서도
No matter where in the world
나는 그대 숨결을 느낄 수 있어요
I can feel your breath
내 삶이 끝나는 날까지
Until the day my life ends
나는 언제나 그대 곁에 있겠어요
I will always be by your side

Translation notes:  "숨가쁘게 살아가는 순간" is weirdly difficult.

In 15 words or less:  The most significant Korean rock musician of the 1990s.

Maybe he should should be ranked higher because...  Both in terms of music and in terms of social participation, how many K-pop artists tried more different things than Shin did?

Maybe he should be ranked lower because...  How much direct influence did Shin have? How much in the current K-pop scene can be definitively traced back to Shin Hae-cheol, like the way in which one can definitively trace Korean hip hop back to Drunken Tiger?

Why is this artist important?
As we climb higher into the rarefied heights of Korean pop music history, a concise statement of an artist's importance is approaching ever closer to impossible. One could easily write a book about Shin Hae-cheol's career; unfortunately, we can only spare a few paragraphs here.

From the beginning, Shin Hae-cheol's musical career portended a daring, experimental musical vision. Shin debuted with his band Muhan'gwedo ("Infinite Track") on the Campus Song Festival, the scene-defining audition show at the time. The crackdown from Korea's dictatorship (which ended only a year before Shin Hae-cheol's debut) has neutered K-pop, making the saccharine and brain-dead soft rock (locally referred to as "ballads") the mainstream genre. But Muhan'gwedo would have none of it. Reversing the conventional pop progression that gradually built up to a climax, To You opens with a dramatic, synthesizer-induced flair and rushes full speed toward the finish line.

Shin Hae-cheol then debuted as a solo artist, engaging in a brief (and embarrassing-in-hindsight) stint of idol pop at the insistence of his record company. Then Shin finally found his musical homeland by forming N.Ex.T. (pronounced "next",) the most significant Korean rock band of the 1990s. Looking at the current K-pop scene in which idol pop has overrun the market, it is difficult to believe that a rock band like N.Ex.T. used to top the K-pop charts. But it is true. Led by Shin Hae-cheol, N.Ex.T stood firm on the foundation of progressive rock yet struck in all directions: heavy metal, thrash rock, electronica and Korean traditional music. Shin also put project albums as an individual (taking on a separate stage name of "Crom",) trying ever more daring sound and demanding the audience to simply get used to it.

But Shin Hae-cheol's musical achievement is only half of his story, as Shin is arguably one of the most socially active pop musician in K-pop history. Perhaps betraying his elite education (Shin attended Sogang University, one of Korea's top five colleges,) Shin maintained a sharp tongue that relentlessly criticized the Korean society's irrationality and hypocrisy as a proper rocker should. Shin Hae-cheol led the charge in the movement to repeal the Korean law that prohibited two people with the same last name from getting married. Shin was also the leader of the now-infamous concert in 2002, in which Psy (of the Gangnam Style fame) performed an anti-American rap number, to express his anger at the death of two young Korean girls who were run over and killed by an USFK armored car.

The best pop artists do not simply influence the artists who come after them; they change the society around them. By that measure, Shin Hae-cheol is about as influential as any in K-pop history.

Interesting trivia:  Shin Hae-cheol is often mistaken as being related to the legendary Shin Jung-hyeon [신중현], as the name of Shin Jung-hyeon's oldest son is Shin Dae-cheol, leader of the influential heavy metal band Sinawi. Shin Hae-cheol, however, bears no relation to Shin Jung-hyeon. Shin Hae-cheol is, however, a blood relative to a different K-pop legend: Shin is the second cousin of Seo Taiji. Reportedly, the two are close, often seen together fishing or skiing.

Further Listening:  A.D.D.a. from Reboot Myself Part 1, song recorded entirely as a one-man a capella.

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

Monday, February 04, 2008

Korean Funeral Tradition

Dear Korean,

I just found out that my boss's mother has died in Korea. I've heard that it's customary to give money to the person who has lost a loved one, but I've known my boss for 2 years and it just seems insensitive to me if all I did was give him some money. Why do Koreans do that? Is there something else that I can do that is more personal?

Little White Girl


Dear Little White Girl,

It may seem insensitive, but Koreans are practical folks. Sad fact of life, or the end thereof, is that funerals cost money. The nice thing to do would be to help out with the costs. Of course, nothing stops people from doing things more personal, like writing cards or helping the funeral preparation. But as far as Korean folks are concerned, money in a white envelope that says 謹弔 is enough. (The Chinese characters roughly mean “I am sorry for your loss.”)

A side effect of the custom of giving money (the money itself is called bujo) is that the family of the deceased should only give the official notice of the funeral (called bugo) to those close to the deceased and the family. Because those who received the notice is expected to attend the funeral and give money, it is bad manners to give the notice to mere acquaintances.

Some more about what Korean funerals look like. Korean funerals traditionally had a very long and elaborate procedure, but modern Korean funerals are simplified, and often adjusted for religious beliefs, especially among Christians.

Korean funerals generally last three days. When a person dies, first the body is set in a straight position and covered in a white sheet. Then it is put behind a partition. In front of the partition, a small table is set up with a photo of the deceased and incenses. Then the person’s death is announced. Official notice of the funeral is sent out, and a sign is hung on the front door of the house.

First son of the deceased assumes the role of sangju, basically the master of ceremonies. Traditionally the sangju would wear clothes and hat made out of hemp, but nowadays they simply wear a black suit and the hemp hat. The relatives of the dead are also supposed to wear the hemp clothes, but that part is now generally omitted. Both sangju and the relatives are supposed to wear a black ribbon either on the chest or on an arm, but now only sangju wears it. (Picture came from a Korean funeral house, which advertises that it rents the traditional garb.)

On the second day, sangju arranges for cleaning of the body, which is usually done at a funeral home. Koreans don’t embalm the dead. The body is cleaned and dressed – there is a traditional garb for the dead, but suits are commonplace in modern Korea.

After the body is dressed, it is put in a casket. The casket is again set behind a partition or a black curtain, and a table with the photo of the deceased, candles, and incense is set up. A black ribbon is put on the photo at this time. Sangju sits next to the table on a coarse mat – the mat is coarse because sangju must atone for the sin of allowing his parent to die.

Then is the time for visitors. Visitors wear black suits as American mourners would. Mourners first light a stick of incense at the table, bow at the table, then sangju and the guest bow at each other. Traditionally sangju, as a sinner, is supposed to remain quiet for the entire proceeding, but now they are allowed to say brief thanking words to the guests. As they are leaving, visitors leave the envelop with money in a designated box.

On the morning of the third day, the casket leaves the house. Before it leaves, a short ceremony is held in the honor of the dead – if you were trying to find one ceremony called “funeral” in a Korean death ritual, this would be it. The personal history of the deceased is told, and people eulogize and offer incense.

Traditionally, sangju and his relatives carried the casket all the way to the burying ground, but now Koreans use a hearse. The casket is taken to a pre-arranged burial ground, which is near other family members' burial sites. (See picture.) Typically, an extended family owns a small mountain and sets up burial sites for the entire family, past, present and future. The Korean himself already knows where he will be buried when he dies. Believe it or not, the thought is somewhat comforting.

After the casket is lowered, sangju throws dirt on the casket three times. Then the grave is fully filled, and a little mound is built on top of the grave. The mound is then covered in grass. On the right bottom side of the mound, a small stone with the name of the dead is buried so that the grave can be identified even though the mound is eroded away. The tombstone is set up in front of the grave, and brief ceremony is held once again.

But technically, the official funeral is not over after 3 days. Sangju keeps wearing the black ribbon for 100 days; traditionally everyone who had to wear to hemp garb had to keep them on for 100 days, but that does not happen anymore. After 100 days, a memorial ceremony for the dead is held, and the funeral is finally over.

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

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Can Non-Asian Foreigner Succeed in the K-pop Scene?

Dear Korean,

How ready do you think Korea is for a foreigner in the K-pop scene? My definition of a foreigner in Korean market would be someone who isn't Korean and does not look visibly Asian.

Maria J.

The Korean would point out the vaguely racist quality of this question first. "Foreigner," from the perspective of Koreans, has its own definition: anyone who is not Korean. The Korean has no idea why Maria J. had to twist that word and narrow its coverage to someone who "does not look visibly Asian." But be that as it may...

This type of question has been coming in fairly frequently, apparently because a new girl group called The Gloss has a white French girl named Olivia as a member. So is Korea ready for a non-Asian foreigner in its music scene?

Try this for a size:  the number one band of K-pop in 2012 has three members, all of whom young men. Two of this band's members are Korean, but one is not. One of them is a white man from America, named Brad Moore. Mr. Moore has been quite visible in all of the band's activities (including music videos and show programs,) and his whiteness or non-Koreanness has never been a subject of discussion in Korean people's appreciation of the band.

The band's name? Busker Busker.


The Korean is not joking when Busker Busker was the number one K-pop band of 2012. They deserve the moniker based on any serious metric. Busker Busker sold the most number of albums in 2012 in Korea, and their songs were the most downloaded. (They sold significantly more songs online than PSY in 2012 Korea, even with PSY's Gangnam Style.) The band also placed six different songs in the top 10 of Gaon Chart (the most authoritative chart for K-pop) through 2012, and five songs in the top 10 of Billboard's K-pop chart. Busker Busker also took home three Korean Music Awards for 2013, including Best Pop Album and Best Pop Song. In the cafes of Seoul last year, it was practically impossible to avoid Busker Busker's songs, like 벚꽃 엔딩 ["Cherry Blossom Ending", the video above] or 여수 밤바다 ["Yeosu Night Sea"]. And this wildly successful band had a highly visible white member, who is the drummer for the band.

Does this mean that the next non-Asian foreigner will be inevitably successful, or be able to completely avoid Korea's racism? Of course not. But Busker Busker's success is still a significant data point. The number one band of K-pop in 2012 had a member who was a non-Asian foreigner, and Korean pop music scene hardly made a fuss about it. That should have answered the question before it even made its way to the Korean's inbox.

It is fair to wonder if non-Asian foreigners can succeed in the K-pop scene. But it is strange to see that, in discussing this topic, no one among the supposed devotees of Korean pop music brings up the fact that K-pop's number one band has a white member, and it has been that way for a whole year. Maybe they would have noticed if they stopped distracting themselves with shitty music.

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

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Ask a Korean! News: Why "Yu-Na Kim"?

Korean figure skating sensation 김연아 is known as "Yu-Na Kim" to English-speaking countries, although the proper Romanization of her name should be "Yeon-A Kim". The Korean had previously heard that Kim deliberately chose the wrong Romanization for the ease of pronunciation for anglophones, but he wanted a confirmation. While searching the Internet for the confirmation, the Korean ran into an interesting article on Chosun Ilbo, written about a week ago. Translation is below.

[Op-Ed] Why Call "Kim Yeon-A" as "Yuna Kim"?

I turned on the TV at my hotel in Vancouver, and I heard the announcer say:

"Yu-Na Kim is well known in Canada as well. Yu-na has been training in Toronto. Right now the screen in the rink shows 'Kim Yu-Na,' but the reason why we call her 'Yu-Na Kim' is..."

It was right before the figure skating short program. CTV, Canadian broadcasting company that was exclusively showing the Winter Olympics, was introducing Kim Yeon-A as a likely candidate for the gold medal. The program was showing the stock photo of Kim Yeon-A as a child wearing colorful Korean traditional clothes. The announcer continued:

"In Korea, Yu-Na Kim is called 'Kim Yeon-A.' The family name comes first. But the reason why we call her 'Yu-Na Kim' is not because we changed it into what we are used to, but because she introduced herself as 'Yu-Na Kim' when she first came to Canada."

As the program went on, the announcer repeated this explanation three times, that calling Kim Yeon-A as Yu-Na Kim was not at all meant to ignore another country's customs and apply the Canadian standard. That day CTV only showed this introduction but did not broadcast the game in which Kim participated; instead, it showed Canada-Germany hockey game that showed at the same time. [TK Note: The reporter apparently did not know that the figure skating actually showed after the hockey game.] While it was a little disappointing, it was natural given that hockey is Canada's favorite sport.

Although I could not see Kim's performance live, the small explanation from the announcer was the most unforgettable thing in my one week stay in Vancouver. It was about how to be respectful and considerate to those who are different from us, how to live together in a mixed manner. I brought this up at a dinner with local Korean Canadians, and a Korean Canadian who worked at a school district office added:

"One time, there was a fight between two Korean students at an elementary school in Vancouver. The parent went to the student who fought with her son and told him, 'You shouldn't fight like that, because Koreans have to stick together.' The school heard of this, and called the parent. 'Why did you call him a Korean student? There are no Korean students, Chinese students, Canadian students at our schools. They are all just students.' When I read this report, I thought the ideas of 'one people' and 'patriotism' that we are used to may be seen as 'exclusionary' and 'totalitarian' to others."

Of course, there were cars in Vancouver draped in the Red Maple Leaf Flag during the Winter Olympics. There were people who were chanting "Canada, Canada" while wearing a hat and a cape made with a Canadian flag. But the majority of Vancouverites seemed to find these scenes -- in which "the people stuck together" -- unfamiliar, although they are nothing more than cute little gatherings compared to Korea where the heart of Seoul would be totally filled.

Vancouver is a multiethnic, multicultural city. Other than Canadians, there are Chinese, Indians, Iranians, Filipinos, Vietnamese live mixed into the city. There are also about 70,000 Koreans, including study abroad students. But this city has rarely seen discrimination based on skin color and language emerging as a problem. There is a separate court for human rights, and a lawsuit is filed immediately if such an insult has been felt. Regardless of the result of the suit, the fact that one was sued is enough to cause embarrassment.

For us who have lived while holding "one people" as a point of pride, such "bouquet society" would likely be impossible. Regardless, we have no choice but to live mixed in with people who are different from us. There are more than a million foreigners in Korea. Korean-Chinese build the apartments in which we will live, young Filipino men run the machines in Ansan industrial complex and Sri Lankans ride the boats on the East Sea. Above all, the Southeastern Asian women who do not even know our language are giving birth to our children in rural areas. Those children probably will not know why their face is different from their friends' at first.

How are we receiving these people who have entered our society? In treating these people as "different," do we not have a sense of superiority hiding in our minds? Past the Vancouver Koreatown, there was a cheap restaurant on the roadside that had a sign saying "$5.99 Lunch Special." The owners were a Korean-Chinese couple who previously worked in Korea. "My co-workers used to look down on me because I was a Korean-Chinese, and my wife was being shunned by other employees at the restaurant in which she worked. You could say the discrimination we experienced in Korea turned into our benefit, because it made us decide to come here."

The world is relative. We, while behaving like this, become upset at small discrimination experienced by our family who immigrated, and surprised when Korean study-abroad students are attacked in Russia.

[최보식 칼럼] '김연아'를 '유나킴'으로 부르는 것은 (Chosun Ilbo)

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

Saturday, August 03, 2013

Your Culture is Bigger than You

Dear Korean,

I was hoping that you might respond to this review I did of Gish Jen's book on Asian and Western subjectivity. The review is 90 percent summary and expresses a few reservations about the cross-cultural psychologists that Jen relies on to make her generalizations about culture.

I'd be curious to see whether you find this research to be credible. There's no questions that it conforms almost exactly to the "thin and monochromatic" views of the differences between East and West adopted by Westerners, including Malcolm Gladwell, with the (perhaps?) meaningful difference that most of the cross-cultural researchers are Asians from Asia, and that Gish Jen is herself an avowedly Asian American novelist fixated on the question of East and West. While many Asian Americans and other politicized types take strong exception to the generalizations about Asians contained in this body of research, most regular Asians and Asian Americans I ask about seem to more or less agree that the overall schema fits into the pattern of their own experience.

Wesley Yang

If you are wondering because the name of the questioner sounds familiar--yes, it's that Wesley Yang, who wrote the article titled Paper Tigers for the New York Magazine, which elicited a strongly critical response from me. Let me first say this: it takes a remarkable strength of character to have been blasted in a way that Mr. Yang did, and come back for seconds. I am flattered that he is asking for my take; I can only hope I don't disappoint.

Mr. Yang's question is how I feel about the cross-cultural research involving Asian culture. But I see a second, underlying question: in trying to understand Asian culture, how are we to treat our own experience as Asian Americans? The second question, in particular, is important and timely. I just got done blasting non-Asians for trying to essentialize Asia through "cultural explanations." Then what about Asian Americans? How are we to approach our own culture? What do we make of the fact that Gish Jen attempts to explain her father's life through these studies? What are we supposed to think if those studies seems to explain our lives as well?

First question first: how do I feel about research regarding culture? Contrary to what Mr. Yang may think, I am open to them. I will accept the conclusion of the research (with the residual amount of skepticism consistent with the scientific method) if the research is conducted rigorously. The reason for this is simple: clearly, culture affects behavior. As a blogger who writes about Korean culture, it would be strange if I did not recognize this. Accordingly, a rigorously conducted study may well reveal the nexus at which culture translates to behavior. (Of course, normal caveats apply--after all, many studies end up being quite wrong.)

This proposition is so self-evident that it is almost not worth saying out loud. The real question, whose answer is not as self-evident, is: how much do these studies explain? How much do those studies explain the national culture? How much do those studies explain the reality that unfolds before our eyes? And how much do those studies inform our own experience as Asian Americans?

These questions are part and parcel of a larger and more fundamental question: how are we supposed to understand and explain culture? Once we have a solid grasp on this fundamental issue, the rest falls into place.

(More after the jump.)

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


Monday, August 11, 2008

Yo Mama So Fat.... Wait, the Other Way Around

[The Korean's note: Our new associate editor's first post!]

Dear Korean,


I am a Korean American woman, second generation. I don't mean to be stereotypical, or contribute a rude individual characteristic on a culture. But I have noticed something about 1st generation Korean women, especially ones that are a little older. They have no problem telling you or your children, that you/they are fat. Even if by "white American" standards, you or your children are not. This is especially true if you or your children are female. This is the behavior of many 1st Generation Korean women I've met, all a little older, at least 50 and up. My Korean drycleaner will look at my daughter and ask me, "Why is she so fat?" Then she'll look right at my daughter and directly ask, "Why are you so fat?" leading to tears of course. Same with the Korean waitress - ironically serving us Kalbee, as well as Korean churchgoers. You name it, they say it.

I find this strange because these same women grew up starving. They literally had no food growing up, so wouldn't being a little plump be a good thing? But clearly, they are not being complimentary, when they t
ell you "hey you, lose some weight!" and you barely even know who they are. In America, you might expect this name calling behavior from kids on the school play lot. But you would not expect it from a grown woman. Why is this?

Not Fat Fatty


Dear Not Fat Fatty,

First of all, Nuna would like to tell you something incredibly hurtful and offensive to you (and by calling myself Nuna, also give you honourary dangly bits):

YOU ARE FAT. FATTY MCFAT FAT. PHAAAAAAT. YO ASS IS SO HUGE IT HA' TWO POS'CODES, ONE FO' EACH CHEEK, AND YOUSE SEEN DA NILE RECENTLY OR SUMTHIN?

Nuna has obviously never seen you, met you in real life, and never knew of your kindheartedness, the fact that you graduated from an Ivy League university, or that your favourite pastime is volunteering at a local abandoned pet shelter.

So why does Nuna call you fat? It's because Nuna knows it rankles you. Heck, Nuna knows that if Nuna can't reach for any other insults, picking on the other person's appearance always does the trick. You're fat, your breath stinks, snaggletooth, monkey ears...Also, Nuna is going to tell you this: if you think insulting someone the first time you see them is something people left at the playground... pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Calling someone fat out of the blue is not just the work of Korean mothers. It is the work of all insecure individuals everywhere in the world.

When a person calls another person fat, what they are essentially doing is the human equivalent of beating their chests, ruffling their feathers, arching their back and hissing - showing animosity towards you to assert their rightful social rank of being higher than you, because they fell intimidated by you. In short, they're expecting you to act submissive, then run to the corner and cry. This is also why Korean mothers won't dare call a man they're fat - they're afraid of being pwned.

Which comes to the other point: why do they feel intimidated by a bit of meat on the bones and uh, not the impending asphyxiation of the world due to halitosis?

It's because Korean women, even this current generation, grew up in a country where photos are stuck on CVs, men won't get into the same elevator as a purportedly overweight woman, and clothing and shoe sizes are very restrictive. Nuna could never buy a bra in Korea because all the C cups were maternity bras. Being "fat" is simply unacceptable: to start off with, you would literally be unable to buy clothes that even looked mildly attractive. Most clothing lines only carry 1 "plus size" product, and you either take it or leave it.

[The Korean's note: Below is a picture of a fat Korean woman. Read this post for some context.]


You know how Miss USA always says "world peace" when asked for their aspirations? Miss Koreas used to say "현모양처" -lit. "Wise Mother, Submissive Wife". It is jokingly said that every caring Korean Mother "fixes up" her daughter's face when she finishes junior high (national minimum mandatory level of education, though most finish at least senior high), and that even parents don't recognise a daughter's face if she forgets to "put it on" in the morning.

Heck, Nuna remembers, aaaages ago in Dong-A Ilbo, an opinion columnist who wrote about the "obesity epidemic" that was hitting women (back in 1995, no less!) and recounted his story of a girl he thought was pleasantly chubby, but the deluded wench kept on stuffing her face thinking he'd love her no matter what her weight, and then pleaded with him to take her back saying she'd lose all her weight. His final words on the subject? That he felt that he was scammed, and although he felt sympathetic to the woman, there was no way he was going to forgive her if it happened again. Nuna wishes that particular asswipe fell victim to a Nigerian scam later on, just so he knows what being scammed feels like, the mysogynist smear of smegma he is.

For Korean women, their entire person is judged on how much they like bending over backwards and paddled in the bare ass by The Man. It's all about what kind of husband you get, what kind of men you will attract, what will men think of you.

And here you are, Ms Fatty McFat Fat, boldly barging in with her natural Rubenesque Fertility Goddess figure and no makeup to be seen, demanding that everyone view her as a Person (or possibly Womyn) to be judged on her political views (in a country where wives are often browbeaten - brow optional - to vote the same guy the husband votes), education level and socio-economic status (i.e. being able to buy all that USDA prime and drink all that milk to get those mighty C cups).

How DARE you spit in their faces and tell them all they have looked up to and worked for in their lives is a LIE?

Nuna notes that in our mothers' times, girls used to fight by grabbing on to each other's hair and pulling their scalp as hard as they could. The first person to cry, of course, loses, and other girls used to keep bobbing down to check which girl's face teared up first. Think of it as that: You cry, you lose. Your choice is either to sit there and get your hair pulled out more till you cry, or you pull THEIR hair so hard they cry first.

So! Nuna would like to impart on those of us larger than life women (Nuna herself is an intimidating 172cm and 70kgs) that the best way is to insult them back: Nuna's favourite is *fake looud sneeze* "Oh I'm sorry, I'm allergic to cheap makeup brands." or "Yeah, I know I'm fat, and earn twice as much as your kids ever will 'cos they're crap at school" to perfect strangers, and to the people you're sure to meet again? "Oh Aunty, you're soooooo oooooooold with your quaint, ooooooold views. Who needs a man except to open jars and take out the garbage in this day and age?"

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.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, April 21, 2010

Who Are These People in Orange T-Shirts in the Streets of New York?

Dear Korean,

I was practicing violin today, minding my own business, when this strange Asian college kid flung open the door to my practice room and asked if I wanted to volunteer for the Bible Crusade. Apparently this Korean pastor travels around the world holding these sermon sessions, and recruit local musicians wherever they go. I refused because I was busy next week and the week after, but the kid was persistent. I finally managed to shoo him away.

In fact, I saw this Bible Crusade thing before. They are everywhere in New York somehow, wearing orange shirts, handing out flyers and talking about pastor Park Ock Soo. What the hell is this stuff?

And also, can you pick up some tofu on the way home? We (which means you) are making김치찌개 tonight. I love you!

The Korean Fiancée

The Korean loves you too honey. That’s why your question jumps ahead of people who had been waiting for more than a year. (This question is not made up, by the way. The Korean Fiancée actually called and demanded that the Korean answer this question right away.)

First, a full disclosure: The Korean is a Presbyterian, but he did not really attend any church in Korea. He only started attending church in the U.S.

At any rate, the Korean himself got curious as well. He is sure that other New York-based readers have seen this stuff as well. Mostly Asian (almost certainly Korean, based on their looks) flyer-givers in orange shirt, taking over corners and muttering something about “Bible Crusade” and pastor Ock-Soo Park. In fact, the Korean sees these guys about once in two weeks or so on the way to work. So what the hell is this?

 These are the kind of guys that the Korean is talking about. 
(Image was edited to protect privacy, although it was available via Google.) 
(Source withheld for obvious reasons.)

The simple answer is – these guys belong to an offshoot of Christianity that probably deserves the term “cult”. They are generally referred to in Korea as “Saviorists” (구원파), although their precise name is Association of Korean Christian Baptists (대한예수교침례회). In contrast, the name of the official Baptist organization is The Korea Baptist Convention. (기독교 한국 침례회) Christian Heresy Counseling Center, run by the Christian Council of Korea (which encompasses most Protestant faiths such as Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.,) has decreed that Saviorists are heretics. (The website of the Heresy Counsel Center also has a fascinating list and articles about those Christian sects that it considers heretics.)

Apparently, Saviorist movement started in the 1960s, when an American missionary named Dick York made Mr. Park a pastor through an informal mission. Mr. Park did not attend any established seminary. According to Mr. Park, Mr. York was a part of Shield of Faith Mission International. (Mr. York’s homepage is here.) The distinctive point in the Saviorist creed is that once you are saved by Christ, you no longer need to repent for your sins – because you are saved already. And the flip side of that logic is that if you continue admitting that you are a sinner (something that most Christians do every Sunday) you make yourself a sinner.

But the Korean does not really care about the finer points of theology. (Actually he does, but this post is not about that.) The term “cult” is deserved based not on faith, but on actions. So what about Saviorists that makes the Korean comfortable to call them a cult? Certainly, hitting up practice rooms around New York to recruit “volunteer” musicians sounds like a cult. (The Korean Fiancée spoke with her musician friends, and apparently these people went as far out as SUNY Stony Brook to recruit musicians.) The aggressive flyering (not just in Korea, but in New York!) feels like a cult.

Also, searching on Naver (Korea’s equivalent to Yahoo!) about Park Ock-Soo results in accusations of being cult plastered with harsh rebuke against such accusation and creepy adulations for Park. Park also sued a pastor who criticized him as a heretic which lasted four years, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Korea (where Park lost.) Death threats against a person who quit the church probably count towards being a cult as well. (The person later wrote a book titled: “Why Are Park Ock-Soo, Lee Yo-Han and Yoo Byeong-Eon Heretics?”)

But most intriguingly, they are implicated in the most classic cult behavior – mass suicide.

How are the people in orange connected to one of the most sensational news stories in Korea of the late 1980s? More after the jump.

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

Friday, March 21, 2014

SXSW: Notes from Jambinai, Crying Nut, Big Phony Showcases

[Note:  The Korean is aware that SXSW is over. He hopes to punch out everything SXSW-related by this weekend. Thanks for waiting and reading.]

With another successful Seoulsonic showcase, the Korean is more excited than ever to see how Korean acts will do at offsite venues. His day began with Jambinai's daytime show, a highly anticipated event given the numerous positive coverage that Jambinai has received in the last few days.

Jambinai's venue was offsite. It was on the northern end of University of Texas, several miles away from the downtown Austin where SXSW official events were taking place. The venue itself was pretty neat. It had an outdoor patio set up as a pleasant garden decorated with vintage signs and paraphernalia. The beer was dirt cheap. Given the location and timing, however, I temper my expectation as to the size of the audience. The crowd did eventually build up to over 40 people--not a bad turnout for a daytime, offsite show.

Jambinai came on, and as they usually do, mesmerized the crowd.


With the vintage background, geomun'go-ist Shim Eun-yong gave me one of my favorite pictures from Austin.


(It's hard to see in the picture, but Shim's geomun'go case has a small embroidered Korean flag on top, and stickers that say: "FUCK THE SYSTEM". Bad ass.)

The crowd was absolutely amazed. Some of them seemed to have heard of Jambinai, as they listened to the band with knowing smile. Others were regular university types who were there to hang out, and were blown away by what they were hearing. Once Jambinai began playing, the crowd grew very quickly as more people streamed in from outside. By the end of their set, there was an excited buzz among the listeners. Several people asked me about the band and the instruments they were playing.

As I was leaving the venue, the bouncer at the entrance (who could not see the band from where he was standing) chatted me up:

"How many people are in that band?"
"Three."
"Really? It sounded like there were about ten of them!"

The bouncer wasn't wrong, actually. Lee Il-woo plays three instruments at the same time and the other two members play two instruments at the same time. Speaks volumes about Jambinai's complexity and versatility.

(More after the jump.)

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